Why don’t you impose death sentences on corrupt public officials and leave LGBTQI+ alone (II)

I, for one, cannot comprehend how and why the ostensibly innocuous activities of LGBTQI+ could impact negatively on society more than the squeamishly cyclical corrupt practices of some criminally-minded politicians and other public servants.

Interestingly, countries like China, Indonesia, Thailand, Morocco, and Vietnam impose the death penalty on some acts of bribery and corruption that damage the national economy or finances.

More so, there are schools of thought that believe ‘capital punishment for corruption practices, money laundering and other kinds of economic crimes can serve as a deterrent to everyone and can have long-term benefits to a nation’.

My dear reader, even though corruption is a serious economic, social, political, and moral impediment to nation-building, our corrupt officials are bent on siphoning our scarce resources to the detriment of the poor and disadvantaged Ghanaians.

Considering the negative effects of bribery and corruption on society, the imposition of capital punishment on fantastically corrupt public officials is of heightened importance than the criminalization of LGBTQI+.

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana criminalizes the practice of homosexuality.

If that were to be the case, how can any elected politician or an erudite practitioner exert all his/her precious time and energy on yet another law over bread and butter-issues?

I cannot end my fury in condemnation over the way and manner the supposedly morally upright Ghanaians are gleefully condemning the practice of the so-called evil of our time-homosexuality.

Honestly, I could not believe my eyes when I read that Ghana’s anti-LGBTI bill, when passed, would not only target gay people, but the allies, journalists, media owners who act as the proponents, and more ridiculously, house owners for sheltering alleged homosexuals(see: Will Akufo-Addo government jail journalists over LGBT reportage?-ghanaweb.com, 30/08/2023).

In essence, the said bill, when passed, would not only criminalize the benign practices of LGBTI people, but the freedoms and rights of heterosexuals and other innocent people would be capriciously curtailed. How unfortunate?

Let us be honest, it is somewhat unconscionable to slap a ten-year jail sentence on a journalist or a human rights ideologue for defending the inalienable rights of homosexuals.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the right to freedom of opinion and expression is encapsulated in international law -Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

More significantly, the freedom of opinion and expression has been given meaning in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

Free speech is an inalienable right to seek, receive and convey information and ideas of all kinds, by any means which may be deemed appropriate.

In other words, the right to freedom of expression denotes ideas of all kinds, including those that may be deemed offensive.

That being said, freedom of opinion and expression may be subject to restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: restrict in the public interest on grounds of national security, to preserve public order, to protect public health, to maintain moral standards, to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or to meet the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society.

The fact that freedom of opinion and expression is not absolute and is subject to permitted abridgment does not mean that the right can be curtailed arbitrarily according to legislative, executive or judicial discretion.

In fact, this right, like others, may be restricted to protect and balance other rights and interests. However, it is the complexion and the degree of these restrictions that is often contended in extant human rights and security jurisprudence.

Suffice it to stress that the ways in which restrictions are to be determined and imposed and the criteria which apply to the formulation of permitted abridgement are crucial.

If freedom of opinion and expression is to be meaningful, it cannot however be subject to crude majoritarian dictates.

Apparently, what differentiates a human right from any other right is that a human right is available to and enforceable by a minority, however small and even against the wishes of a majority.

If freedom of opinion and expression was to become subject to ordinary legislature, executive or judicial control, it would be no different from any other statutory right which the authorities are free to confer and withdraw at their pleasure.

Thus, the restriction of freedom of opinion and expression becomes a crucial and delicate question. For any restrictions cannot be based on ideological perceptions of legislature, executive or judicial, but must be predicated on objectively founded and comprehended criteria.

The fact remains that over the years we have been living with gays and lesbians in our communities. So whether we like it or not, gays and lesbians will continue to practice in secrecy until thy kingdom come.

If indeed the act of homosexuality is the greatest sin against God and mankind, they will account to their creator themselves one day, but not you and me.

We should, therefore, not lose sight of the fact that we are all descendants of Biblical Adam, and therefore each and everyone has his/her shortcomings.

In all this, what appears much more bizarre is the renowned lawyers who are hiding behind moral and religious invocations and consistently condemning the actions of the men and women who have volitionally chosen to go contrary to the conventional way of making love.

I must confess that I used to appall homosexuality so much until I completed my Masters in International Human Rights Law Programme.

Even though I dislike the act, I believe that homosexuals have their inalienable human rights and can therefore decide their sexual preference without any external interference.

And, to those who think that homosexuality is a sin against God, hasn’t it written: thou shall not judge?

And to those law luminaries who have been protesting vehemently against the act of homosexuality: aren’t human rights universal, interdependent, indivisible and interrelated?

Being a human rights lawyer means challenging discrimination and defending the inalienable rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens and denizens regardless.

This means defending, protecting, and promoting those rights and freedoms irrespective of their race, religion, tribe, gender, or sexual preference, and no matter where in the world they may be under threat.

In other words, a human rights lawyer is supposed to investigate, evaluate, and defend people in cases involving discrimination, torture, and abuse amongst others.

I hereby submit that since Ghana’s Constitution already frowns on the praxes of ‘gayism and lesbianism’, our elected Members of Parliament must rather think outside the box and help solve the pressing issues that affect the lives of the ordinary Ghanaian.