Nigeria's Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act
Yesterday on Diversity Matters our conversation aired with Akeem Bello, New Democrats’ candidate for Vice President of Nigeria on the Odidi-Bello campaign ticket. As I mentioned early in the show, as we prepared for our conversation with Akeem both Judy and I became painfully aware of how little we knew about the political scene in Nigeria. As part of our preparation, Mary Nations one of our producers shared some timely and troubling information about anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legislation that is about to be passed in Nigeria.
Last week, bloggers across the globe were following a developing story about Nigeria’s proposed "Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act", which would imprison anyone who speaks out or forms a group supporting lesbian and gay people's rights, and would silence virtually any public discussion or visibility around lesbian and gay lives in Nigeria. For more details see afrol news.
Briefly, the resolution which had been introduced originally in January 2006 was dormant for months as Nigerian politicians were focusing on the nationwide elections in April. Human rights and LGBT activists in Nigeria were deliberately keeping a low profile about the bill since they believed it would garner little attention by law makers caught up in the personal and political conflicts of this year’s elections. The plan was to allow the bill to die on the vine without being considered or passed by Nigerian lawmakers.
The strategy appeared to be working until the silence was broken by British activist Peter Tatchell and his group OutRage! Tatchel began an international appeal to human rights groups worldwide "to take urgent action to press the Nigerian government to uphold international human rights law and to drop this draconian legislation." The bill that was all but dead now resurfaced and according to afrol news, “African gay rights groups were furious.” Tatchell was urged by several prominent activists to stay out of African LGBTI issues. According to certain African activists, afrol news reports that Tatchell’s “neo-colonial” behavior disrupted a domestic political strategy for LGBTI activists that was working. According to a letter sent to Tatchell, "You have proven that you have no respect for conveying the truth with regards to Africa or consulting African LGBTI leaders before carrying out campaigns that have severe consequences in our countries. You have betrayed our trust over and over again."
Given all of this, Judy and I were in a quandary. Should we raise the issue with Bello? If so, how do we do it in a way that promotes positive change in Nigeria and doesn’t simply seem to be opportunistic journalism? While we were fairly certain that Bello’s personal views would support LGBTI inclusion, if he publicly “came out” on this issue now, would it compromise his ability to be elected and make a larger and more positive impact on the social and political scene in Nigeria?
On the one hand in the service of open dialogue and the desire to build shared understanding, we thought it was an important conversation that should not be censored. On the other hand, we knew that the larger goal of supporting a politician who has the potential to bring a unifying vision based on inclusion to a political environment which has been historically exclusive, sectarian and oppressive mattered more than addressing an issue that has already received a lot of attention in the press.
Also, as professionals in the field of diversity and inclusion, we know how important it is in building understanding and creating alliances to support a common vision, that individuals not assume they know what’s best for others. Using an oppression paradigm, this means the dominant group must recognize that given the “privilege” of certain types of power, assuming you know what’s best for the “other” often leads to unintended negative consequences – like those experienced by British activist Peter Tatchell.
So we decided to check in with our guests. Just before the interview, we asked Akeem about the situation and he said, “On this side of the Atlantic, there is nothing to be gained by having this discussion right now.” We decided to err in the direction of “less is more” and trust Akeem’s first hand understanding of the political scene in Nigeria – after all, that is his expertise, not ours.
To be honest, we continue to be ambivalent about our decision and wonder if there would have been a way to discuss the situation without compromising Akeem’s candidacy or “colonial-izing” the conversation. What do you think? Did we make the right choice? How might we have approached this differently? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Stay Tuned,
Richard Friend, Ph.D.
Co-Host
Last week, bloggers across the globe were following a developing story about Nigeria’s proposed "Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act", which would imprison anyone who speaks out or forms a group supporting lesbian and gay people's rights, and would silence virtually any public discussion or visibility around lesbian and gay lives in Nigeria. For more details see afrol news.
Briefly, the resolution which had been introduced originally in January 2006 was dormant for months as Nigerian politicians were focusing on the nationwide elections in April. Human rights and LGBT activists in Nigeria were deliberately keeping a low profile about the bill since they believed it would garner little attention by law makers caught up in the personal and political conflicts of this year’s elections. The plan was to allow the bill to die on the vine without being considered or passed by Nigerian lawmakers.
The strategy appeared to be working until the silence was broken by British activist Peter Tatchell and his group OutRage! Tatchel began an international appeal to human rights groups worldwide "to take urgent action to press the Nigerian government to uphold international human rights law and to drop this draconian legislation." The bill that was all but dead now resurfaced and according to afrol news, “African gay rights groups were furious.” Tatchell was urged by several prominent activists to stay out of African LGBTI issues. According to certain African activists, afrol news reports that Tatchell’s “neo-colonial” behavior disrupted a domestic political strategy for LGBTI activists that was working. According to a letter sent to Tatchell, "You have proven that you have no respect for conveying the truth with regards to Africa or consulting African LGBTI leaders before carrying out campaigns that have severe consequences in our countries. You have betrayed our trust over and over again."
Given all of this, Judy and I were in a quandary. Should we raise the issue with Bello? If so, how do we do it in a way that promotes positive change in Nigeria and doesn’t simply seem to be opportunistic journalism? While we were fairly certain that Bello’s personal views would support LGBTI inclusion, if he publicly “came out” on this issue now, would it compromise his ability to be elected and make a larger and more positive impact on the social and political scene in Nigeria?
On the one hand in the service of open dialogue and the desire to build shared understanding, we thought it was an important conversation that should not be censored. On the other hand, we knew that the larger goal of supporting a politician who has the potential to bring a unifying vision based on inclusion to a political environment which has been historically exclusive, sectarian and oppressive mattered more than addressing an issue that has already received a lot of attention in the press.
Also, as professionals in the field of diversity and inclusion, we know how important it is in building understanding and creating alliances to support a common vision, that individuals not assume they know what’s best for others. Using an oppression paradigm, this means the dominant group must recognize that given the “privilege” of certain types of power, assuming you know what’s best for the “other” often leads to unintended negative consequences – like those experienced by British activist Peter Tatchell.
So we decided to check in with our guests. Just before the interview, we asked Akeem about the situation and he said, “On this side of the Atlantic, there is nothing to be gained by having this discussion right now.” We decided to err in the direction of “less is more” and trust Akeem’s first hand understanding of the political scene in Nigeria – after all, that is his expertise, not ours.
To be honest, we continue to be ambivalent about our decision and wonder if there would have been a way to discuss the situation without compromising Akeem’s candidacy or “colonial-izing” the conversation. What do you think? Did we make the right choice? How might we have approached this differently? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Stay Tuned,
Richard Friend, Ph.D.
Co-Host
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home