Who should teach sexuality to children?

What a week! From the Mavuno uproar to claims by a Nation reader that a scouts’ camp had degenerated into a fornication den, it was certainly a sex-charged week, if you add to the mix the furore caused by President Yoweri Museveni’s signing of a law banning homosexuality and lesbianism in Uganda.

What is interesting about Mr Museveni’s act is that he signed the law despite the threat by US President Barack Obama that doing so could “complicate” relations between the two countries.

Coming after the miserable failure of the “choices have consequences” threat to deter Kenyans from making their choice democratic in the last General Election, one would have expected Mr Obama not to subject himself to further humiliation by aligning himself with decisions perceived to be unpopular in given contexts.

America’s stance on matters sexual has been marked by its preaching to the rest of the world the norms of tolerance on the issue of sexual orientation even when its own citizenry is divided on the issue.

The Mavuno church furore was sparked by a sexually explicit advertisement, which the church’s Pastor Mureithi Wanjohi defended on grounds that the only way to reach the youth is to employ the images and language they use and understand. (READ: Mavuno Church defends ‘explicit’ poster)

In defending the ad, the pastor waded into the charged debate on sex education, which has long been hijacked from parents. And it all goes back to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, despite championing some lofty ideals on child rights also has clauses that undermine Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Article states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Bearing in mind that the family is the first school of human virtue, one would expect that until children become adults, they should be guided by their parents in matters of faith. Teenagers — whom the Mavuno ad targeted — are largely minors, notwithstanding the fact that Kenyan law recognises them as adults from age 18.

RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY

There is a problem with a legal regime that gives a section of the population blanket rights without accompanying responsibility.

Some 25 years ago when the Planned Parenthood movement lobbied the UN, influencing the children’s right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions without parental knowledge and consent, the parents lost it.

Children can be taught sex by anyone, including Mavuno, and if they are infected in the process, you are obliged to treat the sexually transmitted disease.

Although the human rights angle has dominated the gay debate, the untold truth is that homosexuality, in particular, carries grave health risks, and this is a medical fact that has nothing to do with the much flaunted homophobic argument against the practice.

Anal penetration causes tears, exacerbating the risk of infection with HIV.

Should a parent warn his or her child of this genuine risk, or should he or she shy away for fear of being labelled homophobic and interfering with the child’s right to sexual autonomy?

On the issue of pegging aid to acceptance of gays and lesbians, it seems that even the donors are failing their would-be grantees.

When the UK threatened to cut aid to countries “persecuting” gays and lesbians in November 2011, this writer received a statement from the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya:

It said that the imposition of donor sanctions may be one way of seeking to improve human rights in a country but does not result in the improved protection of the rights of gay and lesbian people.

The statement signed by Eric Gitau, as the general manager, further said that where heterosexual women are almost as vulnerable as gay people, singling out gay issues emphasises the idea that gay rights are special and more important than other rights.

The point is that the debates the US and other donors are engaging us in, and which largely revolve around sex, which traditional society discussed in the privacy of the bedroom, are diverting our attention from not just more pressing development issues, but are also exposing the people meant to be protected to potential hatred and marginalisation.