The moral police dilemma: No easy answers for social challenges we face

Our population in Kenya is so young that many may not remember that about 20 years ago it was impossible to put on plays like Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar or Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People because a censorship board had deemed that the one could have suggested the assassination of the president and the other’s title could have been perceived as a description of him. Both were treasonable attitudes to harbour, at the time.

Owing to a court action in 1997, certain prohibitive clauses of the Film and Stage Plays Act were repealed, with the declaration that such limitations were illegal. We Kenyans went on to enjoy a welcome expansion of creative licence.

However, recently, there have been renewed efforts to reinvigorate the powers of the State as a watchdog of mass morality, through direct legislation to prohibit artistic products that, to quote: “are not reflective of the national values and aspirations of the people of Kenya.”

With specific regard to the very young, a set of laws would be put in place, again to quote:  “to protect children from exposure to disturbing and harmful materials and from premature exposure to adult experiences.” 

Driving this quest for social purity are certain underlying assumptions.

For one, that Kenya is a nation of African (read ‘black’) people, and there are things that Africans, ipso facto, do not do.

If, indeed, they have come to do them, it is only through terrible external influences, mostly owed to the ‘White Man.’ Not to forget that Kenya is fundamentally a Christian nation, guided by Christian values.

DEMOCRATIC IDEAL

Now, rather than declare myself to be either in favour of or against this project of social cleansing, thereby to invite instant responses of the we-can-see-where-you-are-going-with-that variety, I do think that the national debate would be served by a bit of honest soul searching.

As a person of my salt-eating years, I do recall a time of strongly held convictions about uniquely African characteristics.

For example, all Africans, everywhere, did not die of diseases like cancer or diabetes because of their healthy eating habits.

Africans did not take advantage of one another to enrich themselves and, therefore, there was no such thing as corruption.

The African way of life was naturally geared towards community. One could walk cheerfully from village to village without fear of assault.

Africans were, indeed, rather scantily dressed in those days but they soon learned to cover themselves up in true (Christian) modesty.

Africans did not give public displays of affection. Africans only indulged in sexuality with procreation as the goal and hence only involving unions between men and women.

Africans were intrinsically peaceful and knew nothing of violence of the sort we experienced in early 2008, after contentious elections, which traumatised and scarred those who survived it, young and old alike, for ever, without anyone being eventually held responsible.

Africans were content to be ruled by a Big Chief who had many cows and thus many wives and whose natural authority, conveyed through illustrious lineage, was never to be questioned or challenged.

To those who feel a great attachment to this idyllic past and who yearn for its revival and sustenance in the present moment, there is a great appeal in the notion that a few, enlightened leaders can and should define what all of us, in our millions, should be exposed to, in order to make us morally upright citizens.

However, at this point, the democratic ideal, to which we have declared ourselves to be equally attached and which presupposes that adult individuals should be involved in the process of making decisions which impinge upon their lives, must be abandoned.

When this Big-Brother-Is Watching-You scenario, famously evoked by the English author George Orwell in his apocalyptic novel 1984, is imposed upon the masses, certain easy targets emerge.

For example, who is that so-called activist who organises demonstrations which shame our parliamentarians? He or she must be silenced, immediately.

What is that advertising commercial in which a boy and a girl engage in a lingering kiss?  It must be either be edited or taken off the air. And what of this so-called LBGT community?

JUDGING THE JUDGES

For one thing, what do those letters stand for? Well, L is for lesbians, that is ‘women who prefer women’ in matters of sexuality. B for bisexuals, who like to have it ‘both ways.’  G for gays who prefer ‘man to man’ relationships. And T for transgender folk, who wish to ‘switch from one sex to another.’

Surely, no Africans, by the blood running through their veins, would contemplate any of these behaviours which are, in themselves, abominations unto their Lord?

That is unless they have been confused by the White Man. If that is the case, then with a little bit of deft legislation, it can be ensured that our people, and especially our children, are not exposed to any of these evil ways, be it on our TV screens, on our radios, through what they see and read in books and on social media.

And if there are offenders who choose to persist in their sinful behaviour, then they deserve dissuasive measures like public floggings, incarceration or even extermination.

So, this is where the individual soul searching comes in: this might well be the way to go but do you, dear reader, believe that statutory regulation of social conduct can succeed, in the long term? Can it make for the greatest happiness of the greatest number or merely assuage the zealous few?

Are we entitled to show animosity toward rather than respect for what is going on behind our neighbour’s closed doors?

And then, of course, there is the important matter of accountability. Who will judge the judges? Are they themselves beyond reproach? What gives them the right to tell you what do and to punish you for not doing it?

The dispensations which we shall adopt in response to these questions will go a long way in defining the country in which, for good or ill, we shall live.