Member of Parliament of Ningo Prampram constituency, constituency, and lead sponsor of the anti-LGBTQ bill, Samuel Nartey George, has accused the detractors of the anti-LGBTQ bill of maliciously twisting portions of the bill to diabolize its intent.
He indicated that the latest narrative of the critics of the bill concerns Clauses 10 and 11 of the bill which dealt with the propagation, advocacy, and support for the prohibited acts under the bill. He detailed that the critics of the bill alleged that these clauses were reintroducing the Criminal Libel Law which will impede the media from having editorials regarding the subject of the LGBTQ.
“So we decided to say that for the avoidance of doubt, we will put it inside the bill that this [Clauses 10 and 11] is subject to the 1992 Constitution. Because the sponsors of the bill, we respect the Chapter 12 rights that the media has, the freedom of expression. But the media is also guided by ethics…so that’s why you [the media] will not advocate for something that is a criminal offense”.
Hon. Samuel Nartey George
Hon. Samuel George also disclosed that the anti-LGBTQ bill has four categories of offense. He stated that the first category criminalizes the acts of homosexuality and trans-genderism and all other activities under the LGBTQ umbrella.
He detailed that the second category of offense targets persons who advocate acts of LGBTQ and the third and fourth categories of offense criminalize the funding of LGBTQ and unlawfully carrying out extra-judicial treatment respectively.
Senior Program Officer of Human Rights and Social Inclusion at the Center for Democratic Development (CDD) and a critic of the anti-LGBTQ bill, Mr. Michael Augustus Akagbor, indicated that he was unsurprised by the passage of the bill.
Mr. Michael Akagbor specified that the Human Rights Coalition never attempted to promote or fund the acts of homosexuality in its advocacy for human rights. He detailed that the Coalition maintains that the rights of individuals are the cornerstone of democracy. He further described the passage of the anti-LGBTQ bill as unfortunate.
Dr. Amanda Odoi, a human rights researcher, clarified that the act of advocacy is informed by research and data and not opinionated as the sponsors of the anti-LGBTQ bill described it to be. She indicated that the bill would propagate a culture of monitoring and hostility.
“By walking about, I do not claim to be a queer person; if you don’t catch me in an act you will never know. This has implications for people’s livelihoods…now we are saying that academic institutions must oust all students who are perceived or found to be queer. You are denying them access to education”.
Dr. Amanda Odoi
She further detailed that the bill implies that patient-doctor confidentiality will be disregarded as medical practitioners are forced, under the bill, to report patients who are queer. She emphasized that people who feel targeted by the bill may leave the country which may result in the loss of human resources.
Sexuality And Public Safety
However, Hon. Samuel Nartey George argued that the 1992 Constitution does not grant rights based on sexual preferences. He emphasized that the rights of Ghanaians are defined in the 1992 Constitution. These rights, the Member of Parliament indicated, are premised on the fact that they are not injurious to public safety, public health, and public morality.
Moreover, the Member of Parliament accused the proponents of the pro-LGBTQ agenda of reading the Constitution in bits and pieces and purposefully omitting certain provisions of the Constitution. “Because if you read the 1992 Constitution that you say gives you rights or the people you advocate for rights, did you read the Constitution to realize that rights can be curtailed on the basis of public morality?” he quizzed.
Consequently, the Member of Parliament indicated that some activists are misinforming the public based on their impression of the bill to foster the pro-LGBTQ agenda. He stated that the arguments made by Dr. Amanda Odoi based on human rights are unfounded.
“Why? When you are going to apply for a job, does anybody ask you who you sleep with in your bedroom? Am I the one asking LGBTQ practitioners to describe themselves by their sexuality? What happens in the confines of your bedroom remains the business of you and your partner. Nobody’s coming into your bedroom to find out what’s going on but when you decide to define yourself by what is supposed to be your private sexual preference, then it becomes a matter of public policy and public policy will apply to it”.
Hon. Samuel Nartey George
Hon. Samuel Nartey George further stated that he and the other sponsors of the bill are concerned about the sanctity of the Ghanaian child. He emphasized that countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia have similar laws that are respected by all foreigners in the country regardless of their ideals and beliefs.
He disclosed that 27 out of 50 states in the United States passed legislation that banned in one form or the other the practice of LGBTQ to protect children from the adverse impacts of the act.
He emphasized that the Center for Disease Control in the United States report shows that a homosexual person is 400 times more likely to abuse substances than a heterosexual person which constitutes a health crisis, and a homosexual person is also 400 times more suicidal than a heterosexual person.
The Member of Parliament concluded that the anti-LGBTQ bill is for the betterment of Ghanaians and does not aim to marginalize any group of people.
Conclusively, while the debate on whether the anti-LGBTQ bill serves to protect Ghanaians or marginalize a group of people, the bill still awaits the approval of the President to pass it into law.
READ ALSO: Teachers’ Alliance Demands A Say In Presidential Manifestoes
