Every people has a culture that it does not want to see it being eroded. That is the situation of the Batswana people, they want to preserve their norms and values. That is, the way it has always been done (prescription).On the same note, the Batswana derive their laws from their customs.
So, even if people of same-sex orientation argue that their human rights are being suppressed by criminalising homosexuality, in reality, a balance has to be struck. By this, one means that the rights of the majority override that of the minority taking into cognisance the concept of customs which could be affected negatively by homosexuality. Of course, culture is not static but dynamic, but because of the concept of prescription (, things have always been done this way). And so any change emanating from any source would or could erode or taint the Batswana culture or norms and values.
Further, this minority people who are homosexuality is importing that culture or law of homosexuality from the west. While on one hand, the west is pushing Africa to adopt the concept of homosexuality, it has criminalised polygamy which is practiced by a people of Africa. One who engages in polygamy in the west can be charged with a crime of bigamy(marrying another while still married to another).
That is why many African states abhor homosexuality. More so canon law has effect, that is because Botswana pursues the Christian religion which is against a marriage union of same-sex people, homosexuality can therefore not be accepted in Africa. It is a bitter pill for those who are into homosexuality in Africa. But the norms and values of any people must be cherished. The west derives its laws from their customs, so is a people in Africa. lt would be unconscionable for Africans to accept a concept which will erode their culture. So, the court must overturn the controversial ruling in dispute.
Post published in: Featured