Re: “Britain Will Cut Aid to 'Anti-gay' Ghana” [Ghanaweb General News of Tuesday, 11 October 2011; Source: Time]

By Otchere Darko

[*Readers who are not sure about this writer and get confused about his name and identity may please read the information placed at the bottom of this article.]

My anger against Britain high-rocketed when I read the Ghanaweb news report headed “Britain Will Cut Aid to 'Anti-gay' Ghana”. My anger was not because, I was anti-gay . It was because Britain still thinks that Ghana is a British colony; and that it can be treated like a “slave” that must obey his master, judging by the bit in quote below.......

‘David Cameron will tell African leaders they will receive funding "fines" if persecution of gays continues, the Daily Mail reports. The UK government has already taken steps against Malawi, cutting aid by $30 million after two homosexuals who held an engagement ceremony were sentenced to 14 months hard labor. And payments could be cut further to the southern African nation, which has received $312 since 2008, if it proceeds with plans to bring in tough anti-lesbian laws.’

The issue of homosexuality is not about “human rights” only. It is also about communities’ beliefs and their cultures. While many people in Western countries may believe that people are born homosexual, many people in Ghana and other countries believe that homosexuality is an acquired behaviour. The basis and the authenticity of the Western view that people are born as homosexuals can never be scientifically proven, since the so-called specialist opinions and analyses on the concept and its practice fall outside the realm of physical science that can be proved in a laboratory. Neither can the basis and the authenticity be proved as a reflection of the general pattern of human behaviour, as other behavioural patterns in social sciences like Economics are backed by dominant human behaviour, rather than by the exceptions. Homosexuality being a matter that hinges on people’s beliefs and cultural practices, it is important that acceptability or non-acceptability of the concept is allowed to be based on the generality of community views, rather than on what has become known as “Western views”. It is inappropriate for a minority community view to be upheld against a majority community view of a people in any geographical area. When will Britain and other Western countries learn to respect the majority community views of the people of other nations?

In my opinion, African countries, and for that matter Ghana, should not allow Britain and other Western nations to impose on us controversial views that have no scientific basis. Democracy, as defined by Western nations and accepted principally by majority of the countries of the world, is based on majority views measured by majority decisions. It does not need a referendum to be held in Ghana to prove that majority of Ghanaians see homosexuality as self-acquired sexual behaviour, and not behaviour which one is born with. If there were a referendum on the issue, I dare vouch that more than seventy-five percent of Ghanaians would not want homosexuality to be legalised in Ghana. So, why should Ghanaians be intimidated by Britain and other Western nations for campaigning against open gay relationships in Ghana? The idea of clustering Western views generally under the term of “civilised views” is not only insulting to cultures within which some of those views are diametrically opposite to general views held in those cultures, it is also contrary to the principles of democracy, since “Westerners” do not form the majority of the world population.

Just as Caius Cassius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar argued that Caesar would not bestride Rome like Colossus, if Romans had not made themselves underlings; so also can it be argued that Western leaders could not sit on African leaders and dictate to them, if our leaders would not go to them to beg for loans and developmental aid. Can Britain and other Western nations dictate to China or India or Brazil of today’s world? No, they dare not do that to these new “economic giants”.

Let Ghana seek economic independence now. Let our political leaders “think”. Let them stop making Ghanaians “underlings”. Let them halt their humiliating habit of going round the world and soliciting for loans and developmental aid from rich countries, who then use their economic power, as an “instrument of control”, to dictate to, and bully us. We cannot continue to live in “political slavery”, after 54 years of independence.

Source: Otchere Darko; [Personal Political Views].

*About the Author:

[This appendage is for the information of only readers who get confused about this particular writer because of the name he uses, and who therefore need to know more about him or about the name he uses. Ignore this appendage, if you are not one of such readers. *This writer is just one of hundreds, and possibly thousands of Ghanaians who use the name “Otchere Darko”, either on its own, or in combination with other names. Some users spell this same name as “Okyere Darko”, while other users conjoin it with the help of a hyphen to become one single compound name, “Otchere-Darko” or “Okyere-Darko”, depending on which spelling-mode they choose. This writer, who has officially used this ‘simple name’ from his school days in the sixties into the seventies and continues to use it officially to this very day, attended the School of Administration of University of Ghana where he finally left in September 1977, the year that students embarked on the “UNIGOV” demonstration. He has never before, or after September 1977 been a student of the Ghana Law School. Up to the end of 1981, he worked as a senior public servant in, and for one of the mainstream Ministries in Ghana. He is not working for, and has never worked at the Danquah Institute. He is currently also not a member of NPP, or of any other party in Ghana. He is not related to any practising Ghanaian politician who uses this same or other name. *May readers concerned, please, take note of this exhaustive clarification and stop drawing wrong conclusions that sometimes lead them to attack a wrong person. Thank you for taking note.]