referendum on homosexuality

By Poumbom Lamy (The Post, Buea)

February 10, 2006: Since 1972, the word "referendum" has excited and disturbed many Cameroonians. In this light, I’m thinking that since the rumours of wild homosexuality in high places in the country, which had been smouldering in the public and private media, have finally come to light, they call for a referendum.

The cons are winning alarmingly against the pros. Those against are solidly backed by the norms of African traditions and decency, by the penal code and many other unwritten laws of the land. Those for, exhibit the same porous defence based on the flight of capital through international sects, cults and lodges.

Now, let us table the referendum. But who will print the ballot papers? Remember in 1972, it was claimed that the referendum papers for unification (in the days of darkness in bilingualism) carried OUI and YES and not the regular YES or NO! So doing, that referendum was what could be termed mono-alternative, to borrow late Professor Tchuindjang Pouemi's phrase attached to the clumsy option embraced by African economies.

In short, in case of a referendum on homosexuality in Cameroon (jokes apart), who will be in charge of producing ballot papers; a homosexual or a non-homosexual? The fear is that if a minority forces a referendum on homosexuality, other minorities some day may find a way to request referendums in favour of incest, paedophilia, prostitution, sex slavery, rape and more.

By the way, why are the accused not defending themselves (court action, rejoinders and right of responseâ-oe) in as much as the accusing papers have not let out all the cats from all the bags? Are CRTV and Cameroon Tribune the twin lips of political and administrative authorities even when their penalty area is penetrated so deeply?

Are the present sexually deviant prisoners in our jails there because they are powerless or on account of the existing laws? If those guilty of homosexuality care less about the effect of their deviant act, on their children or relatives, why should the nation be held hostage in exposing them?

Should a murderer or thief not be condemned publicly because the effect on his wife and children is more feared than his crime?