Unnatural offences, unnatural thinking!

Well, the Post editor saga on alleged indecent photography and publishing such thereof, took me on a journey into the past and in so doing, today's laws of Zambia, in particular the Penal Code. I here cite a few sections!

1. Sentence of death. Section 25. (1) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he shall be hanged by the neck until he is dead.

2. Defamation of President. Section 69. Any person who, with intent to bring the President into hatred, ridicule or contempt, publishes any defamatory or insulting matter, whether by writing, print, word of mouth or in any other manner, is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years.
(No. 6 of 1965)

3. Unnatural offences. Section 155. Any person who (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature; is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years. (As amended by No. 26 of 1933)

4. Indecent practices between males. Section 158. Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
(As amended by No. 26 of 1933).

5. Obscene matters or things. Section 177. (1) Any person who - (a) makes, produces or has in his possession any one or more obscene writings, drawings, prints, paintings, printed matter, pictures, posters, emblems, photographs, cinematograph films or any other object tending to corrupt morals; or (b) imports, conveys or exports, or causes to be imported conveyed or exported, any such matters or things, or in any manner whatsoever puts any of them in circulation; or (c) carries on or takes part in any business, whether public or private, concerned with any such matters or things, or deals in any such matters or things in any manner whatsoever, or distributes any of them, or exhibits any of them publicly, or makes a business of lending any of them; or (d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever with a view to assisting the circulation of, or traffic in, any such matters or things, that a person is engaged in any of the acts referred to in this section, or advertises or makes known how, or from whom, any such matters or things can be procured either directly or indirectly; or (e) publicly exhibits any indecent show or performance or any show or performance tending to corrupt morals; is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for five years or to a fine of not less than fifteen thousand penalty units nor more than seventy-five thousand penalty units.

Premised on the foregoing citations, surely what the Post editor is being charged with is just one of the many unnatural offences in our laws. It is for this fact that I find the noise being made a contradition of natural thinking. It is reflective of unnatural thinking. That is, it does not conform to the norm. It should be inarguable that these citations reflect a collective proclivity to unnatural thinking among a people.

The norm is that we are a very morally upright and christian people. This is the norm as I know it and as it has been proclaimed. And it is as it has always been reflected in our laws.

It is because of this norm that we still hang people by the neck until death, we criminalise blow jobs, and homosexuality (as in citation 1, 3 and 4). The president is like a god, chief or king, so we can not say anything very bad against him!

Surely if we so claim moral uprightness why are we now frenzied over the Post editor's circumstances? Offences in citation 3 and 4 are deemed offences against morality, whilst citation 5 (Obscene matters or things. Section 177) is deemed to corrupt morals. It is surely is inarguabe that the law being used against her is premised on an assumption of high morality, just as are laws against homosexuality or blow jobs!

If it is now being argued that the law in the Post editor's case is archaic or repressive, then can we also hear voices calling for the review of all other archaic laws.

Let us move away from these forms of unnatural thinking, and which border on hypocrisy. We need to call on the citizens to ensure that the Law Development Commission fulfils its mandate, which in part, is to remove archaic pieces of legislation from the statute book.

This backwater country which I call home never ceases to maze me! I hope tomorrow, the SDA reservations with teaching reproductive organs is not made into law. Or indeed the pictures in biology textbooks are not erased!