Criticism of movies is not homophobic reactions

Sheila Munyiva and Samantha Mugatsia, who played the leading roles in ‘Rafiki’

Justice Wilfrida Okwany of the High Court was unpersuaded. In fact, she considered it rather vexatious and an insult to the intelligence of Kenyans, for the Kenya Film and Classification Board (KFCB) to ban screening and distribution of the film ‘Rafiki’, on the flimsy grounds of its homosexual theme and apparent intent to promote lesbianism in Kenya.

“I am not convinced that Kenya is such a weak society whose moral foundation will be shaken by simply watching a film depicting gay themes,” the Judge reasoned in her ruling. She proceeded to strongly defend the production of the movie, arguing that, “One of the reasons for artistic creativity is to stir society’s conscience even on very vexing topics such as homosexuality.” But, the clincher was her argument that no one was going to be forced to watch the movie anyway. Thus, the judge found the ban superfluous. She lifted it, albeit for only a one-week window.

According to reports and reviews, Rafiki is a love story of two teenage girls who develop a romance, but whose amorousness is deemed unacceptable by both their families and communities. The producer, Wanuri Kahiu, concedes that the film does have several scenes of kissing and intimacy between the two girls. She however argues it is a mere reflection of the Kenyan society and the film is simply meant to stir an honest conversation. Several human rights groups came to Wanuri’s defence when KFCB banned the movie and likewise joined her in celebration when the ban was lifted. Article 19, for example, had termed the ban a violation of the freedom of expression and readily celebrated its lifting.

Justice Okwany’s ruling however raises two fundamental questions for us as a society. The first is whether societal values are or should be subordinate to individual rights. The second is whether censorship standards apply only to situations in which members of the public are likely to be “forced” to watch a classified film. The answers to these two questions have significant import on the very essence of film classification – a duty legally conferred upon KFCB.

On the first question, the origins and history of film classification clearly shows that the underlying principle was to preserve societal values. Back in 1930 when the Hays Code was introduced, it was to give producers specific guidelines on what they could and could not show on film. Geoffrey Shurlock, a film producer and censor, declared in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, “The code is a moral document.”

He further expounded, “It enumerates certain rules which must be followed to ensure that moral values shall not become confused where antisocial or criminal conduct is essential to the telling of the story.” Later, as the code got challenged by various ones, the US Supreme Court in 1972 ruled in Miller v. California that “the Supreme Court defines obscenity as based in part on community standards.” It follows therefore that, if societal values and standards are removed, film classification has no legs to stand on.

On the second question, the argument of the learned Judge seems rather strange. The reason certain drugs are banned or controlled is not because members of the public would be forced to use or abuse them, but rather because their free availability would expose ordinary innocent individuals to their dangerous effects. Likewise, the reason good TV and internet providers have parental controls is not because the children would be forced to watch dangerous material, but rather to accord parents film classification rights within the family. In the same manner, the government, as the parent of parents, has the legal and moral responsibility to ensure that its citizens are not unduly exposed to material that go against or might erode prevailing and accepted national values.

It is a known fact that the practice of homosexuality remains un-Kenyan, and indeed un-African. That is why, in spite of international pressure, President Uhuru Kenyatta has consistently stated that gay rights are “a non-issue” to the people of Kenya. In South Africa, the country’s film appeals tribunal recently banned Inxeba (The Wound), a gay themed film, arguing that its gay sex scenes were of no “artistic value” and could “increase tensions in society.”

Such statements must not be dismissed as mere homophobic reactions. They stem from strong societal values and beliefs – which may change with time – but are for now held very dear by the majority. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should therefore be happy to do their thing in private without consistently rubbing it on the nose of others.

- The writer is the Presiding Bishop of Christ is the Answer Ministries. [email protected]