Policy thinktank IMANI Africa has broken its long silence on the trending subject of Lesbians Gays Bisexual Transgender Queer etc, LGBTQ stating that it has no comprehensive data on the subject matter to speak on it.
The thinktank said it was not silent about the subject of LGBTQ but rather the issue is “emotional” and lacks comprehensive data.
According to IMANI, the lack of data on LGBTQ in Ghana denies “an organisation like IMANI the ammunition we would bring to a fight like Agyapa or provide us with the depth of insight that one can rely upon to make the wide-ranging policy contributions that IMANI is noted for.” Franklin Cudjoe of IMANI wrote.
“Given the paucity of data, especially official data, about the LGBT situation in Ghana, especially touching on areas such as health, education, employment and human security, the airwaves have become filled with emotional dross about the subject” he added.
IMANI was prompted to respond to the issue after one Agoogi Kesse made a post alleging that their silence has been bought by funding from LGBTQ groups.
IMANI claimed the said Agoogi Kesse is employed by a group that supports and promotes LGBTQ but is turning around to point fingers at them.
Part of the article is fully published by inghananews.com below:
The ridiculous argument that “IMANI is not talking” because it has somehow sold its conscience for money is not only ridiculous and plain stupid for being incoherent (no one pays an advocacy organisation to be “quiet”) but particularly vile and evil, because it is almost impossible to prove that one hasn’t taken money to go against one’s conscience when the people pushing the propaganda don’t have to proffer any evidence at all.
What is even crazier is that in working for the renowned Broadreach, George Kesse/Kwame Agoogi has been able to suppress his so-called Christian animosity for LGBT people by embracing an organisation that in the past 20 years has made tens of millions of dollars in income in the HIV/AIDS space, where provision for LGBT sensitivities and interventions are almost always a requirement for success in winning donor funds from the likes of USAID, PEPFAR etc.
In fact, Broadreach’s work in the HIV space in South Africa would have been much constrained of American and European funding had the organisation entertained the kind of anti-LGBT views that Mr. Kesse/Agoogi is busily pushing on social media today. So why is Kesse/Agoogi not embarrassed to be associated with Broadreach?
During the time George Kesse/Kwame Agoogi was going around touting his mPharma global credentials, was he aware that a big driver of mPharma’s astounding fundraising success was Chamath Palihapitiya, the billionaire Venture Capitalist who has become one of the most ardent pro-LGBT champions in Silicon Valley of late, most recently initiating a campaign with these words:
“We need a wake up call on Sand Hill Road. We need to recapture our potential and open the doors. Invite more people into the decision making: young people, Blacks, Latinos, females, LGBT and others who aren’t necessarily part of the obvious majority.”
Did Kesse/Agoogi disclose his views when mPharma was signing the various non-discrimination pledges and covenants one needs to commit to when raising the tens of millions of dollars it has raised from Western investors?
The problem here is that many of the few “serious” people who have decided to “weaponise” this whole LGBT debate into a means to silence people they don’t like for other reasons, usually motivated at the roots by silly, rabid, NPP-NDC partisan angst, is that most of them will not survive even the most basic scrutiny of their views in the places where they tend to seek legitimation or validation from.
Will someone like Kesse/Agoogi be able to look his Broadreach principals or former bosses at mPharma in the face and spew the tosh he has been regurgitating all over Facebook? No, because he wouldn’t have a career otherwise.
Which brings up the issue of “projection”. These people are projecting unto IMANI fears and anxieties in their own lives.
course, they cannot make the more rational claim that IMANI is paid by said groups to advocate LGBT goals in Ghana because IMANI has a long, published, record which will show that IMANI never discusses issues of sexuality, marriage, affection or social attitudes, simply because these have not been prominent fixtures in the “public policy tradition” in Ghana.
So, these mealy-mouthed haters go for the batshit-mad accusation of IMANI being “paid to shut up”. Of course, they don’t mention any specific organisations doing the paying, making it impossible to counter or fact-check.
IMANI of course observes the highest standards of advocacy, which means that no one can pay IMANI to shut up or speak up, and no one ever has, but in an environment where accusations need not be backed up, one can shout as much as one want that IMANI has never met an LGBT-advocacy organisation in its 17 years of operation much less taken money from an LGBT-lobby group. It won’t make a dent.
Any sensible or, indeed, “serious” person knows that no policy think tank in this country has been “active” in discussing LGBT matters simply because it has not been on the policy radar. Government of Ghana, the primary focus of policy think tanks and their work in this country, publishes no statistics or policy updates on the issue.
Almost all the hard data about LGBT matters in Ghana comes from overseas organisations. If one does the kind of high-octane policy advocacy IMANI does, one is heavily limited in doing any serious work on LGBT in Ghana in view of the data desert. Except if one is content in dealing in emotional dross.
In fact, before writing this piece, we had to access the Pew Research databases just to get high-level data. With this very broad-strokes information, we can say that Ghanaians, at least as at 7 years ago, are amongst the least supportive of LGBT behaviour in the whole world, but they are also among the most ardently opposed to gambling, abortion and premarital sex globally. What are we to make of that exactly?
We also learnt, through some deductive analysis, that you can more or less divide Ghanaian opinion and attitudes on the subject by looking at which Ghanaians have spent a significant time in Western Europe or the US studying or working and which Ghanaians have not. This of course underlies the contingency of some of the opinion-divides, but so what?
Then there is the issue of shifts in opinions about LGBT seeming to track per capita income growth etc. Again, what about that precisely?
In short, none of these kinds of surface deductions give an organisation like IMANI the ammunition we would bring to a fight like Agyapa or provide us with the depth of insight that one can rely upon to make the wide-ranging policy contributions that IMANI is noted for.
To be clear, in this matter of a pro-LGBT group having opened an office in Accra, what exactly are the public policy issues here? Government should increase budgetary allocation to the BNI/NIB to mount surveillance in people’s bedrooms? Landlords should scrutinise the conformity of renters with the prevailing attitudinal climate by means of a new moral-perception risk database?
Given the paucity of data, especially official data, about the LGBT situation in Ghana, especially touching on areas such as health, education, employment and human security, the airwaves have become filled with emotional dross about the subject.
In such circumstances, it is preposterous to ask serious policy think tanks to intervene and join the charade of pretence-debate, when all that is happening are shouting matches full of sound and fury and no light about anything really vital to national policymaking. Look around you, it is not just IMANI that is “quiet”. Every serious research-based organisation has stayed out because the subject matter does not lend itself too well to their/our instruments.
No, we at IMANI will not, at an institutional level, be tempted to join this emotional jamboree. We shall not be exploited to serve an emerging industry of Agoogism, the shameless projection of fake piety about non-issues to silence critics whose views about other more serious subjects one dislikes.
If our integrity is preposterously attacked by hypocrites like Kesse/Agoogi, however, we shall expose them for the intellectual and moral charlatans they are. For now, that should be enough.