Issues with Zimbabwe, Tauya Chinama
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean-born philosopher, Humanist, apatheist, academic researcher and educator. He is also into human rights struggles and active citizenship as the founding leader of a Social Democrats Association (SODA), a youth civic movement which lobbies and advocates for the inclusion and recognition of young people into decision-making processes and boards throughout the country anchored on Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions). He is also the acting president of Humanists Zimbabwe.
Tauya Chinama giving a legal interpretation on Section 42 of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act which imposes fines or imprisonment for offending religious groups, effectively functioning as a de facto blasphemy law. Chinama explains that while the law could be intended to prevent hate speech, it often favors the majority religion and can be misused. He emphasizes the need for humanists to be protected and provided platforms for expression. Chinama also advocates for UNESCO’s involvement in protecting active humanists. The conversation touches on the balance between religious freedom, hate speech, and preserving sacred sites.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, you’re calling from Zimbabwe. Now, something interesting: I was reading a report titled de facto blasphemy law. This section addresses Section 42 of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which states that ‘offending persons of a particular religion’ can result in a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.
This law primarily relates to individuals who identify with a particular religious ideology. It does not cover offences against non-religious individuals. Therefore, it operates as a de facto blasphemy law, even though it may not be formally labelled. It is codified in the same way that blasphemy laws exist in other legal systems.
You have some nuanced thoughts here, so I want to ensure I cover this properly. My first question is: Does this seem like a de facto blasphemy law to you?
Tauya Chinama: Thank you for asking. Sometimes, it depends on how the law is interpreted, but yes, it can be seen as a blasphemy law. However, it might also have been implemented to prevent hate speech. Unfortunately, this law tends to be enforced in favour of the majority religion — Christianity in Zimbabwe — while it allows for the offence of minority groups. For instance, during rituals such as casting out demons, Christian leaders sometimes offend traditionalists by calling their ancestors evil.
Unfortunately, minority groups often lack the legal knowledge to challenge this as hate speech in court. The law is like a double-edged sword — it can be used for good or harm. It’s like a knife; when in the hands of a skilled chef, it can create a meal, but when in the hands of someone with harmful intent, it can cause harm. So, the effectiveness of the law depends on who enforces and interprets it.
That’s my reflection on the section regarding a fine and up to one year of imprisonment. A one-year imprisonment or fine is not particularly severe. Suppose I compare it to what happened to Mubarak Bala in Nigeria, who was sentenced to 24 years for blasphemy. In that case, the punishment in Zimbabwe is lighter. If the same law had been applied in Nigeria, Mubarak Bala would have already been out, as he has been in prison for over five years.
In that sense, the lighter punishment in Zimbabwe is a positive step for humanists. We hope to see the law clarified and applied fairly by judges. If I state facts and can provide evidence, it should not be a crime, even if those facts offend someone. In court, I should be proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. There is room for that here, as the maximum penalty is only one year, and sentences could be reduced or even suspended. Sometimes, one year or fewer sentences are suspended, meaning the person can get a suspended sentence for good behaviour over the next five years.
Jacobsen: Now, could there be positive interpretations of this law? In Canada, for instance, there’s a whole legal framework for reducing or punishing hate speech and incitement to violence. So, the question becomes, how do you define hate speech? What are the definitional boundaries of incitement to violence? Do you see something similar happening here? It seems like a less refined approach because it seems newer, but could something similar be done here if we are being generous in our interpretation?
Chinama: Yes, it’s one of the reasons for trying to maintain peace. Religion is a powerful thing in people’s lives. Suppose you offend a particular section of religious people. In that case, they may feel justified in causing commotion or violence, believing they have an ideology to fight for. So, by preventing hate speech and offence to a religious group, you’re also preserving peace. However, there should always be platforms where people can express their views, as long as facts and evidence back them. There willn’t be any major problems in such cases.
Ultimately, it is up to the courts to decide whether what someone says constitutes hate speech or blasphemy. So, the outcome depends on the objectivity of those interpreting the law. We refer to the courts and the judiciary for that. Judges can do this, and the judicial system tends to be more humanistic than religious.
Although judges ceremoniously swear on the Bible, when it comes to laws related to witchcraft, for instance, you cannot accuse someone of being a witch and win the case in court because, legally, witchcraft does not exist. Though people in society may claim there are witches, legally speaking, there’s nothing to support that.
Jacobsen: Could there be a way for humanist groups to register with the central government of Zimbabwe under the category of religion and then gain protection under this law? Most of the time, humanists aren’t registered or are somehow categorized separately from any religious label. On a practical level, could humanist organizations register as religious organizations to gain the same protections traditional religious groups have?
Chinama: That’s the challenge — registering a humanist organization under the category of religion. It’s a bit difficult. Perhaps we need to change the terminology to “religious, cultural, and worldviews” so that humanism is recognized more as a cultural worldview than a religion.
Referring to humanism as a religion limits it. So maybe the law could refer to “people of a particular opinion.” When the law refers to people of a particular opinion, it could refer to humanists because we have our worldview. The good part about humanists is that we don’t usually complain about being attacked. We know that some people see us as devil worshippers, but we are not.”
And we understand why they call us that, too. We normally don’t complain, but we try to clarify. We try to explain ourselves. Yes, we need protection, but more than protection, we need platforms. Protection without platforms to explain ourselves is nothing.
We need platforms to explain ourselves, dispel hearsay, and dispel prejudices about humanism. Yes, protection is necessary.
Whenever I go to a media house, I ask how secure I am there. Because most of the time, if you offend people by stating facts, and they know where you are, you might encounter one or two fanatics who think they’re doing God’s work by killing you. They are mistaken and misguided but still convinced. People can commit extremely evil acts under the influence of their worldview, culture, opinions, or religion.
They can do terrible things without giving it a second thought. Though they may be arrested later, we would have lost a life by then. They could kill you. I remember the case of that Indian humanist who was attacked on stage — Salman Rushdie, if I’m not mistaken.
It could happen, especially when addressing a public gathering. It’s only sometimes in a secure studio where you have protection. Sometimes, you’re engaging with a large audience, and you can’t control the emotions of everyone present. Someone could throw a stone or, worse, stab you. So besides protection, we also need platforms.
For example, Salman Rushdie had a platform, but he also needed protection. Protection and platforms go hand in hand for us humanists. Recently, I’ve seen that Humanists International has been fundraising to protect an Indian humanist, Narendra Nayak.
Yes, he’s been under government protection. Still, protection is being withdrawn, so they need funds for his continued safety. This is what we want: platforms and protection. We are a minority with endangered speech, and we need both protection and platforms to survive. It’s challenging.
Jacobsen: Particularly in the Indian case, they have a long history of rationalism, humanism, free thought, and a much larger and more diverse population than many countries. They deal with significant frauds — godmen making all sorts of ridiculous claims — and the social backlash is severe, to the point where they need government assistance and bodyguards.
That’s a real problem. I once wrote a critical letter about naturopaths in my province in Canada. The worst-ish I received was a disgruntled letter from the president of the Provincial Naturopathic Association. It was a thousand-word letter. I responded. But that’s vastly different from someone coming to my home to take me to jail or threatening my life, as in the case of Mubarak Bala or humanists in India.
Chinama: I also believe that organizations like UNESCO should step in to protect us. That’s the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. We’re talking about science here — humanists push for science, and we also talk about culture, as humanists promote respect for diverse cultures. So, I think the responsibility to protect humanists depends greatly on UNESCO.
UNESCO should have a database of active humanists in every country and ensure their safety and protection. We need to push for this.
Why do I emphasize active humanists? Because active humanists are at risk, as they are vocal about their views. They publicly express what they believe is right. But we also have passive humanists, or closet humanists, who don’t disclose their opinions. These individuals are not at risk because no one knows what they think. However, UNESCO should have a database of active humanists in every country, and it should be attuned to the security concerns of humanists.
For example, our brother in India — UNESCO, should be at the forefront of protecting him, just as they protect heritage sites. UNESCO ensures that heritage sites are not tampered with or destroyed, and I believe humanists deserve the same protection.
This is a resolution that should be pushed at the General Assembly to protect humanists. I don’t know if you share the same sentiment with me or have thought about it before; this is a new insight for you.
Jacobsen: Yes, I see where you’re coming from. Do you think de facto blasphemy laws should also extend to acts of vandalism against sites that are considered sacred to different groups?
Chinama: Yes, sites with religious significance should not be destroyed because they help us appreciate a particular culture or religion. As long as those sites aren’t used for criminal purposes or to cause harm, we should respect and preserve them for current and future generations.
We need to learn about different religions. And UNESCO is doing a good job in this regard. I remember telling you in our previous conversations that I once met a diplomat from Iran working in Zimbabwe as a cultural counsellor. He told me that their country has 24 sites protected by UNESCO. That’s such a good thing.”
He told me that among the places protected by UNESCO are religious sites and some economic sites. Iran is situated in a region that has seen many empires, especially the Great Persian Empire. They have many underground water systems, castles, and other significant locations — some with religious significance, some with cultural significance, some with political significance, and others with economic importance. So yes, those places should be preserved.
Of course, we also learn architectural skills from those places. As scientists, we gain knowledge, and aesthetically, we derive inspiration. So, as long as a site is not detrimental to human welfare, it should be preserved and not destroyed. However, we must clearly define what is meant by sacrilege, as religious people would refer to the destruction of what they hold sacred as sacrilege.
Yes, sacrilege should not be promoted. We must respect their beliefs as long as they are not forcing them on everyone. It becomes problematic when religious symbols are imposed on people who don’t follow that particular religion. For example, placing religious crosses on public buildings would not be acceptable, but having them in religious spaces is fine. Let them keep them there, rather than placing those symbols in public offices, because we need to accommodate other religious symbols to maintain peace.
Especially now, with students taking their ordinary and advanced level examinations in Zimbabwe, the examination board, ZIMSEC (Zimbabwe School Examinations Council), has a rule that students are not allowed to bring religious artifacts into exam halls. It’s a fair rule, as it applies to everyone.
Jacobsen: Tauya, thank you for the opportunity and your time today.
Chinama: Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: Take care.
Image Credit: Tauya Chinama.
