Letter to the Constitutional Court

We, members of the Bottom Up expedition, led by our indomitable, unimpeachable, ever-collegial, and umunthu-filled Chiswakhata, Chiswamsangu, the Genuine Prof. Joyce Befu, MG 66 and MEGA-1, do hereby address you honourable justices of the constitutional court of our estate to adjudge for posterity our concerns herein contained.

It was not be accident that the framers of our constitution, the supreme law of this estate, came up with Chapter 4 containing this estate’s bill of rights.

In it, we, the citizens and occupants of this estate are guaranteed the right to freedom expression so that we can say whatever we want without fear of being punished, freedom of conscience so that we hold a belief or set of beliefs that may not please some people and still be considered normal estate occupants, freedom to give an opinion or not give an opinion, freedom of association and disassociation, freedom of assembly, the right to found a family and marry, and the right to economic activity.

The right to associate, for example, has led to the formation of civil society organisations, while the right to found a family and marry has facilitated marriages through religious endorsement, civil means, cultural ceremonies, and longtime “concubinage” (marriage by association or reputation).

Now, our colleagues who believe they were born that way, want this estate to allow marriages between two men or more and between two women or more.

They argue, rightly, that marriage is between consenting adults and consummation of marriage is essentially a private affair.

We agree with them but just wonder why private affairs are being taken to the public. It is a similar mistake pro-abortionists made: wanting private matters to be publicly legislated.

The right to economic activity has led to the formation of unions estate-wide and in almost every sector of our estate’s economy; even sex workers (do they pay tax?) have also formed their own association. We understand thieves plan to have an association and through it approach the courts to interpret the right to association and to economic activity.

As Karl Marx argued, human labour is the key tool of production and thus the only negotiation tool the proletariat has.

Down this tool of production and the bourgeoisie will crumble. Of course, this was at time labour really mattered, but in today’s world, labour may not be a serious negotiation tool because Artificial Intelligence can very easily replace human labour.

In short, this estate is government by laws, but laws are not regulations imported from elsewhere. They are part of society’s ethical and moral foundations. Some rights are against that moral or Umunthu foundation that distinguishes this estate from other.

While thieves have a right to economic activity, the courts do not allow poverty as an excuse for stealing. Imagine, a thief pleading to be left free because he or she was born like that? Born to steal. Born to rape. Born to kill.

What we do after birth has nothing to do with being born like that. Like gender role assignment, every social behaviour is a result of socialisation. Nothing else.

‘Born-like-thatism’ should not, should never, be allowed to justify what is morally and ethically wrong even though it may be legally right.