8.3 Findings
8.3.2 A discriminatory legislative and policy framework
174
assigned to offer sex education, they often struggle because the content is outside their subject speciality.
Sexual health education is a diverse area. It can be explored from a wide range of perspectives such that with my own examinable subject content to master, it’s difficult to divert attention to a subject like sex education. The ministry doesn’t demonstrate its commitment to the teaching of this subject (KII participant: MaMoyo – a female teacher, Mberengwa).
Ministry position on sex education is vague. There is no syllabus or specific teachers to offer this subject. As a G & C teacher, I recognise the critical role of sex education but lack of clear guidelines threatens its future. It’s a policy issue; the ministry must formulate proper guidelines and invest in manpower development starting from tertiary level, and perhaps make it a compulsory and examinable subject. Collaboration with the ministry of health will be inevitable, and this will positively impact on current HIV prevention interventions e.g., VMMC and those girl child empowerment initiatives (KII participant: De Beauvoir – a female teacher, Zvishavane).
Participants demonstrated that school-based sex education has the potential to contribute to averting several negative health outcomes associated with adolescent sexuality, including HIV and AIDS. Further deliberations indicated that the current policy framework is too narrow focused and not accommodative of alternative norms. This may negatively impact HIV preventative interventions such as the use of condoms and VMMC, especially among school adolescents.
175
restrictive, and therefore discriminate against those belonging to alternative sexualities such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTIs). The following were said;
The law is prohibitive of either homosexuality or any other sexual orientations that deviate from heterosexuality. Homosexuality is both criminalised, and pathologised.
The President is anti-gay rights enemy number one! He condemned LGBTIs, characterised them as being worse than dogs and pigs. Apparently, any health services rendered to citizens are provided from a normative heterosexual perspective and this compels LGBTIs to go underground for fear of persecution. The consequences on mitigating HIV among LGBTI adolescents are dire (KII participant: Philip – a male health worker, Zvishavane).
In health promotion practice, there is need to destabilise and interrupt discourses that present heteronormativity as the only sexual orientation. Doing so will allow space to cater for all youths. Law enforcers in Zimbabwe descend heavily on those who demonstrate any inclination towards vulnerable sexualities. Consequently, the policies are mute regarding diversity in sexuality. Therefore, strategies such as VMMC are irrelevant to learners belonging to the LGBTI community and may increase their risk due to ignorance (KII participant: Dhadza – a male health worker, Mberengwa).
Zimbabwean law, policy and society at large define sexuality from a narrow perspective of being heterosexual. This makes it difficult for either sex education classes or health promotion interventions such as VMMC to effectively tackle issues of divergent sexualities to provide relevant messages, knowledge and skills e.g., to help LGBTIs practise safer sex. Furthermore, alternative methods of achieving sexual relief such as masturbation remain unexplored because they’re viewed as being anti-social, yet they are important in supporting abstinence which is the normative preventative method prescribed to adolescents (KII participant: Molly – a female teacher, Zvishavane).
However, some teachers did not indicate having any problems with both the law and policy favouring heteronormativity. They felt that the issue of divergent sexual orientations was against both the dominant Shona-Karanga cultural norms and Christian beliefs, and that it is largely Western and alien to Zimbabwe. One teacher had the following to say:
176
Remember MoPSE was previously Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture. As such, our background which includes an unadulterated culture, and a black elite educated that went through mission education can’t tolerate any relationship that isn’t heterosexual. I don’t think it’s moral to tolerate homosexuality; it’s a Western practice getting unnecessary attention courtesy of globalisation (KII participant: Hoto –a male teacher, Mberengwa).
However, the law was indicted for discriminating against school adolescents based on age. The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) defines a young person under the age of 18 years as a minor.
While the law was generally hailed for protecting school adolescents from serious sexual offences such as statutory rape (known as defilement elsewhere) and aggravated indecent assault, how policy makers interpret such age demarcations in the context of ASRH and HIV prevention was raised as a cause for concern:
The law defines almost every learner as a minor, assumption then is children don’t do, or rather aren’t supposed to have sex. Implication is, VMMC among learners serves the same purpose as early infant medical circumcision (EIMC); its gains are not immediate, but rather distant and anticipated. Circumcised babies aren’t sexually active and aren’t in need of condoms. With early sexual debut common among adolescents, conceiving school adolescents as angels is problematic, especially when they’re circumcised; they may feel that they aren’t at risk of infection (KII participant:
WeGanda – a male teacher, Mberengwa).
Having 18 years as the legal age of majority act (LAMA) is strategic, it helps protect children against sex predators and paedophiles. However, its broader implications on ASRH services can’t be debated. The “children” know, and do a lot, which increases their risk and susceptibility to HIV infection, e.g. experimentation with drugs and alcohol can’t be ruled out among learners (KII participant: Philip – a health worker, Zvishavane).
The issue of confidentiality in adolescents accessing health care such as VMMC or other ASRH services, including condoms was also topical, especially from a legal lens. Some felt that school adolescents deserve the right to give consent when it comes to issues of their health. By
177
implication, a school adolescent would therefore be able to make independent decisions such as being circumcised without seeking parental (or guardian’s consent). However, not all participants agreed on this issue. The following were said:
Gazetting that adolescents must seek adult consent when they intend to access health care services such as VMMC is unfair on young persons, and by insisting on such, the law is being dismissive of the agency of young people. E.g., the age at which an adolescent can give independent consent for the purposes of accessing health services should be reviewed and lowered to 14 or 15 years (KII participant: Philip – a male health worker, Zvishavane).
If adult consent is done away with, things will be chaotic. The mental maturation of some adolescents may need to be confirmed by an adult. They may assent to health decisions they will regret of; so, I think the 18 years and above age limit is reasonable (KII participant: De Beauvoir – a female teacher, Zvishavane).