Recently, I wrote an editorial in response to a push to introduce formal so-called reparative therapies to Ghana. The journey to publication was an interesting one.
First, I tweeted out a link asking if there was a Ghanaian news outlet that would be interested in publishing a response. I finally received interest from one online platform that wanted to frame the response as “clear minority” in a polarized landscape. I challenged this framing, arguing that it unnecessarily biases the reader against my commentary. Furthermore, positioning the response in this way affirmed is complicit with a media landscape that normalizes violence against LGBT Ghanaians. The editors responded as follows:
We're honoured to [host intelligent discussions from all voices], and that is why, as host, we cannot compromise on our neutrality, especially, on social, political, and religious issues.
I think it was the Reverend Desmond Tutu who said that “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” But furthermore, there is nothing neutral about an editorial decision to prime the reader to receive commentary about widely debunked so-called reparative therapies as a marginalized discourse.
Anyway, here’s my editorial, which is published at This is Africa without any unnecessary preamble. Take a gander.