The western tradition of thinking about human rights, which is adopted by most of the countries in the world, emphasises individual freedom as its foundation. According to Nyeck, this individualistic approach to human rights and LBTQI people’s freedom as part of those human rights leads to a clash between Africa and the rest of the world. Although most countries in Africa criminalize homosexuality, LGBTQI civil society is visible across the continent. But as human rights based activism from Africa enters international fora such as the UN, the position of African governments remains unpredictable. This unpredictability is partially due to homophobia and partially due to the perception of neo-colonial power relations in human rights discourses and institutions. On the one hand, after a long struggle, the African Union Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution calling all member states to take action to prohibit discrimination and violence against LGBTQI people. On the other hand, there are many examples that reveal the clash of the approaches between Africa and the rest of the world. Nyeck discusses two of these.

First case: Although South Africa had taken progressive steps on LGBTQI-rights before 2016, in that year the South African delegation to the United Nations abstained on a key vote in the UN Human Rights Council to appoint an independent watchdog on freedom of sexual orientation. The resolution would establish an independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity over the next three years. Although the resolution was passed, no African countries voted in favour of it.

The abstention from the UN vote was justified by a representative calling the resolution ‘divisive, unnecessary and arrogant’. Nyeck explained how that abstention had two main results which affect LGBTI people’s situation: 1) South Africa’s abstention challenges the notion of a power-free, value-free world system of human rights. 2) Since South Africa has a big influence on countries on the whole continent, their abstention effected other African countries’ decision in the vote. SA’s abstention and silence might have strengthened the position of other African bloc countries, such as Uganda and Nigeria that discriminate against the gay community.

Second case:

In President Obama’s visit to Kenya in 2015, in a joint press conference with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Obama made it clear that the issue of gay rights in Kenya remained unresolved. While Obama indicated that the state should not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, Kenyatta argued that Kenya had other priorities such as health, education and road development, along with greater representation of women in society. "This is why I repeatedly say that, for Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue,” he said.

Kenyata’s dismissive statement reflects an ongoing official tactic which postponed a meaningful engagement with human rights because the Kenyan government argues they have ‘bigger problems’ than LGBTQI-rights. This strategy is missing two ways: 1. Dignity matters: LGBT must be socially and politically recognized and included. 2. Economic empowerment and justice matters.

The ability to provide a decent life is one of many paths to dignity, and economic success is not the only way to get there. Nyeck suggests that gender diversity should be constitutive for citizenship in Africa, and queer Africans have to be able to walk with society, institutions and governments in order to achieve their economic empowerment and dignity.