Political fact: when the law becomes the street thermometer

The discussion on the criminalization of homosexuality, and more recently on its hardening, is fully part of this dynamic. It tends to become an arena, sometimes a social court, where we talk more about punishment than understanding, more about proving its virtue than protecting cohesion.

This text offers a cold contribution, without insult to beliefs or traditions, and without militant posture. The aim is to raise the conversation to the level of a mature society debate: How can a deeply religious political community deliberate on a morally sensitive subject without dissolving itself in vindictiveness and without betraying its constitutional and international commitments to fundamental rights?

At a time when these lines are being written, the debate was revived by a government initiative to tighten the repressive arsenal. The announcements at the end of February 2026 refer to heavier sentences, substantial fines and more severe treatment depending on certain situations. Recent arrests have increased the emotional burden, with intense media coverage and increased stigma.

This scoping is essential: it is not just a doctrinal debate. It is a political, instrumentalizable object, The law becomes a signal to public opinion, religious authorities, international partners, and the electorate. Therefore, the question is not simply one of « What does society think? »but also « How does a serious state produce a criminal norm when emotion dominates? ».

Clarify levels: religious morality, social norm, criminal norm

In a predominantly Muslim country, religious morality is expected to weigh heavily on the social norm. This is neither surprising nor illegitimate: religion structures meaning, social bond, representation of good and evil. But dangerous confusion arises when three registers are mechanically superimposed which are not identical:

1. Moralism — what is considered lawful/illegal, permitted/prohibited in a religious repository.
2. The social norm — what is tolerated/intolerated in public space.
3. The Criminal Standard — what the state chooses to punish in the name of public order.

A State may respect majority beliefs without turning any moral reprimand into criminal offences. It is even one of the functions of the modern state: to organize coexistence, to prevent the law from becoming an instant echo of passions, and to reserve criminal punishment to conduct whose punishment is deemed necessary, proportionate and useful.

Criminal law, in theory, is not a catechism. It is a high-risk instrument: it withdraws freedom, exposes to social violence, creates effects of clandestineity, and sometimes produces the opposite of the objective sought. This is why, in doctrine, criminal law is often referred to as the ultima ratio : the most intrusive tool, therefore the one that is handled with restraint.

The constitutional foundation: a secular Republic, and proclaimed equality

The Senegalese Constitution affirms a framework that does not erase religion but establishes institutional grammar: the Republic is secular, and ensures equality before the law without distinction, while respecting beliefs.

This is not a legal detail: it is a political philosophy. Senegalese secularism is not necessarily a copy of French secularism; she is a method of arbitration The state does not choose a religion, does not establish a religion as a single normative authority, and must guarantee the peaceful coexistence of beliefs. This makes it possible precisely to avoid a moral debate turning into a struggle for power, a struggle for power, a struggle for power. « deviant », or in competition for overbidding between moral entrepreneurs.

In this context, the State has a minimum non-negotiable duty: protect human dignity and prevent violence, including when the majority disapproves of a group. The majority can define culture; It cannot legitimize symbolic lynching, the call to violence, or arbitrary.

Internal law: the existence of criminal law and the temptation to tighten

Senegal already has a criminalisation against « Acts » Article 319 of the Penal Code. The focus of the current debate is therefore less on the existence of repression than on its hardening, its extension, and its effects: should penalties be increased? Is there a need to broaden targeted behaviours? Do related offences (apology, associations, etc.) need to be created?

However, Hardening criminality is never neutral. An increase in sentences is not just a symbol: it alters police practices, the caution of judges, the fear of those concerned, and the behaviour of opinion. The heavier the penalty, the more the accusation becomes a social weapon, including to settle private conflicts, jealousies, and neighbourhood rivalries. In societies where honour, reputation and rumour play a structuring role, criminalization can be a key factor in the future. manufacturing a denunciation market.

The blind point:« opinion-judge » and crowd mechanics

Part of the public space is a judge. This is due to several known sociological factors. First, the moralisation of belonging In a context of economic insecurity, distrust of the state, and competition for respectability, displaying moral outrage becomes a resource. Then,care economy Social networks reward radicality, not nuance. Finally, the structure of authority When religious or media figures present the issue in terms of purification or internal enemy, the outcome is no longer a debate, but a mobilization.

This is where the major risk lies: society leaves the field of law to enter the field of social punishment. The problem is not religious conviction; the problem is the transformation of this conviction into an implicit authorization of violence, harassment, or public humiliation.

Religious, Marabouts, preachers: legitimate influence, public responsibility

In a democracy, religious speech is legitimate in public space. But when it becomes prescriptive in the criminal sense, or calls for « extreme punishment »It is in tension with the constitutional order and with the security of people.

The real question is not « Should we silence the religious? » — That would be absurd and counterproductive. The real question is: how can religious authorities, aware of their social role, contribute to a climate of civil peace, even when morally condemning behaviour?

There is a decisive distinction between condemning an act in a theological register and calling for violence against people. The first is religious freedom; The second is a risk of harm to life, integrity and safety. The maturity of a company is measured by its ability to maintain this border.

Human rights: not a « external agenda »but legal commitments

The Senegalese debate is often presented as a shock between « Local values » and « Western pressure ». It is a convenient framing, but insufficient. Human rights are not just a discourse: they are texts ratified in the African international and regional order.

1. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights principles of non-discrimination, equality before the law, integrity and dignity.
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights In particular, it protects freedom of expression and rights relating to privacy, security and procedural guarantees.
3. African Commission in 2014, adopted Resolution 275 condemning violence and violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, real or supposed, and calling on States to act against such violence.

Political translation of these texts can be discussed. But they cannot be evacuated as if they were foreigners to the continent: the African Charter and the African Commission are African institutions. The question is: How to articulate sovereignty, culture, religion, and freely accepted legal obligations?

The serious state criterion: proportionality, utility, perverse effects

Any criminal policy should be evaluated on the basis of three simple questions, which are rarely asked during a period of passion:

1. Proportionality — Is the proposed penalty proportionate to the actual disturbance to public order, and compatible with human dignity?
2. Utility — Does repression produce the desired effect, or does it move the phenomenon underground, with higher social costs?
3. Perverse effects — Does the law increase the risk of violence, blackmail, denunciation, arbitrariness, or corruption?

When punishments increase, clandestineity increases. Illegality promotes vulnerability: exposure to blackmail, difficult access to care, fear of complaining in cases of aggression, and mistrust of institutions. At this stage, the State must ask If he does not create a grey area where precisely the practices he claims to be fighting flourish.

Health: HIV, public health and institutional rationality

One often instrumentalized element deserves serious treatment: public health. Managing HIV and sexually transmitted infections requires trust, access to care, confidentiality and prevention. If a group is massively stigmatized, it moves away from the health care system, and the collective health goal declines.

This does not imply imposing a moral vision; This implies a Administrative rationality This is not to protect a population from an epidemic through fear, but through access, prevention, screening, and non-discrimination in care.

Out of the trap: a method of debate compatible with faith and law

Raising the debate does not mean diluting religious beliefs. This means introducing a public method based on four requirements:

1. Distinguish moral disapproval of violence. Condemning behaviour does not allow the call to social lynching.
2. To reaffirm the rule of law. Even in the presence of criminal offences, the presumption of innocence, the rights of defence, the prohibition of public humiliation and protection against violence must be non-negotiable.
3. Neutralize political opportunism. When responsible « follow the wind », they transform the law into a thermometer of emotions. However, criminal law must be a stable, evaluated and revisable instrument on rational criteria, not a reflex response.
4. Protect cohesion. A society does not become more virtuous by multiplying scapegoats; It becomes more fragile. The role of the State is to prevent moral conflict from turning into civil conflict.