Law and sexuality: comparative analysis of legal treatment of queer people in Canada and Ghana – the quest for human rights justice for queer minorities in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a work of scholarship and advocacy. The author’s goal is to participate in the movement in Ghana towards the decriminalization of advocating for queer rights in Ghana. The author analyzes and compares the relationship between law and sexuality in Ghana as compared with Canada. In particular, the research identifies a number of fundamental principles, distinctive of Canadian human rights and equality rights jurisprudence, which bear importing into, or emphasizing in, the Ghanaian legal system. The paper argues that everyone has the right to enjoy basic human rights regardless of their gender, race and/or sexual orientation. This is a proposition deriving from Canadian principles of rights jurisprudence that establish that there is no hierarchy of human rights and that no rights are absolute. These are key approaches to balancing the rights claims of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer people (LGBTQ+) with often conflicting rights grounded in religion-based claims. As a result, the study will discuss ways in which the Ghanaian legal system can balance religious-cultural rights, on the one hand, and human rights and equality rights based on sexual orientation, on the other, by adopting queer advocacy strategies, and following principles of Canadian jurisprudence about these often-competing rights claims. In doing so, this work contests the obvious discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people in Ghana by promoting greater human rights for queer people in Ghana notwithstanding the long-established social and cultural primacy of religion in Ghana’s history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".