ground for non-discrimination in the same manner as race, which is immutable. The question as to whether sexuality is nature or nurture has not been resolved, is not likely to be, and is probably not, in any event, relevant. However, the same systems of prejudice are applied to those discriminated against on the basis as race, as to those discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. Three points arise in this regard. Firstly, there is judicial authority for the notion that sexual orientation is to be treated as immutable. In Watkins v US Army 49, a case concerning discrimination against a gay man in the military the court found that: “Immutability” may describe those traits that are so central to a person’s identity that it would be abhorrent for government to penalise a person for refusing to change them…50 As Heinze notes: Psychologists as well as jurists have increasingly noted [homosexuality’s] immutability: it can be brutally impeded, but cannot be changed. Attempts to change homosexual orientation through often cruel and humiliating medical or psychological procedure have, at most, shattered a person’s sexuality generally, but have never succeeded in specifically changing sexual orientation.51 Secondly, it is wrong to suggest that the law should only protect lifestyles where there is no element of choice, and thirdly, it is universally accepted that discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is particularly odious. Those who discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation should at least consider the implications of their prejudice should their belief in mutability prove wrong. From the pronouncements of President Mugabe, quoted above, it is clear that there is no prospect of gays and lesbians obtaining change through executive example and leadership. The legislature has also pandered to populist prejudice, exacerbating hostility towards gays and lesbians in parliamentary debates on the issue 52. The usual language of prejudice is present throughout. By way of one of many available examples, Member of Parliament Anias Chigwedere stated to parliament: The whole body is far more important than any single dispensable part...when your finger starts festering and becomes a danger to the body you cut it off…. The homosexuals are the festering finger.53 It is interesting to compare this statement with that of Nazi officer explaining his role in the execution of Jews: They are an inferior race.… It’s like having a rosebush and the rosebush has got greenfly on it. Then you have to get rid of the greenfly54. The judiciary has likewise been consistent in its support for popular prejudice against gays and lesbians. Although few cases of adult consensual homosexual sex come 49 847 F.2d 1329 (1988) 50 at p. 1347 51 see Heinze op. cit. at p. 160 and n 17 52 see in particular the Parliamentary Debates for 28th September, 199, esp. at cols. 2779, 2781 and 8th November, 1995, col. 2988 and 30th November, 1995, col. 4304. 53 54 Parliamentary debates, 28th September, 1995 col. 2770 Interview with Jurgen Kroeger, Nazi Execution Squad Interpreter, 1941 – 1942 to whom the statement was allegedly made by a Nazi Officer after the killing of Jews by firing squad, shown in the BBC documentary Peoples’ Century.