Beyond Western Eyes: On Morality, Law, and the Spirit-Led Path
The case of Joseph Spencer reveals not only the failure of legal systems to adhere strictly to evidence but also the deeper, quieter failure of society to comprehend the cultural and spiritual frameworks that inform the lives of those who may sometimes not conform to dominant norms.
In the West, moral judgments are often rooted in secular liberalism—a framework that values individual autonomy, yet paradoxically imposes rigid moral standards when confronted with difference. When Joseph Spencer, a man of African heritage and spiritual grounding, entered into a consensual relationship marked by an age difference, the legal system may not have condemned it, but the prosecutorial narrative framed it as something deviant, abusive, and criminal—not because of what the law said, but because of what opinion allowed them to imply.
Let us be clear: age-gap relationships are not crimes. The law in England and Wales does not forbid them when both parties are above the age of consent. To prosecute such a relationship as though it were inherently abusive—when no allegation of non-consent exists and no victim testified to harm—is not an application of the law, but a moral performance – a distorted and an abusive one in fact. It is an example of how legal systems, though outwardly equal, perform unevenly across cultural and class lines. And it reveals the dangerous space where law ends and personal bias begins.
But perhaps the greatest misunderstanding is not legal—it is spiritual.
Joseph Spencer, like many West Africans whose lives are guided by ancestral traditions and deep-rooted spirituality, does not make major life decisions casually or impulsively. In cultures such as his, decisions around relationships, marriage, and even timing of events are not left to whims of the moment. They are often guided through divination, spiritual visions, or ancestral direction. This may be alien to Western frameworks, but it is no less valid—no less meaningful—than any system of rational planning or moral reasoning.
Spencer’s decision to seek parental consent for marriage with this woman was not a reckless act. It was a deliberate, spiritually grounded decision—a culmination of a long-awaited, preordained path, confirmed through the rituals and internal certainty that his tradition provides. Such decisions, in his cultural context, are not driven by lust, manipulation, or coercion—but by alignment with spiritual timing and ancestral approval. It is understandable for a man or a woman to remain single for life, than to marry the wrong partner.
To outsiders, especially those unfamiliar with African cosmologies and spiritual systems, this may seem confusing or even suspicious. But moral misunderstanding does not equate to moral truth. And legal institutions that pride themselves on neutrality must resist the temptation to let cultural unfamiliarity morph into prejudice.
This campaign will not speak in detail about Spencer’s private spiritual life, nor will it reveal sacred things meant to be kept within the boundaries of tradition. But what we will say is this: Joseph Spencer is not a man who acts without spiritual foresight. And the choice to unite with this woman—despite the age gap—was not only lawful but spiritually correct.
What we ask is simple: that the public, and those in power, recognise that moral frameworks differ. That justice must rise above cultural bias. And that to criminalise someone on the basis of moral discomfort, especially in the absence of any criminal act, is not justice—it is persecution dressed as law.