This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Nigerian senate passes anti-gay bill, defying British aid threat

Nigerian senate passes anti-gay bill, defying British aid threat - Comments

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 1 by Linda Ward

Barbaric, cruel, violent, ignorant and vile are those that enacted this backward law.

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 23:35:26 UTC | #895420

Floyd's Avatar Comment 2 by Floyd

And those insects know what they're talking about. Next week Mugabe is consulting with a panel of dung beetles about Zimbabwe's economic policies.

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 23:47:28 UTC | #895422

some asshole's Avatar Comment 3 by some asshole

"What do you mean, 'Religion poisons everything'? You filthy atheists are just angry sods!"

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 23:57:05 UTC | #895425

Net's Avatar Comment 4 by Net

insects?? and this guy runs a country? seriously though, the brits have a lot to answer for: whevever they have colonised, they've left behind this legislative booby trap that sees gays locked behind bars for up to 14 years, and worse.

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 23:58:25 UTC | #895426

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 5 by Border Collie

"It is condemned by insects" ... Now, damnitall, that's good to know!

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:06:49 UTC | #895429

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 6 by alaskansee

@ comment 4 by Net

the brits have a lot to answer for: whevever they have colonised, they've left behind this legislative booby trap that sees gays locked behind bars for up to 14 years, and worse.

Thanks for the laugh Net but isn't this a little more serious than starting an amusing conspiracy theory? What a pile of poop, that "the brits" could have left anything behind that would be legislated 51 years after independence by an elected government that was still just the puppet of who, David Cameron, Margret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Churchill, the list is endless??

Seriously though?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:07:43 UTC | #895430

DLJ's Avatar Comment 7 by DLJ

Is this highlighting a point of morality?

If the British Government is acting colonially, they will be forcing (although incentivising is a better word in this case) others to follow rules / laws through some form of inducement (penalty or reward; carrot / stick etc. previously by threatening violence but now through economic means).

However, if this is seen as simply exercising a right to decide where to spend charity money, it seems reasonable not to want to donate to an organisation / person / country whose values, ethics etc. are at variance with your own.

If the former position is immoral and the latter is morally acceptable, what does that say about the US political lobby system?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:30:26 UTC | #895443

Net's Avatar Comment 8 by Net

alaskansee, i don't know where you got "conspiracy theory" from. i was merely pointing out a historical legacy; nothing more. but still, if you want to see conspiracy, i guess you'll see it in the most innocent of remarks.

seriously.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 03:10:18 UTC | #895446

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 9 by Atheist Mike

Where's the UN in such matters? Wait let me guess, too busy electing tyrants and murderers to human rights committees?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 03:28:02 UTC | #895449

Functional Atheist's Avatar Comment 10 by Functional Atheist

The implied sense of entitlement to foreign aid in this article is somewhat infuriating.

Making foreign aid contingent on recipient nations respecting human rights--particularly the human rights of minorities (whether the minority is ethnic, racial, or sexual)--is entirely reasonable on the part of donor nations. To do otherwise would be to effectively subsidize discriminatory practices, which may be deeply offensive to the taxpayers, laws, and culture of the donor nation.

Aid dollars are fungible, and even emergency humanitarian aid should be subject to certain limitations. For example, the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe has evolved into a highly repugnant and totalitarian dictatorship, deserving of severe sanctions and not a penny of aid.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 05:47:01 UTC | #895466

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 11 by the great teapot

Net he uses the expression conspiracy theory because you have no evidence to back up your claim.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 05:54:28 UTC | #895467

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 12 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - offtopic

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 06:30:13 UTC | #895473

Dirty Kuffar's Avatar Comment 13 by Dirty Kuffar

We are quite correct to with hold aid from Nigeria in this case, I've always said that in the past, if we had made aid conditional on things like banning female genital mutilation and installing democracy in 3rd world countries instead of doling it out with wishy-washy sentimentalist cultural relativist excuses over the past few decades, these countries would be prosperous democracys. In any case, what is recession hit Britain doing giving aid to oil rich Nigeria, who, I understand , has started its own space programme ! Whilst on the subject, why are we giving it to Pakistan, a country that has just spent millions of pounds ordering submarines and naval ships from the Chinese and has 10 times more billionaires than Britain has ?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 06:32:19 UTC | #895476

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 14 by Ignorant Amos

.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 06:44:49 UTC | #895483

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 15 by Ignorant Amos

Lets invade.....as good a reason as we've seen for any invasion in the last 100 years plus....????

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 06:49:05 UTC | #895486

Mike Kemp's Avatar Comment 16 by Mike Kemp

Britain gives aid the way parents fund their kids throughout their lives. It's paternalistic at best, and asserts a legacy of ownership and superiority at worst. Hence Britain gives aid to states who squander their natural wealth on nuclear weapons and other mismanagements of their economy and who don't care for human rights. Some of these states themselves give aid to further countries.

I don't see Britain doing much about Nigeria, especially as we have just learned that the Church of England has just reinforced its position on being anti gay, banning the use of its churches for same sex marriages as of Monday. I think this may be to appease the Nigerians in fact, so we see who has won this argument, at least for the Anglican Communion.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 07:18:01 UTC | #895491

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 17 by Nunbeliever

I guess there is one tiny positive thing about these stories. I am pretty sure no one would have cared about how African nations treated homosexuals a few decades ago. Hence, it seems like we are witnessing some form of development here....

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:06:02 UTC | #895508

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 18 by Cartomancer

It is condemned by nature. It is condemned by insects

The insects would beg to differ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior#Insects

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:23:55 UTC | #895511

Metamag's Avatar Comment 19 by Metamag

It is condemned by insects and that is why I have said they are worse than pigs and dogs.

I LOLed hard at this, what else can one say?

Oh Africa, when will you stop being the black hole of humanity, incorporating the most vile, ignorant and irrational aspects of it...

Perhaps international aid should be contingent on provision of basic education. These people are still in dark ages.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:37:14 UTC | #895514

StephenH's Avatar Comment 20 by StephenH

Saddam, Bin Laden, Gaddafi - tick box

I think Mugabe should be next

The bloke is obviously delusional, and not fit to run any country

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:38:18 UTC | #895515

Metamag's Avatar Comment 21 by Metamag

Comment 20 by StephenH :

Saddam, Bin Laden, Gaddafi - tick box

What?!

You do realize that in all instances fascist islamic theocracies are taking their place. It is completely irrelevant which specific person is the head of the government if the population itself is highly superstitious and ignorant.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:43:00 UTC | #895516

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 22 by Mrkimbo

Cut the aid money now. These people bleat about racism in one breath while preaching homophobia in the next - complete hypocrites.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:53:13 UTC | #895521

bendigeidfran's Avatar Comment 23 by bendigeidfran

It is often hard to do something unnatural. Urrrrri Geller can, because he possesses magic powerrrrrrs. A bigger bender than Jesus, he could surely have effected the miracle of hopping off the cross. But the rest of us are somewhat nailed to reality.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:54:22 UTC | #895522

Graham1's Avatar Comment 24 by Graham1

"President 'Goodluck' Jonathan? Now there's an irony. Wasn't James Watson slated for saying he held no hope for Africa?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:24:28 UTC | #895528

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 25 by drumdaddy

Peace to the persecuted. Rough up the persecutors.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:53:07 UTC | #895534

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 26 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Comment 4 by Net

......seriously though, the brits have a lot to answer for: whevever they have colonised, they've left behind this legislative booby trap that sees gays locked behind bars for up to 14 years, and worse.

This latest pan-African hate campaign started a couple of years back and has American evangelicals at it's root.

See the full story carefully researched and laid out in the Box Turtle Bulletin

If anyone is interested, there is a well-organised petition here protesting against the latest moves in Nigeria.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:10:56 UTC | #895540

Metamag's Avatar Comment 27 by Metamag

Hard to argue with that after brits killed Alan Turing in their own country as thank you for all the help with the Nazis.

LOL, UK was as primitive as Nigeria not so long ago.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:20:47 UTC | #895543

Aztek's Avatar Comment 28 by Aztek

"It is condemned by insects"?? What is this guy? A insect whisperer? He seriously wants to be a president of a country while spending time talking to insects?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:11:14 UTC | #895552

Corylus's Avatar Comment 29 by Corylus

"This is something we raise continually and ... we're also saying that British aid should have more strings attached in terms of 'do you persecute people for their faith or their Christianity or do you persecute people for their sexuality?"

Question: Is there any country where homosexuals have equal rights, but persecution of people for their faith continues? I cannot think of one myself.

N.B. This is in the manner of a thinking point for any of our Christian lurkers wondering about priorities when Christians are being genuinely {1} persecuted - sometimes murdered - in some areas of Africa and Arabia.

Please consider the possibility that enshrining the rights of all minorities (especially those who, due to prevailing social mores in certain areas, nearly everyone dislikes) can, as a side-effect, encourage societies where those minorities (who, due to religious differences, only a significant proportion dislike) are also free from fear.

It really is all connected. Maybe, in the same way that "the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons", the freedom of a society can be judged by how those who love within genders are treated.

-=-=-=-=

That 'genuinely' was added to make clear that not being given extra privileges, and opportunities to treat others differently, does not equal persecution: no matter how often that argument is made by certain individuals in the West.

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:50:58 UTC | #895561

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 30 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 8 by Net

Them Brits....just look at the state of the good 'ole U.S. of A....now there is a legacy..... does 225 years make a difference when apportioning blame?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:31:28 UTC | #895567