Nothing in recent times has gripped the imagination, drawn the ire (both for and against) and stirred the soul (and pens and tongues) of a very wide cross section of the public as the Homosexuality Act recently passed by the National Assembly, to await the President’s ratification. With it has come surprising yet predictable threats by Western nations to cut off aid and the collective rejection of the threats by sections of the society. The bill prescribes a 14-year jail term for anyone entering into same-sex 'marriage' or civil union.
Those who abet or aid such unions could also be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, as would “any person who registers, operates or participates in homosexual clubs, societies and organisations” - a provision that seems to target homosexuality advocacy groups as well. The bill also sets out a 10-year sentence for “any person who... directly or indirectly makes public show of same-sex amorous relationships”.
If as reliable sources hint that the Embassy of the United States in Nigeria is presently wooing local human rights groups with funding with which to jump into the fray to heckle the populace with well-orchestrated anti-norm harangue, it would amount to the Americans meddling in the internal affairs of another sovereign state.
The trumpeters of human rights are in this case the bold-faced hypocrites. It is widely known, for instance, that virtually every jurisdiction in the West does not permit polygamy in their laws. But virtually all African countries allow polygamy, which is against the law in European and American countries.
The question might arise as to why people who are freely consenting and believe it (not that we do) to be the right thing for them should not be allowed to marry more than one partner, particularly since the concept of marriage is being redefined to allow same sex partners anyway.
As for the twin ‘consenting adults’ and ‘nobody is harmed’ arguments, the poser in the preceding paragraph puts to test the worn out argument of two consenting adults being entitled to do with themselves what they like and that law should not regulate what goes on in the privacy of people’s homes.
Firstly, what goes on between two people in the privacy of their homes has always been regulated by law. Conspiracy is a crime in most jurisdictions never mind that the people may never carry out their plans, the mere expressed intention to commit certain crimes is in itself a crime in the law of many societies.
The idea of rendering actions legal because nobody is harmed (in reality, seen to be harmed) is even more tenuous. What constitutes harm is an amorphous subject amenable to various interpretations. While there is overwhelming damning evidence for instance that two adults who mutually consent to divorce happily (that’s hilarious) leave their children scarred for life, divorce remains a very popular and very legal means of handling problems in marriage.
In contrast, there are even amusing examples of harmless (if one were to use ‘their’ standards) activities like streaking, and euthanasia which are still illegal in many ‘advanced’ societies. At the risk of stretching the example, one must also ask how polygamy which is consented to is more harmful than the acrimonious divorces that we see on Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. Clearly, therefore, those preaching tolerance from the burnished but rotten rostrums should be warming a seat in the pew.
And now we come to the issue of Aid. Were it not for the ruling class that has plundered the land for decades, the country would not have been subjected to the unfortunate tragic-comedy of UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s rant as a spokesperson of sorts for the West. The charade of the well-oiled high-stakes Aid industry and its beneficiaries has been rather well documented, but will bear some consideration.
Pre-independence, the West did the stealing by itself, brazenly carting away resources and artefacts most of which are displayed proudly in their museums to date without remorse – imagine paying to go to your neighbour’s house to watch the TV he stole from your house.
Post-independence, they do the stealing through their stooges who have put hundreds of billions of dollars (one authority estimate $300 billion since independence) of our commonwealth in the safe keeping of Mr Cameron and his compatriots. Somehow in the warped logic of Mr Cameron, it is morally upright to rebuke your partners in crime on issues of homosexual legislation but have no problem receiving stolen goods the next day.
Rather than give Africa Aid, the West should repatriate all the money they daily collude with African leaders to steal from their people; return the money to its rightful owners instead of giving us a tiny part of the interest on the stolen money and cheekily calling it Aid. In addition, the West should focus on fair trade rather than Aid. Till date, several Western countries subsidize their economy but instruct our clueless leaders to remove subsidy of every kind.
It would have been comical if it were not tragic to threaten us with the withdrawal of Aid when Nigerians in Diaspora repatriated $10 billion last year alone.
It is crucially important to understand that righteousness cannot be legislated. Laws – those of God and Man – do not on their own make people good. The purpose of the law is to regulate behaviour by suppressing (not eradicating) evil desires and thereby sustain society and ensure its healthy continuance in perpetuity.
With contribution from Wole Olabanji, who works full-time raising a godly family and part-time as an architect in real estate development advisory. He also devotes considerable time to providing Biblical perspective to tackling contemporary challenges in business and governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment