Ghana refuses to grant gays' rights despite aid threat

[The Zack]

Carafaat;756227 wrote:

Guys, back to the topic. The thread is about conditionalities for receiving Aid.

 

Irrelevant of your own personal morals, beliefs and value's. Its paternalistic, degrading and moraly wrong to condition aid to moral issues(which are universally not shared) that have nothing to do with the poverty cycle.

The whole thread is about moral ninyahow, we never went off topic.

 

Britain: If you want out our aid, follow our morales, give the khaniis's their rights.

Ghana: F*&*$ your morales, fags have no place in our country, our morale tells us.

 

XX, I will tell you now and I will tell you straight forward... Qajacs are disgusting and should have no place in this world. Sex: man and woman. Nin nin kale wax ka dayano waa dulli qofka u doodana waa dulli kale.

[Carafaat]

Well each person considers his own morals superior. And therefor you have to respect eachother despite the diffrences.

 

And if a donor wants to condition aid with his own morals. Then one should say, shove it back to where it came from.

[Che -Guevara]

The question is should morality be tied to human rights and respect for the law.

 

In case point, Ugandan paper published the names and addresses of people thought to be gays. Needless to say this has consequence for those named. What should course of action should the Government take. Insist on morality or protect the citizens whose lives are being endangered cuz of their supposed homosexuality.

[GoldCoast]

Pretty naive to believe most Western aid is driven by benevolence. Consider how aid has often been used as leverage in various economic deals both at the international financial institutions( IMF/WB) and in bilateral relations. Say for example Zambia is considering nationalize its mines. Countries with TNC's that have interests in the mining industry, as well as the IFI's would threaten to cut aid, as a repercussion of such a decision. Same thing has happened countless times throughout Africa, especially during the crazes of the Washington Consensus in which structural adjustment was enforced everywhere.

 

With this in mind, they have no right to try to enforce any sort of political/social norms on foreign countries. I have no idea how you could justify political grandstanding like this move by the British. There are plenty of states who haven't legalized gay marriage in the U.S., yet I doubt such a public tongue-lashing would ever be directed there way.

[Alpha Blondy]

Naxar Nugaaleed;756169 wrote:

I am really glad, pun intended,

thats not a pun!