Loading
10th February, 2012
Raping The Global Paradise
True, globalisation has unleashed a certain ideological onslaught, creating a fertile ground for incepting a global normative ethic. But that normative ethic is more pronounced in political economy, i.e., economic and political governance.
Where socio-cultural issues are concerned globalisation is creating a clash of civilisations through the insipid desire to foist alien values on traditional societies. For example women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia; there are no gay and/or lesbian rights in Islamic societies, because the Holy Koran frowns on this.
To see rights as universal and therefore wish a revolutionary reverse of these norms in the said societies would be calling for revolt and instability. Incidentally, this is exactly what the West is doing, and worse of all, using the United Nations to achieve that end.
Last week, this column condemned the call by the UN Secretary-General on all countries to respect the rights of lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and trans-genders globally. We did so because the UN does not have to be seen to be pushing alien values on others, when it purports to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.
One may ask why this issue has become a matter of global concern? It is clear that in some advanced countries gay/lesbian rights have become a metaphor for determining politics and governance, consequently, the one to champion the cause, especially worldwide, would be the one to have really shown commitment.
This is especially so with the US and the UK. Come to think of it that on December 6, 2011, President Barack Obama issued a ‘Memorandum’, directing “all US Federal agencies engaged abroad to ensure the human rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender persons globally” (emphasis ours). Why globally? And note it that this followed closely at the same time, the criminalisation of same-sex marriages in Nigeria.
By the Memorandum the US agencies engaged abroad (without exception) - the Department of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Exim Bank, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the US Trade Representative, and the USAID – will have to use gay rights as one of the variables in determining relationship with client states.
In short, gay rights have become one of the cardinal principles of American Foreign Policy.
Earlier, David Cameron, the British Premier, and the Germans had reiterated similar sentiments. What is worrisome is that these veil threats are not directed at countries which have least credentials where human rights are concerned.
I am talking about wealthy Arab nations like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Malaysia, Indonesia, and others. These are nations with traditional abhorrence to same sex marriages, homosexualism, etc. These are countries who legally practise polygamy (which is criminal in the US and other Western countries); and these incidentally, are the most fondly friendly countries of the West.
What this means is that the Memorandum, though meant for universal application, in reality, is directed to mostly Africa. How sad!
The most disturbing aspect of the whole drama is that the US federal government does not recognise same-sex marriages.
Baffour, writing for NewAfrican, has done us a lot of good by ‘Googling’ to find that “the US federal government does not recognise same sex marriages in the United States, but such marriages are recognised by some individual states. The lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defence Marriage Act, before Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.
Such licenses are granted by six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont plus Washington DC, and Oregon’s Coquille, and Washington’s Suquamish Indian tribes…” In California attempts to have same sex marriages legalised was truncated by the passing of Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriages. Today twelve states prohibit same-sex marriages by statute and 29 do so constitutionally.
So in Obama’s own backyard the universalization of same-sex marriages is not achieved. The insipid desire to see global adherence to a minority belief and practices is therefore abhorrent, selfish, and unmeritorious.
We have had occasions in this column to warn that the attempt at universalizing any social theory, belief and/or philosophy will always stand condemned by socio-historical and cultural relativities. It is an undeniable fact that a people’s material environment determines their consciousness. It moulds their world-view, beliefs, philosophy, cultural practices, and development.
Until that environment has changed, it would be suicidal to impose any new values. Of course, society is dynamic and influences change perceptions and values. But such changes are evolutionary not revolutionary (via imposition). Our worry in this column is that reputable world leaders are by their utterances, desires, etc. making the world more chaotic.
The Paradise that God has created is being raped by satanic values under the guise of ‘human rights’. Which is of more value as human rights, ensuring food, clothing and shelter for the millions of starving people across the globe, or ensuring that homosexuals are allowed to practice openly their values and beliefs, no matter how abhorrent to society that might be? Should the world (the UN to be precise) be more concerned about the rights of homosexuals than the carnage, ensuing from intra-state wars, where thousands of innocent people die daily?
Should the UN and the developed world be more concerned about gay rights than the right to decent work and employment? Which is more a right, the right to education or the right to be gay? Indeed, the global paradise is being raped by the powers that have a vested interest in keeping the under-developed world in perpetual stagnation and decay, incidentally using the very global institutions (eg. the UN), tasked to ensure the continued sustenance of our God-given paradise.
Where socio-cultural issues are concerned globalisation is creating a clash of civilisations through the insipid desire to foist alien values on traditional societies. For example women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia; there are no gay and/or lesbian rights in Islamic societies, because the Holy Koran frowns on this.
To see rights as universal and therefore wish a revolutionary reverse of these norms in the said societies would be calling for revolt and instability. Incidentally, this is exactly what the West is doing, and worse of all, using the United Nations to achieve that end.
Last week, this column condemned the call by the UN Secretary-General on all countries to respect the rights of lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and trans-genders globally. We did so because the UN does not have to be seen to be pushing alien values on others, when it purports to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.
One may ask why this issue has become a matter of global concern? It is clear that in some advanced countries gay/lesbian rights have become a metaphor for determining politics and governance, consequently, the one to champion the cause, especially worldwide, would be the one to have really shown commitment.
This is especially so with the US and the UK. Come to think of it that on December 6, 2011, President Barack Obama issued a ‘Memorandum’, directing “all US Federal agencies engaged abroad to ensure the human rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender persons globally” (emphasis ours). Why globally? And note it that this followed closely at the same time, the criminalisation of same-sex marriages in Nigeria.
By the Memorandum the US agencies engaged abroad (without exception) - the Department of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Exim Bank, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the US Trade Representative, and the USAID – will have to use gay rights as one of the variables in determining relationship with client states.
In short, gay rights have become one of the cardinal principles of American Foreign Policy.
Earlier, David Cameron, the British Premier, and the Germans had reiterated similar sentiments. What is worrisome is that these veil threats are not directed at countries which have least credentials where human rights are concerned.
I am talking about wealthy Arab nations like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Malaysia, Indonesia, and others. These are nations with traditional abhorrence to same sex marriages, homosexualism, etc. These are countries who legally practise polygamy (which is criminal in the US and other Western countries); and these incidentally, are the most fondly friendly countries of the West.
What this means is that the Memorandum, though meant for universal application, in reality, is directed to mostly Africa. How sad!
The most disturbing aspect of the whole drama is that the US federal government does not recognise same-sex marriages.
Baffour, writing for NewAfrican, has done us a lot of good by ‘Googling’ to find that “the US federal government does not recognise same sex marriages in the United States, but such marriages are recognised by some individual states. The lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defence Marriage Act, before Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.
Such licenses are granted by six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont plus Washington DC, and Oregon’s Coquille, and Washington’s Suquamish Indian tribes…” In California attempts to have same sex marriages legalised was truncated by the passing of Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriages. Today twelve states prohibit same-sex marriages by statute and 29 do so constitutionally.
So in Obama’s own backyard the universalization of same-sex marriages is not achieved. The insipid desire to see global adherence to a minority belief and practices is therefore abhorrent, selfish, and unmeritorious.
We have had occasions in this column to warn that the attempt at universalizing any social theory, belief and/or philosophy will always stand condemned by socio-historical and cultural relativities. It is an undeniable fact that a people’s material environment determines their consciousness. It moulds their world-view, beliefs, philosophy, cultural practices, and development.
Until that environment has changed, it would be suicidal to impose any new values. Of course, society is dynamic and influences change perceptions and values. But such changes are evolutionary not revolutionary (via imposition). Our worry in this column is that reputable world leaders are by their utterances, desires, etc. making the world more chaotic.
The Paradise that God has created is being raped by satanic values under the guise of ‘human rights’. Which is of more value as human rights, ensuring food, clothing and shelter for the millions of starving people across the globe, or ensuring that homosexuals are allowed to practice openly their values and beliefs, no matter how abhorrent to society that might be? Should the world (the UN to be precise) be more concerned about the rights of homosexuals than the carnage, ensuing from intra-state wars, where thousands of innocent people die daily?
Should the UN and the developed world be more concerned about gay rights than the right to decent work and employment? Which is more a right, the right to education or the right to be gay? Indeed, the global paradise is being raped by the powers that have a vested interest in keeping the under-developed world in perpetual stagnation and decay, incidentally using the very global institutions (eg. the UN), tasked to ensure the continued sustenance of our God-given paradise.
Popular stories from Features
