Ghana refuses to grant gay rights despite UK aid threat

[News_Editor]

Ghana refuses to grant gay rights despite UK aid threat

2011-11-03 08:48:48 GMT+7 (ICT)

ACCRA (BNO NEWS) -- Ghanaian President John Atta Mills on Wednesday rejected the United Kingdom's threat to cut aid if the country refuses to legalize homosexuality, media reports said.

Atta Mills said the British government cannot impose its values on Ghana. "I, as president, will never initiate or support any attempt to legalize homosexuality in Ghana," he said, as quoted by the BBC.

The announcement comes after British Prime Minister David Cameron threatened to cut aid to countries which fail to respect gay rights. Cameron said he had raised the issue of gay rights at last week's Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia.

Atta Mills said Cameron is entitled to his views, but he did not have the right to "direct to other sovereign nations as to what they should do." He emphasized that Ghana's "societal norms" are different from those in the United Kingdom.

Cameron's threat applies only to one type of bilateral aid known as general budget support, and would not reduce the overall amount of aid to any country. Ghana received bilateral aid from the UK of about £90 million ($144 million) during the last financial year, of which about £36 million ($57 million) was general budget support.

Uganda also rejected the threat, with an official accusing the British government of showing a "bullying mentality." Many African governments argue that homosexuality violates religious and cultural beliefs and have therefore made it illegal.

In October 7, a Ghanaian church official warned locals about homosexuality and said it is largely 'caused' by poverty and unemployment. "He said the actors (homosexuals) give their victims fat envelopes of money and assorted gifts to entice them into the act and advised the youth to beware," state-run media reported, referring to Reverend Dr. Bugri Nagbo who is the Northern Regional Chairman of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana.

The law in Ghana makes consenting homosexual acts a misdemeanor. But lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders (LGBTs) face widespread discrimination as well as police harassment and extortion attempts. Gay men in prison are often subjected to sexual and other physical abuse.

In late July, Western Region Minister Paul Evans Aidoo ordered the arrest of all homosexuals in the region and tasked security agencies to 'smoke out' all citizens suspected to be engaging in homosexual acts. "All efforts are being made to get rid of these people in the society," he was cited as saying by local radio station Joy FM.

In June 2010, more than 1,000 people protested in the city of Takoradi against reports of gay and lesbian activities in their city. There are no registered LGBT organizations in the African country.

Some 41 nations within the 54-member Commonwealth have laws banning homosexual acts. Many of these laws are a legacy of British colonial rule.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-11-03

[JemJem]

Well done to Mr. Cameron. I hope he will not back down on his word.

Those of us caring about gay rights should boycott countries like Ghana, Uganda, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Islam and Christianity continue to show how much love and compassion they contain and spread. Noooot !

Jem

[Steely Dan]

Cameron has no right to talk about other peoples rights, what about all the deaths of civilians he has caused in Libya what about their rights? He is no more than a canting hypocrite of the worst kind!

Aid is discretionary and the UK are perfectly within their rights to make such aid contingent on whatever they like. This is also in line with the universal human rights declaration so in my view is not unreasonable either.

P.S I see no hypocrisy here, providing the UK also makes aid to other Countries contingent to the same criteria, which should at a stroke eliminate aid to the entire middle east.

[luckizuchinni]

Cameron has no right to talk about other peoples rights, what about all the deaths of civilians he has caused in Libya what about their rights? He is no more than a canting hypocrite of the worst kind!

Aid is discretionary and the UK are perfectly within their rights to make such aid contingent on whatever they like. This is also in line with the universal human rights declaration so in my view is not unreasonable either.

P.S I see no hypocrisy here, providing the UK also makes aid to other Countries contingent to the same criteria, which should at a stroke eliminate aid to the entire middle east.

+1

The UK can give aid to whomever they want, and of course, they can withhold aid to whomever they want. If Ghana wants to arrest people for being gay, then the UK has every right to say no more aid.

As an aside, in the article, it reports that gays are subject to sexual abuse in prison. I would assume that the people doing the abusing are men? If so, what would they be doing which would not constitute "gay sex." and what does that make them? This reminds me of Iraq where gay men are sometimes raped by so-called straight men to "punish" them for being gay. My mind just cannot grasp how that concept makes any sense at all.

[Jingthing]

UK people are lucky that their present day conservatives are actually liberals on social issues such as this. The USA conservatives are almost as bad as that Ghanian president, and certainly would never support action against oppression of gays abroad.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Jingthing

[nontabury]

I think the uk government should not tell other countries how to live their lives, would the uk government be happy if another country told them what to do.

[Jingthing]

I think the uk government should not tell other countries how to live their lives, would the uk government be happy if another country told them what to do.

It's not a matter of making happy. I am sure the gays in Ghana appreciate the support from abroad.

[luckizuchinni]

I think the uk government should not tell other countries how to live their lives, would the uk government be happy if another country told them what to do.

They are not telling them anything. All they are doing is choosing to withhold charity, something they are under no obligation to give in the first place.

I personally have given money to charities only to find out later that I didn't agree with some aspect about them. I then chose in each incident to shift my charity to another organization. The UK is simply doing the same thing on a much larger scale.

[Daffy D]

They should stop all foreign aid to all contries.

Lets look after our own first.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Daffy D

[otissp]

as ron paul noted, "foreign aid" usually means taking money from poor people in your own country and giving it to rich people in other countries in order to manipulate other countries' politics

Edited November 3, 2011 by otissp

[JemJem]

I think the uk government should not tell other countries how to live their lives, would the uk government be happy if another country told them what to do.

So, you don't care if gays, women and some other groups suffered in some countries around the world ? Have some compassion, man.

Change in countries like Ghana comes very very slowly. Outside pressure helps (and any help is appreciated) but real positive effect would come from local celebrities. In Ghana, football is the number one sport and most Ghanaian poeple are very passionate about football. So, if, for example, a prominent football player in Ghana, speaks in favor gay rights, a lot of positive outcome would come from that.

Jem

[Scott]

An off-topic post and a reply have been deleted.

[endure]

I think the uk government should not tell other countries how to live their lives, would the uk government be happy if another country told them what to do.

No they weren't but they had to change the law when the ECHR told them to stop discriminating against gays in the military.

[johna]

All aid money is "tied aid", usually coupled to something that benefits the donor more the the recipient.

I guess Cameron cant find anything in Ghana worth worth exploiting.

[JUDAS]

From the OP: "Cameron's threat applies only to one type of bilateral aid known as general budget support, and would not reduce the overall amount of aid to any country. Ghana received bilateral aid from the UK of about £90 million ($144 million) during the last financial year, of which about £36 million ($57 million) was general budget support.

Am I misinterpreting the above to mean they will still get the exact same amount in aid but with a different label applied to it?

[geriatrickid]

Quite the dilemma for armchair sitting lefties. Solidarity with their African brethern or solidarity with those suffering hateful acts sanctioned by their beloved African brethern. I can't wait to see the London protests. A clash of urban lefties. In the interim, some poor souls are living in abject terror and great risk to life and limb.

[Bizz]

The UK has come a long way they are trying to put a wrong right. We should applaud them.

Some 41 nations within the 54-member Commonwealth have laws banning homosexual acts. Many of these laws are a legacy of British colonial rule.

[Credo]

You can't outlaw hate, but you can outlaw discrimination.

I laud the efforts of the UK government. Ghana is not ignoring a problem; they are actively persecuting a group of people and not just the people, but those that might be gay. That's pretty scary. That's really not good for anyone.

[Steely Dan]

All aid money is "tied aid", usually coupled to something that benefits the donor more the the recipient.

I guess Cameron cant find anything in Ghana worth worth exploiting.

Risible in every way. Presumably seeing as the UK must previously have given aid to Ghana they must have somehow ceased finding anything to exploit (using your logic ) and hence used the gay rights issue as a convenient excuse in order to stop giving aid. By your cynical and twisted logic you could furthermore conclude the UK government was dreading Ghana actually granting gay rights to it's citizens in light of having then been obliged to give money to a Country they can see no more advantage to be extracted from. :jap:

P.S Kid is spot on, there must be many exploding heads amongst the armchair lefties having to sit so uncomfortably on the fence.

[Jingthing]

P.S Kid is spot on, there must be many exploding heads amongst the armchair lefties having to sit so uncomfortably on the fence.

I reckon that is a huge exaggeration. I reckon most of the opposition to the UK pressure on Ghana is from the right wing disguising their homophobia with fake concern over imperialism, not the left wing.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

P.S Kid is spot on, there must be many exploding heads amongst the armchair lefties having to sit so uncomfortably on the fence.

Nah. I reckon most of the opposition to the UK protest is from the right wing disguising their homophobia with fake concern over imperialism, not the left wing.

[Steely Dan]

P.S Kid is spot on, there must be many exploding heads amongst the armchair lefties having to sit so uncomfortably on the fence.

Nah. I reckon most of the opposition to the UK protest is from the right wing disguising their homophobia with fake concern over imperialism, not the left wing.

Jing, I don't want to stray too far off topic here but as you pointed out earlier there is actually far less of a tendency for homophobia to be the preserve of any particular wing in the UK (I can't speak for the U.S). What I do find somewhat amusing is how the left appear to have a pecking order of acceptable causes to champion and there is thus an inbuilt cognitive dissonance in their stance (again from a UK perspective.). Nowhere is this more apparent than the championing of a group in the name of multiculturalism who would abolish all gay rights in a heartbeat, so as Kid says it must cause a dilemma to put it mildly.

[Ijustwannateach]

There is another irony here: a generation ago such aid boycotts (and even trade boycotts) would have been in reference to apartheid in South Africa regarding black and white South Africans and their equality under the law.

If you see the issue of civil rights for gays as less important now, why? It could have been argued back then that South Africa had different 'societal norms'. Would those posters arguing against this stance now argue that other countries had no business putting pressure on South Africa to change? If so, then at least you're consistently bigoted...

The times are changing. The people today who are intolerant of homosexuality will be the same level, socially, in the future, as those people today who still call black people names.

Fortunately, from what I see in this thread, most of the posters here will be good company!

[Daffy D]

Why do things always get so complicated. I don't care what the reasons (real of imaginary) that are being banded about. Stop aid to all countries especially the Africa ones.

Most if not all the African countries fought long, bitter and bloody battles to gain freedom and Independence from "Colonial Oppression"

Well they got, perhaps someone should point out to them that Independence is different to the DEPENDENCE they fought so long and hard against.

Lets not forget that there are many private charities working and pouring money into these countries already.

[AsiaCheese]

I think the uk government should not tell other countries how to live their lives, would the uk government be happy if another country told them what to do.

Reality check: isn't it so that the UK has bent over backwards to muslim sensibilities? Make jokes about any religion you care to mention & all you get is shrugs. Mention "muslim" and you're likely to face prison...

[uxno]

right on!

UK people are lucky that their present day conservatives are actually liberals on social issues such as this. The USA conservatives are almost as bad as that Ghanian president, and certainly would never support action against oppression of gays abroad.

[KeyserSoze01]

Rights should not be qualified as either gay or non-gay. Simple human dignity should be all that matters. Here the UK is trying to impose their belief system on an entire African nation. If for no other reason than that, Ghanaian officials should tell the UK where to shove their aid.Aid should be provided carte blanche, without strings attached.

Personally, I'm with Daffy on this one. All aid to all foreign nations should be cut to zero. Only then will countries either survive or fail on their own merits. Oh, and yes, that includes the western countries who are living on borrowed $$$.

[MrMuddle]

UK people are lucky that their present day conservatives are actually liberals on social issues such as this. The USA conservatives are almost as bad as that Ghanian president, and certainly would never support action against oppression of gays abroad.

Sorry, I think you're wrong here. Present day British Conservatives, who have not been able to gain a working majority in Parliament since 1992, are merely trying to protect, and hopefully increase their share of the "pink" vote. It's also interesting to note all the praise for Cameron, who is the leader of a coalition government with the Liberal party. The Liberals are historically, much more likely than the Conservatives to push this kind of pro-gay action. Cameron is an opportunist, he knows he will gain more votes than he loses by taking this stance.

Personally I think for a nation to punish it's citizens for their sexual preferences is abhorrent. However it should be remembered that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until the mid-1960s.

I do, however, agree with those who say all UK aid should be stopped, to every country, especially in the current financial climate.

[Bizz]

I fell compelled to iterate my feelings as a heterosexual.

Contemporary British attitudes towards LGBT rights and homosexuality are regarded as liberal.

The age of consent stands at 16 regardless of sexual orientation. In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act created a process for transsexual and transgender people to change their legal sex. The landmark Civil Partnership Act 2004 created a parallel legal structure to marriage, giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including the eligibility to apply to adopt children. In addition, discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal in many fields, including housing, employment, and the provision of goods and services. Likewise, Her Majesty's Armed Forces allows LGBT individuals to serve openly.

In December 2008, the United Kingdom, along with 65 other countries, signed a United Nations declaration calling for the global decriminalization of homosexuality.

A compelling illustration of social attitudes towards homosexuality in the United Kingdom was provided in May 2007 in a survey by You-gov. The poll indicated that the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007-outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation-was supported by 90 per cent of UK citizens. It also showed some very positive public perceptions of gay people in particular. Furthermore, a survey carried out in October 2008 by The Observer affirmed that the majority of Britons (55%) support gay marriage.

Least we forget the world is a small place.