Foreign Aid should be linked to Human Rights

blueshade

I've just been watching an interview on Sky News with the President of Zambia. He describes homosexuals as 'sick'. 2 gay men have just been jailed for 15 years for the crime of 'crimes against the law of nature' which is the legal term for being gay in Zambia. He openly stated that he won't allow homosexuality in Zambia. All this has emerged because the American Ambassador to Zambia has been openly very critical of the President there. He says that in the last 24 months in which he has been Ambassador he has only been granted 5 private meetings with him at a cost of 200 million per meeting.

If this were a white country there would be global outrage against such despicable human rights violations and rightly so. But in the current climate it seems to be a case of not wanting to offend someone and be accused of racism taking precedence over the human rights of people whose rights are being violated by corrupt governments. The Zambian President has been in power for 15 years and appears to be doing very well off of it.

Let's be honest here, most African leaders are dictators who see it as their right to syphon off as much personal wealth from the Foreign Aid as they can during their Presidential term. I'd like to see an end to all Foreign Aid to countries who violate human rights. No more carrot and a lot more stick.

Fr_Dougal

Sounds like the President doth protest too much.

blueshade

Berties_Horse wrote: »

Is it cause he is black?

The 2 men serving a 15 year sentence for being gay are black. Their President is also black. I'm against all oppressive regimes who discriminate against their citizens who have a different religion or who are LGBTQ and I believe in equality. We wouldn't tolerate this from a white country and I don't believe we should tolerate it from a black one.

Montage of Feck

Much much does Micky D charge the US ambassador?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

200 million a meeting

beejee

To make things simple, imagine paedophilia was universally acceptable in ireland, and universally condemned in Zimbabwe.

Now imagine, as a Zimbabwean, Ireland telling you that your country needs to accept paedophilia in order to receive money for basic essentials.

That would be insane, wouldn't it?

Back to reality, I doubt anti homosexuality is 100% across Zambia. And an acceptance of homosexuality is far from 100% across Ireland.

Last consideration: imagine someone dying of starvation because of a lack of aid, because of some completely unrelated issue.

Accepting Cookies

Well we could talk about imposing our values upon other countries and restricting their aid, but I don't think using paedophilia as an example is a good one. There is a good quote, by James Baldwin. I believe- "We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist."

There are and will always be many opinions when it comes to rights for LGBTQ but for me, it comes down to allowing others their right to exist as they are. These men have had their lives taken away from them just because of the truth of who they are is not tolerable by their president. No one should have the right to deny others their humanity and right to exist and be who they are.

beejee

Accepting Cookies wrote: »

Well we could talk about imposing our values upon other countries and restricting their aid, but I don't think using paedophilia as an example is a good one. There is a good quote, by James Baldwin. I believe- "We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist."

There are and will always be many opinions when it comes to rights for LGBTQ but for me, it comes down to allowing others their right to exist as they are. These men have had their lives taken away from them just because of the truth of who they are is not tolerable by their president. No one should have the right to deny others their humanity and right to exist and be who they are.

I think it's entirely appropriate.

Further, the marrying age in Zambia can be acceptable as low 13 years old.

Therefore, within that society, widespread paedophilia would impede on nobody. So it wouldn't be denying anyone the right to exist and be who they are.

And therein lies the problem. The view that every thing in "the west" is correct and proper, is just flat out wrong.

And what exactly are the values of Ireland these days? What is it, exactly, that has unanimous support? So much so, that we are in a position to categorically declare right and wrong on others? You'll find very little, I think.

One eyed Jack

blueshade wrote: »

Let's be honest here, most African leaders are dictators who see it as their right to syphon off as much personal wealth from the Foreign Aid as they can during their Presidential term. I'd like to see an end to all Foreign Aid to countries who violate human rights. No more carrot and a lot more stick.

Well since we’re being honest, if this were a white country, they wouldn’t need the foreign aid. Think of foreign aid as payment for whitey going over there and colonising all these non-whitey countries for their natural resources. Had whitey minded their own business and kept themselves to themselves, their former colonies wouldn’t need their foreign aid.

Vic_08

Accepting Cookies wrote: »

Well we could talk about imposing our values upon other countries and restricting their aid,

The US have been at that for years with money for AIDS prevention projects only available if they pushed abstinence before marriage over STD protection, exporting the right wing puritanical garbage that still infects US sex education.

Richard Hillman

Foreign Aid should be voluntary. A government account set up, if anybody wants to donate, away you go.

1bn a year gets spent on Foreign Aid. For that much you can double the amount of Garda in Ireland and increase the amount of nurses by 10,000.

Accepting Cookies

beejee wrote: »

I think it's entirely appropriate.

Further, the marrying age in Zambia can be acceptable as low 13 years old.

Therefore, within that society, widespread paedophilia would impede on nobody. So it wouldn't be denying anyone the right to exist and be who they are.

And therein lies the problem. The view that every thing in "the west" is correct and proper, is just flat out wrong.

And what exactly are the values of Ireland these days? What is it, exactly, that has unanimous support? So much so, that we are in a position to categorically declare right and wrong on others? You'll find very little, I think.

Paedophilia impedes on the lives of the young children who's childhood has been stolen. Not all views in the west are correct of course, but those that impede on other's lives could stand the test?

AllForIt

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

200 million a meeting

Must be Zambian currency which in our money would be about €3.99

beejee

Accepting Cookies wrote: »

Paedophilia impedes on the lives of the young children who's childhood has been stolen. Not all views in the west are correct of course, but those that impede on other's lives could stand the test?

Who decides what qualifies as impedance?

Getting married in ireland at age 13 is unacceptable. We see it as an impedance.

Getting married over there? It is acceptable, and roughly must not be seen as an impedance.

So, as I said, paedophilia wouldn't impede on anyone over there.

And this isn't a matter of an economically developed country versus an underdeveloped economy. Look at traditions in Japan that would be considered abhorrent here.

I sincerely doubt thay the loudmouth champions of social justice in the West, amplified by the Internet, have the ability to see that THEY are often viewed as abhorrent themselves.

Self-righteous psychos.

Ipso

It also depends who gets to spend the money, if it's a reputable charity it would be a shame to remove resources which would end up making places worse.
I remember after the tsunami in SE Asia in 2004, there was a report on Channel 4 from Sri Lanka. Clean water was delivered to an area which was subsequently used to watch the floors of a police station.

Accepting Cookies

beejee wrote: »

Who decides what qualifies as impedance?

Getting married in ireland at age 13 is unacceptable. We see it as an impedance.

Getting married over there? It is acceptable, and roughly must not be seen as an impedance.

So, as I said, paedophilia wouldn't impede on anyone over there.

And this isn't a matter of an economically developed country versus an underdeveloped economy. Look at traditions in Japan that would be considered abhorrent here.

I sincerely doubt thay the loudmouth champions of social justice in the West, amplified by the Internet, have the ability to see that THEY are often viewed as abhorrent themselves.

Self-righteous psychos.

Well on this topic, the people giving the aid money decide I suppose, rightly or wrongly. But just because paedophilia is allowed over there, do you think that it really isn't seen as an impedence, or wrong? Perhaps it's something they abhor and wish could change, that reality and laws were different? I think when you start talking in terms of "The West" it's a broad stroke of a brush. There are many different view points and entire countries are divided over them.

Jurgen Klopp

Was it Zambia or Uganda, whichever one is land locked, that the Irish government happily handed over money for fighter jets so said country could conduct "maritime patrols" ?

Thelonious Monk

beejee wrote: »

To make things simple, imagine paedophilia was universally acceptable in Ireland.

It was until the 90s. We were world leaders.