Nigeria, Britain Disagree On Issue Of Homosexuality

Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, has said that “Britain’s threat to reduce foreign aid to Commonwealth countries that do not support homosexual rights, puts its relations with Nigeria at risk.

Prof. Bola Akinterinwa, Director-General, NIIA, said this in an interview with the News Agency of Nigerian (NAN) on Sunday in Abuja.

“If the British will now say they will not provide assistance to Nigeria because we have taken the position of an opponent, what will happen is that the British will simply be threatening their own interest in Nigeria.

“The British are likely to lose more than Nigeria would have done.

“ Already the British needs Nigeria as a special ally in Africa. In Africa, Nigeria is the biggest democracy within the context of the Commonwealth. So Nigeria is not a Lilliputian that you can push around.”

Akinterinwa told NAN that Britain, using the conditionality to define development assistance to countries that did not support homosexual rights was unacceptable.

“That Great Britain will use that as condition in defining development assistance to such country is most unacceptable.

“Unacceptable because it seems to me to be an exaggeration of the decision taken in Laboule conference.

“The conference in Laboule in France decided on the use of democratization as a precondition for granting assistance to countries.

“Democratization is more of a universal value than we can so consider same sex marriage to be.

Speaking on the issue of same sex marriage, the director-general added that it conflicted with the norms of any civilised society and was not acceptable.

He said that supporting it would only increase the level of immorality and it would create a culture that is not African.

“Same sex marriage is an aberration, it conflicts with godliness.”

Akinterinwa advised that government should be ready to face the hostility that would come from Nigerians if it officially subscribed to this type of rights.

NAN recalls that David Cameron, British Prime Minister, in October at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia, threatened to withhold aid from governments that did not reform legislation banning homosexuality.

The Nigerian National Assembly has begun hearing on a bill meant to criminalize same sex marriage and could make it punishable with a five-year jail term.

PM News

  1. Kelvin Egbele Reply

    Nigeria should find every way they can not to legalize same sex in our country cos if it does happen that is the end for our future generations to come…….

    • Isabel Reply

      , let us continue to saspionately and articulately express our ideas and visions for change. Even if that means that we will agree to disagree on certain things.That being said, @ Mr. Laspapi: I see you continue to disagree and you raise question about the sources I quoted. In order to further the conversation, if you so desire, please feel free to provide your explanation for why you disagree with my culture:corruption suggestion. Your statements suggest that because the sources I quoted are non-Nigerian, or did not specifically study Nigeria, they cannot be accurate. Assuming that you are correct, I must note that I got these sources from papers written by Nigerians (Victor Dike, is one). Nevertheless, if you have other sources that you think would be more credible or accurate, do share.As to your point on the potential distinction between culture and tradition. I personally see traditions as being a part of one’s culture.@ Dee: I am glad that you raise the issue of accountability because many will argue that the lack of accountability is why corruption is rampant in Nigeria. I assume that by “Who are Nigerians accountable to?” you mean our leaders and elected officials, because as Nilla noted, the statement may not be clear. It is obvious that despite democracy, we are yet to have a system that requires accountability from elected officials. My hope is that this will change as Nigerians continue to exercise their rights and begin to realize that we deserve and must demand better of our leaders and officials. With time and continued effort, things must change.

    • Ilona Reply

      so multiples time. We also live in a cnrotuy based heavily on individual freedom, so any time you impose restrictions, you are limiting people’s rights. Occasionally, this will be necessary, sure, but there needs to be a clear and proven reason for this.The restrictions that the courts had placed on marriage are that it be between two people who are unrelated, unmarried, and of consenting age. Then Prop 8 added a restriction saying it must also be between a man and a woman. We do not disagree with the other restrictions, we are simply asking for the justification for limiting it to only man and woman. This does not require us to discuss or justify the other restrictions since we are not questioning them. Just like the case on interracial marriage did not involve the other existing restrictions.”You say that if something is not compulsory (i.e. procreation) then it is not justification for restrictions; and you say that if something can occur outside of marriage (i.e. procreation) then it is not justification for restrictions.”I’m saying that you claim procreation as a “core meaning” of marriage, even though this is reflected nowhere in the law, and even though you willingly bend that “meaning” for various opposite-sex couples. So if you could provide a clear reason or any real evidence that procreation is at the core of marriage, or that it should be considered a good enough reason to deny people a fundamental human right, it would be greatly appreciated.”And based on what you described as your SSM idea, the idea you would substitute for the core meaningn of marriage, these rules that you have relied upon would destroy whatever unstated justification you might have in mind for rerstricting SSM.”If you could explain how a core meaning of “commitment and family” would “destroy” anything, or how these are inconsistent in any way with the current laws and social understanding of marriage, I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, this specific part of your post doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m not advocating restricting SSM, you are. We are advocating marriage, something that already exists, and has been ruled again and again to be a fundamental human right. We are simply saying that one of the restrictions that you have placed on it violates our rights, and you can’t provide any justification for this. Again, just like removing the restriction on interracial marriages did not change the core meaning of marriage, this doesn’t either. You can’t justify the core meaning being “procreating and uniting the sexes” just by saying you think it is. Repetition of an opinion is not the same as proof.

      • Yolannax Reply

        I think right now,all we need do is tm pray for the rertoration of our dear ctrnouy Nigeria.Our president should equally be prayed for.He can’t succeed by ruling in his human wisdom. No wonder he has taken a decision which is not favourable to Nigerians. Please Nigerians, let’s pray for Jonathan,he needs it.

  2. Chet Reply

    Mitt Romney and his part in the radical homosexual agenda!

Leave a Reply