Nigeria denies fundamental rights to homosexuals

[Ostroeuropa]

True. That is because, as the Nigerian law defines the crime, there is no actual necessity of any sexual act being promulgated in order for the meeting to be criminal. Not a sensible law; there should be a provision that the meeting was taking place beyond reasonable doubt due to the LGBT nature of the participants and not for some innocuous reason in order for the meeting to be criminal. But that's not what the Nigerian law is, and as such, you would be committing a criminal act.

The law is, actually, analogous to the New York law in place that makes the assembly of two or more persons with masks concealing their identities a criminal offence. The prosecution must prove that the participants were not merely associating by happenstance, but as long as they were actually deliberately meeting with their faces concealed, the law is not concerned with whether or not they were committing or intended to commit another crime; the mere fact that their faces were concealed is criminal, as in the Nigerian example the mere fact that you were LGBT is criminal.

It is especially problematic for AIDS relief groups trying to help LGBT Nigerians, as that is considered a "meeting". Effectively, international groups are barred from distributing any medical help to LGBT Nigerians under fear of being jailed.

This also makes it a worldwide health concern, and could be tantamount to a second genocide with biological weaponry since it means the government is passively allowing straights to be cured but not LGBT individuals.

[Luveria]

I totally like how you're comparing those to Nigeria, a country that kills people just for being gay.



It doesn't work that way. You leave the thread if you want to be left alone.

Well, then. Quit trying to compare homosexuals to blacks in the Apartheid.

Oh you're absolutely right. Homosexuals being killed for being gay is a lot worse than blacks having had less civil rights during Apartheid. My bad, I'm glad you caught that.

[Swedish Realm]

Some information about some of the things the new Nigerian law does;

- Participating in a "meeting" of two or more LGBT people will be punished with a 10 year prison sentence.
- Displaying any "affection" towards someone of the same gender in public, can be punished. A bro-hug will be punishable.

So we should send the troops, right? No, that is fucking stupid.

[The New Lowlands]

I totally like how you're comparing those to Nigeria, a country that kills people just for being gay.



It doesn't work that way. You leave the thread if you want to be left alone.

Well, then. Quit trying to compare homosexuals to blacks in the Apartheid.

Except, you know, the situations are quite similar.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't care if a fascist is poor, he's still a fascist.

These aren't 'fascists.' Nigeria is a democracy; this isn't like liberating North Korea or Cuba or Belarus, where you'll be displacing a small oligarchy or a dictator, where the people are much more inclined to be nice and democratic, this is the people implementing a law which they approve of. Intervening will merely incite violence on a larger, unofficial scale.

Then what may I ask will help? Because I'm sure as shit wringing our hands going "mercy me! those poor gays!" wont.

I'll be honest with you, I don't know for certain. Economic improvement might, or might not; increased education might, or might not. What I am reasonably sure of is that going in guns blazing is going to have the exact opposite effect of that intended.

It might not help the nigerians.
But what it will do is sufficiently stem the tide.
You wont see other nations thinking they can get away with this shit.

[Luveria]

It is especially problematic for AIDS relief groups trying to help LGBT Nigerians, as that is considered a "meeting". Effectively, international groups are barred from distributing any medical help to LGBT Nigerians under fear of being jailed.

This also makes it a worldwide health concern, and could be tantamount to a second genocide with biological weaponry since it means the government is passively allowing straights to be cured but not LGBT individuals.

The UN Human Rights Council has been asking nicely that the Nigerian government allow relief groups to help LGBT Nigerians, but the Nigerian government won't budge. It's not even passively allowing LGBT people to die from AIDS while straights get their foreign aid. It's actively and directly ensuring LGBT citizens get no treatment. The law was clearly intentionally designed so that nearly anything that amounts to knowing or unknowingly interacting with an LGBT person can get you jailed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Military intervention can be done only if it is done in the name of the U.N in my opinion. Doesn't the UN have access to NATO troops?

Individual states declaring war on their own will create an international chaos.

And that'd be fine if the UN weren't a clusterfuck of dictatorships.
Personally i'd prefer reforming NATO into a new UN with a democracies only requirement.
But hell, at least going to the UN for a mandate to invade would be progress of a kind. I just doubt it'd work given that plenty of countries in the UN have homophobic governments.

Well the U.N. has to be able to defend human and international rights. That's what they were created for.

If they cannot see the wrong that the Nigerian law will create then we're fucked; and if we use NATO as a coalition of independent states all on its own then we have Putin trying to save an international clusterfuck.

[Luveria]

Some information about some of the things the new Nigerian law does;

- Participating in a "meeting" of two or more LGBT people will be punished with a 10 year prison sentence.
- Displaying any "affection" towards someone of the same gender in public, can be punished. A bro-hug will be punishable.

So we should send the troops, right? No, that is fucking stupid.

We don't need any boots on the ground. Drones and cruise missiles will do nicely.

[The New Lowlands]

These aren't 'fascists.' Nigeria is a democracy; this isn't like liberating North Korea or Cuba or Belarus, where you'll be displacing a small oligarchy or a dictator, where the people are much more inclined to be nice and democratic, this is the people implementing a law which they approve of. Intervening will merely incite violence on a larger, unofficial scale.

I'll be honest with you, I don't know for certain. Economic improvement might, or might not; increased education might, or might not. What I am reasonably sure of is that going in guns blazing is going to have the exact opposite effect of that intended.

It might not help the nigerians.
But what it will do is sufficiently stem the tide.
You wont see other nations thinking they can get away with this shit.

Except you will, because if we (the West) intervene we'll be stuck there for 5+ years and won't have sufficient political capital to attack anyone else in future over the same issue.

[Ostroeuropa]

And that'd be fine if the UN weren't a clusterfuck of dictatorships.
Personally i'd prefer reforming NATO into a new UN with a democracies only requirement.
But hell, at least going to the UN for a mandate to invade would be progress of a kind. I just doubt it'd work given that plenty of countries in the UN have homophobic governments.

Well the U.N. has to be able to defend human and international rights. That's what they were created for.

If they cannot see the wrong that the Nigerian law will create then we're fucked; and if we use NATO as a coalition of independent states all on its own then we have Putin trying to save an international clusterfuck.

Like I said, if someone were to try the UN, it'd be progress of a kind at least.
I just suspect it'd fail.

[Ostroeuropa]

So we should send the troops, right? No, that is fucking stupid.

We don't need any boots on the ground. Drones and cruise missiles will do nicely.

That's the other point. We have the capability to operate from a distance.

[Risottia]

Nigeria is a democracy;

Bullshit.

"Democracy", by any modern standard, requires also rule-of-law and respect of human rights. Nigeria, by this law, fails in one of the prerequisites, and as such should be considered a "tyranny by majority".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It might not help the nigerians.
But what it will do is sufficiently stem the tide.
You wont see other nations thinking they can get away with this shit.

Except you will, because if we (the West) intervene we'll be stuck there for 5+ years and won't have sufficient political capital to attack anyone else in future over the same issue.

This is a good point.

Sending troops to Nigeria will have us investing at least 2 - 5 years at the very least in there.

[Swedish Realm]

So we should send the troops, right? No, that is fucking stupid.

We don't need any boots on the ground. Drones and cruise missiles will do nicely.

No, that will just end up killing innocents.

[The New Lowlands]

Nigeria is a democracy;

Bullshit.

"Democracy", by any modern standard, requires also rule-of-law and respect of human rights. Nigeria, by this law, fails in one of the prerequisites, and as such should be considered a "tyranny by majority".

I didn't say it was a good democracy.

[Luveria]

We don't need any boots on the ground. Drones and cruise missiles will do nicely.

No, that will just end up killing innocents.

Funny, that. You should explain to the Nigerian government that they are killing innocent LGBT people.

[Risottia]

Very comfy, isn't it?

What do you mean?

It's very comfy to ignore how Nigeria is behaving towards its gay citizens in the same way apartheid-times South Africa behaved towards its non-white citizens.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nigeria is a democracy;

Bullshit.

"Democracy", by any modern standard, requires also rule-of-law and respect of human rights. Nigeria, by this law, fails in one of the prerequisites, and as such should be considered a "tyranny by majority".

Very important point.
A democracy can err into being a tyranny of the majority occasionally, but momentum is typically toward rectifying the problem.
Nigeria has errd in the past, and has now demonstrated it's momentum is in the other direction.

[The New Lowlands]

We don't need any boots on the ground. Drones and cruise missiles will do nicely.

That's the other point. We have the capability to operate from a distance.

Which won't incite civilians to engage in violence against the LGBT people they'll blame for their problems.

[Luveria]

Except you will, because if we (the West) intervene we'll be stuck there for 5+ years and won't have sufficient political capital to attack anyone else in future over the same issue.

This is a good point.

Sending troops to Nigeria will have us investing at least 2 - 5 years at the very least in there.

It would be for the best. There is an obligation to guide democracies to adhering to a minimum standard of human rights.

[Risottia]

Bullshit.

"Democracy", by any modern standard, requires also rule-of-law and respect of human rights. Nigeria, by this law, fails in one of the prerequisites, and as such should be considered a "tyranny by majority".

I didn't say it was a good democracy.

And I wasn't saying you did.

[Luveria]

That's the other point. We have the capability to operate from a distance.

Which won't incite civilians to engage in violence against the LGBT people they'll blame for their problems.

Doesn't matter. LGBT Nigerians are already being killed just for being LGBT. Threatening to harm them more won't work as a form of hostage taking as they are already killing their "hostages" at every opportunity possible already. Intervention would put a halt to the systematic deaths of LGBT Nigerians.

[Ostroeuropa]

Except you will, because if we (the West) intervene we'll be stuck there for 5+ years and won't have sufficient political capital to attack anyone else in future over the same issue.

This is a good point.

Sending troops to Nigeria will have us investing at least 2 - 5 years at the very least in there.

That'd be if the US operated alone or with limited allies.
As i've said, I want a united front of democracies on these kinds of issues.

[The New Lowlands]

This is a good point.

Sending troops to Nigeria will have us investing at least 2 - 5 years at the very least in there.

It would be for the best. There is an obligation to guide democracies to adhering to a minimum standard of human rights.

So after invading, costing who knows how many innocent civilians' lives and damaging the already-shit reputation of LGBT people in Nigeria, we leave, and rather than state-sponsored violence we get violence by private citizens. Remind me how this is a solution?

[Luveria]

It would be for the best. There is an obligation to guide democracies to adhering to a minimum standard of human rights.

So after invading, costing who knows how many innocent civilians' lives and damaging the already-shit reputation of LGBT people in Nigeria, we leave, and rather than state-sponsored violence we get violence by private citizens. Remind me how this is a solution?

Reputation doesn't matter as LGBT people in the current state of affairs within Nigeria are already as good as dead. Intervention would allow them to live without fear of being killed just for being LGBT. Your solution is suggesting to do what amounts to absolutely nothing.