29 Jan 2006 |
|
|
Since the federal government, in typical diversionary tactic (“let’s give them something to play with while we get on with our major plans”), embarked on banning same-sex marriage, a good number of people have invested their time, energy and--at least in one particular case--considerable talent and skill, in praising the needless bill. Though overloaded and wobbling in an awkward manner, it is unfortunate that this anti-homosexual bandwagon will not capsize and send its riders to the ground where they may reconnect with our existing undeveloped reality, which does not have homosexuality as a major issue. Yet even as this new enterprise is thriving because of the ill-advised support of many, one will not join the bandwagon because it will be shameful to abandon principle in order to jump on a popular trend. Lest this matter be misunderstood--and they are many who will deliberately choose to misunderstand it--the point is not whether homosexuality is wrong or right; whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry or not; it is simply a question of how we came to need a law banning homosexuality, lesbianism and marriage between people of the same sex. At what point did any of that become a major issue in this country? Were there no extant laws banning homosexuality prior to this? As Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, likes to say, let us speak the truth to ourselves: Is there any Nigerian who has come out to say, “I am a homosexual/lesbian and I want to marry my fellow man/woman?” A distasteful and dangerous business This is simply a matter of prying into people’s bedrooms and it is distasteful to say the least. Those who hate homosexuals are free to do so. And those of us who are indifferent are also free to take that stand. What must not be buried in any holier-than-thou rhetoric, no matter how cleverly worded, is that decent folk simply do not meddle in deeds occurring in other people’s bedrooms. For instance, those of us who believe in polygamy--and your correspondent is one--and have, or would like to have, as many wives as is practical, would not be interested in having what we do with our wives in the privacy of our bedrooms become the subject of national discuss, let alone legislation. Similarly, let the point be repeated that what other people do in their bedrooms should not concern us. If it’s good enough for one, then, by all things fair, let it also be good enough for the rest. Legislation in this area is not only a crass waste of time, it is also dangerous. Why should sexual deeds in the bedrooms of the people become the business of the state? How is the law to be enforced--by sending spies into people’s bedrooms? This incremental introduction of a police state must not be allowed to happen without a challenge. Of course, this being homosexuality--something stigmatised to the utmost level--even those who share this view will not speak up so that they won’t be accused of being gay themselves. For the record, let it be made clear here that name-calling is a filthy exercise usually the pastime of people who have low self-esteem and can hardly separate the issue from the person. As such, even if this would be the lone voice in the wilderness crying against this obnoxious invasion of people’s privacy, then so be it. The state moved against miracles being shown on air. Then came the spate of trite pronouncements on so-called dress codes in tertiary institutions and some other places. This dress code nonsense was even the subject of a bill at the National Assembly at one time! Now the state wants to dictate what people should do in their bedrooms. That is simply disgusting. And worse: it is a cheap attempt to divert attention from the real issues of the day. Still the same old ‘follow the West’ mania Among the reasons being given by those who have fallen for this populist bait is something to the effect that, “It is good because for once we are not copying the West.” The naivety in this position is simply amazing. Didn’t More to the point: is this law likely to spur agricultural output? Would it improve the education sector? What about power and basic infrastructure? Isn’t it sad that we’ve allowed ourselves to be duped into making a whole lot of noise over a law that serves no real purpose? How, somebody should please let this writer know, does this law help in ensuring “the security and welfare of the people” which the Constitution says is the primary purpose of government? Lest one behaves like the person who claims his neighbour is almost dying when the man himself says he only has stomach ache, why are the homosexuals not shouting for their right to marry themselves? Is it not because they already feel and know well the censure of society? It is even more annoying to find some characters coming out of the woodwork to jump on imaginary moral high horses to preach all manner of nonsense about decadence in society. Some of these same characters are part of those who contributed to the decadence they are now condemning by looting and mismanaging Nigeria into the sad state she now finds herself in. Their generation had jobs waiting for them before they left school. Some had cars and houses given to them before they even collected their first pay cheque. Yet a good number of them joined in ruining this country such that your correspondent’s generation has never known any worthwhile order. We didn’t have jobs waiting for us when we came out of school; indeed many of our peers are still unemployed with their degrees and all. And whose fault? Bogus denials and impractical suggestions Moreover, all this posturing about how homosexuality is not African and all that, would somebody please tell this writer how the term yan daudu came about in the North where one lives? With all due respect, your correspondent can say with absolute certainty that one’s first language, Ibibio, does not have an equivalent to yan daudu. Yet, only those who do not like to speak the truth to themselves would say that they never heard of queer stories coming out of boarding schools even in those parts. And who will say he or she has not heard that some of those we call ‘leaders’ in this country are into this practice and other practices such as incest and bestiality? So where do people get off proposing that all homosexuals should be killed? How, one must ask, will they be identified in the first instance? By stopping everyone in the street and asking if they are gay or not? Hypocrisy being a well-known aspect of human existence, it would be pointless to cry against it here. Meanwhile, this ‘kill-them-all’ talk reminds your correspondent that Mr Idang Alibi, a member of the Editorial Board of the Trust papers and a columnist with the Daily Trust, once wrote something to the effect that all HIV/AIDS sufferers should go into the river and drown. Considering that he is usually a mild-mannered gentleman with an understanding attitude, one has never been able to grasp how Mr Alibi could have written something so fundamentally inappropriate, not to mention impractical. It is that sort of unfortunate slip that one sees in this ‘kill-them-all’ attitude that would surely be used at some point to haunt certain people. Nazis had popular policies too Let this be recorded in passing: Holocaust deniers are always harping on how it is impossible for such a large number of people to have been killed without the society reacting against it. They forget that Hitler and his Nazis came into power democratically. In other words, they and many of their policies had the popular support of the people. Thereafter, obnoxious laws passed by Hitler’s regime instantly criminalized some sections of the society. It is well-known that the German state went about this horrible killing business in a disciplined and methodical manner that the Nigerian state cannot replicate in organising mere fertilizer distribution or Hajj events. Now here we are at a sorry pass where some people are openly calling for the mass killing of all homosexuals. In order to have this repulsive desire actualised, some have started advocating in effect that it is better for the state to do all that can be done to kill all homosexuals than face squarely the business of development that should be the chief concern of the government. Isn’t that a tragedy? Here is something to chew on: those who do nothing--or worse; celebrate--when the hangman comes for their neighbour should reflect on the possibility that the hangman may well come for them the next time. Today it’s homosexuals. Tomorrow it could be handicapped people or single mothers. One will live and die on the major ideal of the Constitution of this country which was enacted towards “promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country, on the principles of freedom, equality and justice.” This ridiculous new anti-gay law does not serve that ideal. Finally, let the anti-homosexual bandwagon riders not be surprised if the principal actor in this drama succeeds in bamboozling them into unwittingly endorsing a sit-tight agenda that may mash both homosexuals and heterosexuals into a pitiful existence at its conclusion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.