“These boys committed a crime against our culture, our religion and our laws; however, as the head of state I hereby pardon them and therefore ask for their immediate release with no conditions,” Mr. wa Mutharika said after meeting with the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, here in Malawi’s capital.
“I have done this on humanitarian grounds but this does not mean that I support this,” he added.
Forgiveness occupies a time-honoured and very acceptable place in Christianity, and, as Mr. Bingu wa Mutharika says, should not be accompanied by conditionalities.
Given the history of gay militancy in the West, however, this concession will likely be SOON construed … and sold … in Malawi and elsewhere as a “victory” for the movement!
The task for policy-makers in Malawi in the ensuing days, I suspect, would be to start the process of rationalizing what gay-militancy and activism means for the local ethos given the abundance of legal, medical, social, scientific, moral and religious evidence against behaviour-based disorders of a sexual nature. We had raised similar questions in the online article “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )
Roger Williams, tek care you don’t end up getting sent to prison there buddy, as your single minded obsession with this topic is, in my opinion, an indicator that you are trying desperately to repress that little pink fairy inside.
Whoever’s gay, let them be fucking gay, who cares. You don’t have to mingle with them if you don’t like em. Child molesters and rapists of any orientation is who needs to be dealt with and Guyana is fucking full of those in high and low places…
better watch how you talkin to big willi roger
Kudos once again, Eye M@n for hitting the nail on the head.
I dunno, Eye Man … mental and psychosexual disorders have their consequences!
We learned from the Jamaica dialogue (“How Wise Decriminalizing Homosexuality?”) that gay militancy thrived on the innate insecurities of persons who WOULD NOT read about their “lifestyle” (do you qualify?) or who would not confront them (do you qualify?)! Usually, I have found that this also meant persons who had no children (do you, Eye Man?)
If you have children, the following excerpt from a 2002 law-review would be useful if you dare to read. It raises fertile opportunity for research scientists and policy-makers in the Caribbean:
“Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”
(http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc )
“…. Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent….”
Then read another Rasta’s view opposing what you have just said in the letter at http://www.stabroeknews.com/2008/letters/05/27/those-in-support-of-homosexuality-are-more-interested-in-their-hedonistic-agenda-than-in-individual-freedom/ )
How would you respond to Ras Ashkar?
ATTENTION:
If this Matharika is truly humitarian in heart, then he aught to have legislation enacted to protect those whose sexual identity or orientation, does not fit the historic and cultural preferences of his culture or country.
And it also ensures that they get the Hunman Rights Protection/Entitlement like everyone else in that society too.
Derryck.
NYC.
Derryck, how does one “protect” a mental or psycho-sexual disorder?
Try reading “The Case Against cross-dressing or Transgenderism in Guyana” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/27698238/The-Case-Against-Cross-Dressing-or-Transgender-ism-in-Guyana-UPDATED )
Lawyer Roger J Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”) makes the point:
“… As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade. The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis…”
Focus, man … read the facts … and don’t depend on childish emotion !