Ghana passes bill to make identifying as LGBTQ+ illegal.

[TDAS04]

Yeah, Ghana is undoubtedly one of the most democratic countries in Africa (and arguably the most, if you consider regular closely contested elections and transfers of party power important measures of democracy, which would then place it ahead of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia).

the most democratic African countries are small island nations like Mauritius and Cape Verde

Also, all five of the countries I highlighted here appear to be among the best least bad African countries in terms of LGBT rights. Especially South Africa (the only one with full legal equality/gay marriage) and Cape Verde (where the population may be even more LGBT-accepting of that of South Africa).

Ghana, however, is pretty typical for mainland West Africa when it comes to virulent homophobia.

[Horus]

Definitely a North -South divide forming in Africa as both Angola and Mozambique have legalized LGBT relations within the past couple years

[nerd73]

Yeah, Ghana is undoubtedly one of the most democratic countries in Africa (and arguably the most, if you consider regular closely contested elections and transfers of party power important measures of democracy, which would then place it ahead of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia).

the most democratic African countries are small island nations like Mauritius and Cape Verde

Also, all five of the countries I highlighted here appear to be among the best least bad African countries in terms of LGBT rights. Especially South Africa (the only one with full legal equality/gay marriage) and Cape Verde (where the population may be even more LGBT-accepting of that of South Africa).

Ghana, however, is pretty typical for mainland West Africa when it comes to virulent homophobia.

I remember looking at Ugandan Twitter when that law was passed. Lots of people asking about who the legislators that voted against were and implying they were 'sodomites' themselves, and that they needed 'to get in touch with god'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, Ghana is undoubtedly one of the most democratic countries in Africa (and arguably the most, if you consider regular closely contested elections and transfers of party power important measures of democracy, which would then place it ahead of South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia).

the most democratic African countries are small island nations like Mauritius and Cape Verde

Also, all five of the countries I highlighted here appear to be among the best least bad African countries in terms of LGBT rights. Especially South Africa (the only one with full legal equality/gay marriage) and Cape Verde (where the population may be even more LGBT-accepting of that of South Africa).

Ghana, however, is pretty typical for mainland West Africa when it comes to virulent homophobia.

I remember looking at Ugandan Twitter when that law was passed. Lots of people asking about who the legislators that voted against were and implying they were 'sodomites' themselves, and that they needed 'to get in touch with god'.

It's very difficult to understand the genuinely felt, bone-deep fear--not just deliberately hyperbolic claims being made in bad faith--that one sees in some of these countries that anything short of the most violently oppressive homophobic policies imaginable is a harbinger of complete cultural and civilizational collapse, even policies that are still very homophobic but not quite as cartoonishly so. It isn't even how we talk about pedophiles most of the time in the West. It really puts the "phobia" back in "homophobia," and is immensely disturbing to witness if one doesn't subscribe to it oneself.

It's weird how the american hard rights tells americans that they try to 'fight massive inmigration', but they fund measures in the rest of the world that only end up creating more migrants.

This law isn't going to create mass migration

Not on its own, no, but more broadly it is curious how consistently these American-right-funded pet projects in poorer parts of the world make those parts of the world worse to live in. Then again, right-wing pet projects make America worse to live in as well, so perhaps it's only to be expected.

[politicallefty]

I hate when Trump is proven right. That said, we should cut off all aid immediately.

[CumbrianLefty]

He is only ever "proven right" by accident, so I wouldn't worry too much.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Horrible decision.

No exaggeration to say that evangelical Christianity is potentially as big a menace as Islamism.

This is an example of what it will do if it's given free reign. It's only tempered by democratic norms. If they are non existent, or chipped away, this is always the end goal.

I don't think you can really hit Ghana for being "undemocratic" in this case. They've had a string of more or less fair elections since the 90s, and they've had multiple changes in party control. Fairly similar to the US in that there is a rather strong two-party system, but different in that neither party is supportive of gay rights at all.

Amusingly enough the 2020 election delivered a 137-137 parliamentary split, with one independent. Maximal division.

That’s why alfteich said democratic *norms*. Ghana is a democracy, but not a liberal democracy. The fact that such a law could even pass there means it’s still lacking many important democratic norms that no democracy is complete without.

[Lord Halifax]

Horrible decision.

No exaggeration to say that evangelical Christianity is potentially as big a menace as Islamism.

This is an example of what it will do if it's given free reign. It's only tempered by democratic norms. If they are non existent, or chipped away, this is always the end goal.

I don't think you can really hit Ghana for being "undemocratic" in this case. They've had a string of more or less fair elections since the 90s, and they've had multiple changes in party control. Fairly similar to the US in that there is a rather strong two-party system, but different in that neither party is supportive of gay rights at all.

Amusingly enough the 2020 election delivered a 137-137 parliamentary split, with one independent. Maximal division.

That’s why alfteich said democratic *norms*. Ghana is a democracy, but not a liberal democracy. The fact that such a law could even pass there means it’s still lacking many important democratic norms that no democracy is complete without.

that's still based on the idea that Western style liberal democracy is the only form of "real" democracy, as a Westerner I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that liberal democracy is superior to other forms of democracy but one should at least be conscious of it being a normative position and not an objective fact

[America Needs R'hllor]

Horrible decision.

No exaggeration to say that evangelical Christianity is potentially as big a menace as Islamism.

This is an example of what it will do if it's given free reign. It's only tempered by democratic norms. If they are non existent, or chipped away, this is always the end goal.

I don't think you can really hit Ghana for being "undemocratic" in this case. They've had a string of more or less fair elections since the 90s, and they've had multiple changes in party control. Fairly similar to the US in that there is a rather strong two-party system, but different in that neither party is supportive of gay rights at all.

Amusingly enough the 2020 election delivered a 137-137 parliamentary split, with one independent. Maximal division.

That’s why alfteich said democratic *norms*. Ghana is a democracy, but not a liberal democracy. The fact that such a law could even pass there means it’s still lacking many important democratic norms that no democracy is complete without.

that's still based on the idea that Western style liberal democracy is the only form of "real" democracy, as a Westerner I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that liberal democracy is superior to other forms of democracy but one should at least be conscious of it being a normative position and not an objective fact

Yes, it is my opinion that a democracy that guarantees basic human rights (which this law goes directly against) is the only form of real democracy.

[Pres Mike]

Horrible decision.

No exaggeration to say that evangelical Christianity is potentially as big a menace as Islamism.

This is an example of what it will do if it's given free reign. It's only tempered by democratic norms. If they are non existent, or chipped away, this is always the end goal.

I don't think you can really hit Ghana for being "undemocratic" in this case. They've had a string of more or less fair elections since the 90s, and they've had multiple changes in party control. Fairly similar to the US in that there is a rather strong two-party system, but different in that neither party is supportive of gay rights at all.

Amusingly enough the 2020 election delivered a 137-137 parliamentary split, with one independent. Maximal division.

That’s why alfteich said democratic *norms*. Ghana is a democracy, but not a liberal democracy. The fact that such a law could even pass there means it’s still lacking many important democratic norms that no democracy is complete without.

that's still based on the idea that Western style liberal democracy is the only form of "real" democracy, as a Westerner I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that liberal democracy is superior to other forms of democracy but one should at least be conscious of it being a normative position and not an objective fact

I agree the liberal democracy is the best form of democracy. Democracy is the best form of government

I don’t think we in the west should tell other parts of the world how to do democracy. Democracy existing anywhere is a miracle, much less in the developing world. I think we should welcome nations like Brazil and Indonesia to the global table to confront autocratic regimes like China. I’d rather work with these nations, however flawed, instead of Saudi Arabia.

I also think the US should work with Iran isn’t a democracy but can pretend to be one to help its moderate fraction

[Aurelius2]

Cartoonishly evil

[Wiswylfen]

This is a serious topic and it is sad that OP is not able to produce any thread that isn't America-centric, because the effects of this law will be predominantly felt in Ghana, not in the US. It is also not a 'genocide'. Come on now. Words have meanings.

This law is horrible. It will endanger gay people. I sincerely hope the Ghanaian president will not sign it and it won't become the law of the land. If a big majority of democratically elected representatives voted for this, there is, however, nothing 'undemocratic' about it. The will of the people is sometimes horrible. The law is definitely not in line with liberal democracy as we know it in the West, and it undoubtedly infringes on people's fundamental rights, but let's be precise with our language here.

The Western conception of democracy--which is pretty clearly what is meant--is not equivalent to 'tyranny of the majority' so none of you are quite making the point you think you are.

Um, yes, that's what I'm saying. Learn to read.

There are levels beyond basic literacy. What I am saying is that 'democracy' (without any qualifiers) as commonly used (and in this case) means the Western conception of democracy and therefore your "well actually it isn't undemocratic because people voted for it" is completely meaningless, and preciseness is hardly required when it's obvious from what's being said.

And my point is that the term 'democracy' doesn't necessarily mean the Western conception of democracy at all - and likely does not mean the Western conception of democracy if applied to a non-Western country such as Ghana.

Even in Western democracies, 'protecting gay rights' is something relatively recent - and this being considered a requirement to be a democracy ('democracy is when you protect gay rights') is even more recent. You are conflating democracy with modern Western liberal democracy - the latter being a subtype of the former which only exists in a relatively small number of countries - and showing your inability to think beyond your liberal democratic, Western framework of reference. A bad law that infringes on people's rights can still be democratic. Plenty of countries are democracies but not Western-style liberal democracies.

'
Except that in this case it clearly does? You and others are demanding clarity where it's not needed because it's already obvious. The rest of your post is meaningless: a failure to understand that, actually, it's not about gay rights in and of itself, it's about human rights and gay rights coming to fall under that; followed by nonsense about how I 'conflate democracy with modern Western liberal democracy' (no, I just know when someone means something specific and find it weird how a bunch of people are going at them when it's obvious what they mean) which shows that you have completely failed to understand my posts.

[Ferguson97]

If a big majority of democratically elected representatives voted for this, there is, however, nothing 'undemocratic' about it. The will of the people is sometimes horrible. The law is definitely not in line with liberal democracy as we know it in the West, and it undoubtedly infringes on people's fundamental rights, but let's be precise with our language here.

I don’t agree with this. Democracy is more than just representing the will of the majority. Equality is a necessary component of democracy. If 51% of the public supports killing the other 49%, it’s not “democratic” to enforce their will.

[DavidB.]

If a big majority of democratically elected representatives voted for this, there is, however, nothing 'undemocratic' about it. The will of the people is sometimes horrible. The law is definitely not in line with liberal democracy as we know it in the West, and it undoubtedly infringes on people's fundamental rights, but let's be precise with our language here.

I don’t agree with this. Democracy is more than just representing the will of the majority. Equality is a necessary component of democracy. If 51% of the public supports killing the other 49%, it’s not “democratic” to enforce their will.

I understand this argument, but even in that case: would qualifying such a decision as 'undemocratic' not be less accurate/meaningful than calling it 'murderous', 'a violation of human rights', 'discriminatory' or terms like these?

[Ferguson97]

If a big majority of democratically elected representatives voted for this, there is, however, nothing 'undemocratic' about it. The will of the people is sometimes horrible. The law is definitely not in line with liberal democracy as we know it in the West, and it undoubtedly infringes on people's fundamental rights, but let's be precise with our language here.

I don’t agree with this. Democracy is more than just representing the will of the majority. Equality is a necessary component of democracy. If 51% of the public supports killing the other 49%, it’s not “democratic” to enforce their will.

I understand this argument, but even in that case: would qualifying such a decision as 'undemocratic' not be less accurate/meaningful than calling it 'murderous', 'a violation of human rights', 'discriminatory' or terms like these?

The terms are not mutually exclusive.