Ghana passes bill to make identifying as LGBTQ+ illegal.

[SnowLabrador]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68353437

This is similar to the Uganda law that went into effect last year in that merely identifying as LGBTQ carries a prison sentence. This is a genocide, and of course, it's a blueprint for what the GOP will do here if Trump wins in November. Hell, this law is at least partly the fault of American evangelical missionaries, just like the Uganda one.

I hate this timeline.

[CumbrianLefty]

Horrible decision.

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

[wnwnwn]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

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.

[lfromnj]

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.

I would say unlike say a law banning sodomy this law infringes on free speech rights which is undemocratic in some sense atleast. 

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

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.

I would say unlike say a law banning sodomy this law infringes on free speech rights which is undemocratic in some sense atleast. 

I certainly don’t agree with this law, and it definitely is an unjustified restriction of personal freedom. I just don’t think that’s the same as being undemocratic. Depressingly enough, it seems most Ghanaians are supportive of this restriction of rights, at least to some extent.

[lfromnj]

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.

I would say unlike say a law banning sodomy this law infringes on free speech rights which is undemocratic in some sense atleast. 

I certainly don’t agree with this law, and it definitely is an unjustified restriction of personal freedom. I just don’t think that’s the same as being undemocratic. Depressingly enough, it seems most Ghanaians are supportive of this restriction of rights, at least to some extent.

Yes but the difference is having legal sodomy isn't really necessary for a democracy nor even a liberal democracy but this bans identification which borders on banning certain forms of speech. Being able to communicate your ideas and values is important for a democracy so I would say this is undemocratic in that sense at least.

[DavidB.]

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.

[Alcibiades]

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).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

Well said.

[Lord Halifax]

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

[It’s so Joever]

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.

To not mention the role of radical evangelicals (who make the otherwise great philosophy seem bad) would be a disservice to someone new to the topic.

Anyways banning an identity is pretty darn illiberal. I guess it’s not technically undemocratic but it does go against the general spirit of why we pursue democracy in the first place.

[It’s so Joever]

Horrible decision.

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

Radical* evangelical Christianity

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Horrible decision.

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

Sorry but that’s deranged.

This law is bad but it’s not remotely comparable to Islamists like Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda, who have killed, mutilated, and raped thousands of people brutally, and of course have thrown gay people off buildings. People being punished for gay activity was common even in the West a number of decades ago, and the West was still far more liberal than the Islamic world is now. And it’s telling that you compare the entire religious tradition of evangelical Christianity with just Islamism, not Islam. And yet it isn’t evangelical Christians in your country who are terrorizing lawmakers. Leftists always apologize for Islam.

[Zinneke]

Horrible decision.

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

Waiting for Conservertopia to defend his horrific bedmates (for lack of a better term)

The early noughties four horsemen were right. The religious reawakening the world is going through is a bigger danger overall than "Clash of Civilizations". And sadly if you offer any kind of criticism of organised religion you are boxed into the Rust Cohle fedora hat wearing persona.

[Conservatopia]

Horrible decision.

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

Waiting for Conservertopia to defend his horrific bedmates (for lack of a better term)

Hello, sorry I'm late.

[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.

Sorry but that’s deranged.

This law is bad but it’s not remotely comparable to Islamists like Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda, who have killed, mutilated, and raped thousands of people brutally, and of course have thrown gay people off buildings. People being punished for gay activity was common even in the West a number of decades ago, and the West was still far more liberal than the Islamic world is now. And it’s telling that you compare the entire religious tradition of evangelical Christianity with just Islamism, not Islam. And yet it isn’t evangelical Christians in your country who are terrorizing lawmakers. Leftists always apologize for Islam.

Evangelical Christianity has definitely been responsible for more harm in modern, Sub-Saharan Africa than Islam, just looking at its influence on American policy-making alone. But I guess slowly dying of AIDS, in childbirth, or from starvation are just second-order consequences so they don't matter as much. Also the 'arson attack' talked of so much was actually done by two homeless people not by Islamists or indeed any Muslims at all lol.

[DavidB.]

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.

[Dan the Roman]

Horrible decision.

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

Sorry but that’s deranged.

This law is bad but it’s not remotely comparable to Islamists like Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda, who have killed, mutilated, and raped thousands of people brutally, and of course have thrown gay people off buildings. People being punished for gay activity was common even in the West a number of decades ago, and the West was still far more liberal than the Islamic world is now. And it’s telling that you compare the entire religious tradition of evangelical Christianity with just Islamism, not Islam. And yet it isn’t evangelical Christians in your country who are terrorizing lawmakers. Leftists always apologize for Islam.

It's less bad not because the law is better but because it's being enforced by a Common Law legal system that sees laws as administrative and not as signals of open season as in Russia where the recent Constitutional court decision has allowed local police to break up private parties and round up people off apps.

Now this works both ways. When extermination was decided upon on 1942, the fact the Holocaust was carried out by the German rather than the Lebanonese legal system was a lot of why it was so horrifyingly relentless and total

[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.

[DavidB.]

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.

[CumbrianLefty]

Horrible decision.

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

Sorry but that’s deranged.

You support literal planet destroyer Bolsonaro, pipe down.

[Zinneke]

Horrible decision.

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

Sorry but that’s deranged.

This law is bad but it’s not remotely comparable to Islamists like Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda, who have killed, mutilated, and raped thousands of people brutally, and of course have thrown gay people off buildings. People being punished for gay activity was common even in the West a number of decades ago, and the West was still far more liberal than the Islamic world is now. And it’s telling that you compare the entire religious tradition of evangelical Christianity with just Islamism, not Islam. And yet it isn’t evangelical Christians in your country who are terrorizing lawmakers. Leftists always apologize for Islam.

Evangelicals will start to terrorisé lawmakers very soon. Mark my words.

[Pres Mike]

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