UK to reduce aid to Africa's anti-gay regimes

[Jay0173]

UK to reduce aid to Africa's anti-gay regimes

Source: UK to reduce aid to Africa's anti-gay regimes

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree, and add that this should have been done a long time ago.

 

[Big Lutz]

Curious if the UK will extend this to the middle east in terms of Gay and Women's rights there. It's easy to target Africa, but if you want to make a stand for minority rights you can't just stop at Africa.

 

[Jay0173]

Curious if the UK will extend this to the middle east in terms of Gay and Women's rights there. It's easy to target Africa, but if you want to make a stand for minority rights you can't just stop at Africa.

You have to start somewhere. Sometimes it is better to take incremental steps than to do everything all at once.

Personally, the only thing I disagree with with this action, is that instead of cutting off all funding completely, they're only reducing the amount given.

 

[Big Lutz]

You have to start somewhere. Sometimes it is better to take incremental steps than to do everything all at once.

That is true, I just hope that the steps continue.

 

[Joshawott]

Curious if the UK will extend this to the middle east in terms of Gay and Women's rights there. It's easy to target Africa, but if you want to make a stand for minority rights you can't just stop at Africa.

Well, except Middle Eastern countries that have what we want (like oil).

On a more serious note though, I 100% agree with reducing aid for countries that fail to meet human rights standards - in fact, should we really be giving any aid to those countries?

 

[League]

If something is a "regime" in general, should aid go to it? (Generally, if you're aiding a country that doesn't share your ideals, then you are aiding it for concerns either strategic or humanitarian--well, generally only Western countries do things for the last purpose.)

But on that note, the comments on that link's site are... interesting.

Personally, the only thing I disagree with with this action, is that instead of cutting off all funding completely, they're only reducing the amount given.

Uh, I don't know if you can get cultures to completely change themselves just by removing external aid. That portion of your post is also highly ironic in the face of what you said just previously. ("You have to start somewhere. Sometimes it is better to take incremental steps than to do everything all at once.")

 

[Jay0173]

Uh, I don't know if you can get cultures to completely change themselves just by removing external aid.

While it may be that those cultures will never change, no matter what actions governments take, we don't have to support them by providing them with funds.

That portion of your post is also highly ironic in the face of what you said just previously. ("You have to start somewhere. Sometimes it is better to take incremental steps than to do everything all at once.")

Not really. It's all a matter of scale. On a global scale, refusing to allocate funds to one country out of dozens IS an incremental step. So what I said there wasn't out of line at all. As for the other statement, considering the actions the UK government, and other governments have already taken against the African nations, I'd say refusing these countries all funds IS an incremental step. The final one.

 

[Big Lutz]

Not really. It's all a matter of scale. On a global scale, refusing to allocate funds to one country out of dozens IS an incremental step. So what I said there wasn't out of line at all. As for the other statement, considering the actions the UK government, and other governments have already taken against the African nations, I'd say refusing these countries all funds IS an incremental step. The final one.

I do hope it is more than one country, but on the other hand the U.K. Government does need to walk a tight rope with African countries, as while I support this. Scenes of starvation and lack of medical care in Africa, can be powerful political weapons both in African countries, and in the UK.

 

[Jay0173]

I do hope it is more than one country, but on the other hand the U.K. Government does need to walk a tight rope with African countries, as while I support this. Scenes of starvation and lack of medical care in Africa, can be powerful political weapons both in African countries, and in the UK.

True, they can. But then, at the same time, with corruption being prevelent in African politics, there's no gaurantee that the money being spent on humanitarian causes is actually reaching those in need. It may be that only a small fraction of the money given is being used for its intended purpose, giving an illusion that the money is being well spent, while the rest of the money is used to further cement a government's, or individual's, power.

 

[AlexK2013]

Those greedy, corrupt men should have their privates cut off with rusty machete blades! Give these men the worst possible punishments for political corruption!

 

[Cap'n Jack]

As long as they aren't shutting off humanitarian aid to the citizens of these countries and simply reducing aid to the homophobic bastards who run them, I'm happy.

Those greedy, corrupt men should have their privates cut off with rusty machete blades!

*twitches*

 

[Master Mew]

Hmm... the citizens of oppressive regimes need aid most of all, don't they?

Of course, they aren't entitled to such aid, and as such the UK has every right to revoke any amount of aid for any reason whatsoever; I just wonder how helpful it will actually be.