Reader comments · Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Minister confirms UK will redirect aid, not cut it, for human rights violations

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Here’s an idea:
    Deduct the cost of immigration and naturalization of gay asylum seekers from the aid package of their country of origin.

    1. That rather assumes they cost more than they contribute.

      1. Asylum seekers rarely have the benefit of being able to bring their assets with them. Like it or not, it costs something to house and feed them the first year, and the employment situation is not exactly “tip-top”. So right now, the taxpayers are paying for all that, but since the country of origin is the source of the problem, i say finance it from their aid package.

        1. Ironically, the immigrant population seems to make a much better job of finding employment that a lot or British born people.

          I’ve got no problem with deducting money from aid grants where there is a net cost to us for offering safe haven to refugees, but that certainly doesn’t apply for all asylum seekers

          1. Most employers would rather hire immigrants over natives that are aware of their rights. But i can’t really comment on employment in the UK all the way from Canada.

  2. Hmmmm, now let me get this straight. Aid will continue to flow to the people who need it, the very same people who will support anti-gay policies of their governments? What a waste.

    1. It’s better than the aid going directly into the budget of the countries government, from there into police and then get used for chasing down homosexuals. I know a large majority of people are against homosexuality over there (not a surprise in a country where a decent education is quite a rare thing to come by) but it makes no sense to assume everyone in that country is maliciously homophobic and as a result doesn’t deserve food and clean water to live.

    2. PumpkinPie 22 Nov 2011, 1:45pm

      Those people aren’t inherently homophobic. It’s thanks to propoganda and social conditioning that hatred is so widespread in these countries. While it’s right for us to condemn that abuse, it’s wrong for us to think we’re somehow superior specimens. Our country wasn’t so different half a century ago.

      And for those who want to say “that’s then, this is now” – that’s a crass and oversimplistic argument. Do those people think Europe deserved World War 2, thanks to how rabidly homophobic Europe was back then? I should hope not, and this situation is pretty much the same (really, the death tolls in times of famine or disease are horrifying).

      Furthermore, the people who are most affected by poverty (by far) are infants. They’re almost completely defenceless and far too young to be responsible for the faults of their societies. Everyone child deserves a chance at life, no matter how horrible their country of origin.

      And if anybody wants to argue that these children shouldn’t get that chance, because they’ll probably just grow up to be homophobes anyway, then I’m not even going to dignify such a horrible claim with a response. …Except perhaps to post a link to Professor Farnsworth saying “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore”.

      Personally, I’m very happy with how this has turned out. This is how aid should always have been handled.

      1. Pumpkin Pie – indeed the people in Uganda are not inherently homophobic.

        They choose to be that homophobic (unless you are making the racist assumption that they are so inherently stupid that they believe everything they are told).

        I do not want a single penny of my tax money going to a dump like Uganda.

        By all means we should offer asylum to LGBT Ugandans, but the rest of the country elected the genocidal maniacs that are in power. These people do not deserve any aid.

        1. Do you really think 100% are anti gay and should suffer

          1. @James!

            I agree not 100% Ugandans are homophobic

            The government certainly is

            Funding should therefore be redirected to not reach government coffers

          2. Thr vast majority are that homophobic.

            Genocidal homophobia is a populist vote winner in the dump ot Uganda for a reason after all.

          3. @dAVID

            The vast majority that are discussed in the media are homophobic …

            I have been to Uganda 6 or 7 times and always found people who are concerned at the lack of human rights (inclouding LGBT rights) either through business meetings I have been involved in or in coincidental conversations in bars/restaurants … including one with a senior police officer and lawyer …

        2. The problem in Uganda is that most of the people who are homophobic have had little or no education.

          I take it you have, so what’s your excuse?

        3. “They choose to be that homophobic (unless you are making the racist assumption that they are so inherently stupid that they believe everything they are told).”

          Anyone would believe what they were told if it’s the only opinion offered to them black, white or whatever.

          Don’t cheapen the definition of racism with your BS please

    3. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 1:57pm

      Maybe you should explain this theory to the citizens of such countries as Egypt and Syria who are being slaughtered by the governments they voted in.

      1. Egypt and Syria have not voted in their governments.

        Syria is a dictatorship.

        Egypt has just overthrown its own dictatorship and is currently ruled by the military, and hopefully elections are coming

        1. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 2:54pm

          Yes, and the people’s of all these tin-pot African dictatorships are different how?
          You infer that these people should get no aid because they voted their governments into power in the first place. That may be the case in some circumstances, but mostly are not.

          Even Gaddafi was voted in by his own people after a military coup, and they had to suffer his rule for nearly 30 years afterwards. Would you let these people starve for the same reason?

          1. Dave North 22 Nov 2011, 3:01pm

            Have a read at the following and see just what they think of gays in these so called civilised African nations.

            “Homosexuals or Less Than Homo Sapiens!”


            They do not deserve 1 penny from us.

          2. Uganda has elecetions every 5 years and has done for some time,

            It is a democracy where they keep voting in genocidal maniacs.

            Ghadaffi was in power for 40 years unelected.

            Don’t make yourself look ignorant by making blatantly untrue claims.

            Do a little research please.

        2. Spanner1960 24 Nov 2011, 9:57am

          I have done plenty of research as have many others.
          Do you seriously suggest that these governments run fair and democratic elections? They are as corrupt and flaky as all their other exploits. These people cannot be trusted to run a whelk stall without them feathering their own nests. All these people that offer “free democracy” just turn into copies of their predecessors and it takes a crowbar or a riot to get them back out again.

    4. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 8:35am

      But question.. does aid money going to these government get to the people that need it?
      Most people want to live and have a good meal, shelter etc regardless of what their government thinks who are we to deny that?
      We can’t starve people into giving us what we want, thats just not on and defeats the object.

  3. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 1:59pm

    If these corrupt governments are so dodgy, why aren’t we paying out the funds to agencies such as the Red Cross and Oxfam instead of dumbly handing out millions to bent officials? They should have been doing this anyway.

  4. Jock S. Trap 22 Nov 2011, 2:03pm

    I didn’t think it was meant any other way but this way. No-one wants people to suffer unnecessarily but redirecting the aid hits the governments of corrupt countries which is really why they are making a fuzz and changing the facts to suit their own greed.

  5. As someone who has been following the reactions to the British Commonwealth Summit in Nigeria, Ghana and Zimbabwe, I am delighted to read this report because it eliminates any possibility of mis-interpretation, and directs hostility away from LGBTI communities.

    1. Absolutely.

      There has been many attempts to discredit the motivation of the British government in adopting this pro human rights stance. There is a very real risk that this could impact on local LGBT people (unjustifiably).

      The media in Nigeria and Ghana have been interesting to read – noticably there has been little response to reasoned comments from LGBT supporters either in those nations or from the UK, US etc …

  6. Father Ted 22 Nov 2011, 2:14pm

    I’ve read reports that in Uganda there are many rich local pastors riding around in expensive cars.

    I’d like to know why we are giving £700 million over ten years to Uganda, what it is spent on, and how we can be sure it doesn’t end up in the pockets of the corrupt. This is money we don’t even have, so we are borrowing to give it to these regimes.

    1. They don’t make expensive cars in uganda or arms. If the EU and Us stopped selling those country’s stuff they shouldn’t have that would help

      1. They may not make expensive cars in Uganda … some people certainly do drive them … The hotel I stayed in at Entebbe last time was awash with Mercedes cars

  7. This story got me thinking about the ethical foreign policy notions of the previous government, which had I recall mixed success. The following are a few of the principles I would like to see:

    1. If aid to a governemnt is to be linked with its human rights record, let it be even handed when considering what rights and not just focus on LBGT rights to satisfy more powerful lobby groups. Sadly, we have aided regimes whose attitudes to religious and ethnic minorities have also been appalling.

    2. There must be clear accountability structures: we need to ensure that the money is spent as intended.

    3. If it is humanitarian aid, this should be channelled wherever possible through NGO’s with a track record for delivering services. If the government of the country has doubtful ethics, this should usually be the approach anyway.

    4. The old Chinese proverb holds true: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

    5. While it begs the question how we identify and prioritise need, what are the most cost-effective solutions and how do we relate what we do to political and other goals, the key criteria is what are the greatest needs and what best can we do to help meet those needs?

    1. There are many countries worldwide in receipt of international aid.

      Some of those countries do not have laws criminalisiing gay people.

      Britain cannot solve the world’s problems,

      Therefore not a penny in British aid should go to countries like Uganda; Zimbabwe; Kenya; Malawi; Nigeria; Jamaica; Somalia; Ghana.

      Any aid we give should ONLY go to countries which have a respect for human rights.

      1. Dave North 22 Nov 2011, 3:01pm

        I agree.

        Have a read at the following and see just what they think of gays in these so called civilised African nations.

        “Homosexuals or Less Than Homo Sapiens!”

        They do not deserve 1 penny from us.

        1. Thanks for this link, Dave.

          I read it and left a comment.

        2. @Dave

          Thanks for the article, which I have also commented on endorsing Jonpols comments.

          I would urge one not of caution …

          Whilst many African governments are to one extent or another bigoted and homophobic, there are 2 that clearly are not, and a couple of others that are making slow advances with caution. These nations should be encouraged and supported.

        3. Correction

          note of caution

      2. Maybe if they refuse to aid these biggotted counrties and retain the money in the UK maybe just maybe we can reduce VAT back to 17.5% and increase spending to places like the NHS and increase employment vacancies and enable training for people like me who want to work but am short of current experience and referees.

        I certainly do not mind aiding countries in need but can we not see this as an opportunity to use those funds to aid in the fight of poverty and claw our way out of recession?

    2. “If aid to a governemnt is to be linked with its human rights record, let it be even handed when considering what rights and not just focus on LBGT rights to satisfy more powerful lobby groups. Sadly, we have aided regimes whose attitudes to religious and ethnic minorities have also been appalling.”

      JohnB – This sounds like you are trying to suggest that in some countries Christians are being persecuted just like LGBT people.

      If you are saying this, what evidence do you have?


        make my day JohnK!

        not all these countries get aid from the UK granted. Also, don’t forget the persecution of ethnic minorities. I agree some of the African countries have a shameful human rights record when it comes to gay people.

        1. I have just looked at your link, and in particular the section concerning persecution of Christians in Europe. I found two references.

          1. The case of a UK doctor facing disciplinary action for suggesting faith in Jesus to a patient, although it is not clear if this was instead of medical treatment or as well as.

          2. The second reference referred to a christian father in Germany who refused to pay a fine for not sending his children to statuatory sex education classes.

          I am not sure how these examples fall into the category of persecution?

          1. are you reading the same article as me?

            the number of well-documented incidents of religious (and ethnic) persecution among a number of the countries the UK provides aid to is a substantial one and we are not just talking about people losing their jobs etc.; people are getting killed. I picked out one link but there are others. Just google “christians+persecution”.

          2. ““christians+persecution”

            Ironically Goggle throws up all too many sites about the awful history of christians persecuting gay people, not to mention child abuse, the inquisition, “witch” burning, science suppression, and many many more enlightened actions.

            You must be so proud, John.

          3. a rather stupid comment, especially coming from one so so influenced by science, don’t you think Will?

            I was merely responding to JohnK’s comment regarding other forms of human rights abuse, besides LBGT, but then of course you knew that!

            I have no doubt we can all come up with lots of abuses perpetrated by so called Christians but then you delight in coming up with red herrings!?

          4. “a rather stupid comment, especially coming from one so so influenced by science, don’t you think Will?”

            No, not really. Are you denying those things happened and by so called christain hand?

            I suppose a blinkered man like you would. Red herrings indeed. The truth is you are so up your own arse and so blinded by your sanctimonious belief system all you want to hear is “you’re right”.

            You should try read more books, just reading one has severely limited your world view.

    3. @JohnB

      The government have made it abundantly clear that LGBT rights are only one aspect of human rights that they will consider with regards their ethical aid policy. The media have chosen to concentrate on the LGBT rights issue.

      1. Thanks for pointing this out Stu.

        I know you are aware of this; I think we are all susceptible to accept at face value what is reported in the press or stated by “authoritative” sources, when often the picture is more complex than that.

        In principle, I welcome the government taking a stronger stand on human (including LBGT) rights. It would be nice if this could underly all foreign policy decisions.

        History shows that GB, along with most other countries, have too often put expediency ahead of principle. It would be good if we see a reversal of that trend, starting with how foreign aid is allocated.

  8. Time for your anti-psychotics Keef.

    Perhaps take a few extra pills today.

  9. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 3:02pm

    Good to see GOD (™) has managed to sort his intellectual copyright issues sorted out.
    I hate people putting words in my mouth.

    1. Jock S. Trap 22 Nov 2011, 3:31pm

      I dunno, supposedly ‘God’ gave us these brains so people like Keith can copy and paste?

  10. Does it not concern or interest these politicians that some of these countries have a history of hijacking funds and goods that are directed to the citizens and then selling them on to fund their regimes?

    Are we going to send troops to ensure that the money and goods go to the people were are trying to help?

  11. “You should read things in context. The passage is about fault finding in others where your own faults are greater. Judges werte set up in the BOOK OF JUDGES in the bible to PASS JUDGEMENT on wrongdooers.”

    maybe you should live by your own stated rules and leave it to your betters to judge people.

    1. Have you ever actually been for a HIV test? I mean if you may be infected already… Especially given following the “bibles rules” don’t exactly exempt you from being infected – mainly because well life isn’t that simple and HIV isn’t picky on who it infects. I mean if you have had a blood transfusion before they started testing for HIV in the 80’s you could be infected. Also if you don’t use condoms because you think heterosexual sex is free of HIV and have a stringent no-condom view on sex you may be infected and you may have infected your wife (or unmarried partner) and those occasional flings you may or may not have had. That and if you were an intravenous drug user who shared needles… well, you may well be infected. Just so you know, the bible doesn’t save you from disease – if you think it does please write a paper on it and send it to the WHO, CDC and HPA so they can laugh at you…

      1. lol very well said, dont mind the troll he picks and chooses his rules of the bible because he is a typical fundamentalist christian troll, they are immune to everything, wonder how when he dies from his aneurysm caused by bile and hate he will answer to his God when asked about loving thy neighbour, judge not lest ye be judged, and so on. God will be disappointed that he sent his only son to show him the way to tolerance and forgiveness.

    2. Spanner1960 22 Nov 2011, 6:21pm

      Stoned any virgins recently?

    3. Despite your view that homosexuals are the least of all society, if you lived within the love of Christ – that would not matter. ‘Truly I tell, just as you you did to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ For in rejecting the whole LGBT community as ‘perverse sodomites’ you may be rejecting part of the risen Christ. Your bile driven homophobia has no purpose except to hurt and deride for what ever reason you expound it – and that too is a wound to the body of Christ and contradictory to the greater two commandents. In that you wound Christ Our God from heaven with your hate, that you do not love your neighbour and incapabale of doing so because you have no love for yourself. Keith if your were more accepting of your own failings, you may able to forgive others theirs and be able to better to overcome your own, loving yourself, loving your neighbour and loving God the almighty.

      Pax Christi.

      1. Please dont feed the troll

        1. Spanner1960 24 Nov 2011, 10:04am

          I’d like to feed him to a pack of wolves.

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 8:38am

            Here! Here!

    4. “I do live by the bibles rules thanks,. That is why I will always be HIV free!”

      Alas, intellect-free is part of the package too, it seems.

      Run along and have another beer, I doubt you have much to worry about in killing brain cells….

  12. This changes nothing !

    A quick bit of pr was all this was. We are still sending the money be it to the government or to the people makes no difference.

    Government and people both support and fund the preachers who raise generations on Homophobic teachings.

    This wont aid lgbt people anyway what so ever which is deeply saddening.

  13. “Several Commonwealth governments condemned the action
    as an attempt to influence domestic policy”

    Famine relief aside, isn’t that the entire point of foreign aid?

  14. Unless we focus on the theme chosen by CHOGM 2011, we will get lost in the miasma of details and misinterpretations.

    Under the theme of building national resilience, CHOGM 2011 is basically saying that Commonwealth countries who do not respect universal human rights are putting themselves at a disadvantage to accept challenges and opportunities, both today and in the future.

  15. Dr Robin Guthrie 23 Nov 2011, 4:41am

    FFS. How many billions has been sent since Live Aid in 1984 and still these countries cannot get off their back sides and be humane to each other.

    Even now the adverts of the poor child this that and the next thing.

    Old goons like me have been watching this guff for 40 years and still the children are not fed.

    Watch and see how these savages treat each other in the name of CHRIST

    1. This type of rantish nonsense is what we don’t need Robin.

      Tragically, a lot of the suffering is avoidable and is down to man’s humanity to man. Always, the people who can’t help themseves are those who come off worse are the poor and vulnerable,

      Thank God for Live Aid and all the other interventions that make a difference. I have reservations about the effectiveness of some of the foreign aid we give but have none regarding these people needing our help.

      1. Not just inhumanity, JohnB. I think that a lack of education is a major factor too – all kinds of education from academic to practical eg contraception and general health. That and practical help like access to clean water, etc, rather than money handouts by themselves. Help people to help themselves rather than indirectly foster a kind of dependency.

        1. When we see a Third World mother filtering stinking, contaminated water through a dirty T-shirt to give drink to her child, we are looking at a disgraceful lack of education, and also a human rights violation on the part of the government.

  16. With the exception of emergency relief (aka Famine Aid) I do not think we should be sending a single penny in aid to any country which disregards human rights. And we should explain our reasons quite clearly.

    They don’t need our money. They don’t deserve it.

    And it doesn’t help these countries 1 bit.

    1. Spanner1960 24 Nov 2011, 10:00am

      Many do need our money and do deserve it.
      It is not the money that is the problem, it is actually how those funds are distributed.
      It needs to go to the people on the ground, not their leaders who want gold-plated bath taps.

  17. Ratzinger tells Africans never to use a condom to protect themselves from HIV.

    1. This inhumanity and bigotry is one of the causes of the global epidemic in HIV …

      It also led to the WHO speaking out against religion for the first time ever and being backed by many sovereign nations (many of whom are seen to be RC influenced) …

      1. Spanner1960 24 Nov 2011, 10:02am

        True, but WHO are another toothless relic along with the UN.
        All they do is spout hot air and threats but do nothing except squabble amongst themselves until it is way too late.

  18. Here’s an idea: EU’s gays should go to Uganda or Ghana and establish there new organization “Feed poor gays”, by getting U.K.’s aid for it.

  19. wendy gill 7 Dec 2011, 2:35pm

    “We are fortunate to have a government that takes these issues seriously and is prepared to speak out when necessary.!!!
    what a load of crap!!!
    the only reason the government has agreed is so the stay in with the white house..and major foreign policy announcement, timed for the anniversary of adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
    What about Animals right Mr Obama you allow animal shelters in most of your states to kill these animals after 5 to 7 days if not homed to be put in GAS CHAMBERS where they have a slow and painful DEATH. and how about the slaughter you just passed on the horses..and puppy mills. and this bloody english government sits back and does nothing because they dont want to upset you….

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.