The Diary Of Chukwunwikezarramu Okumephuna

Homosexuality Is An Abomination: A Response To Olusegun Obasanjo

2010-06-26T14:47:00.001+01:00

To say that I was disappointed with the recent statement made by the former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo on the 14-year prison sentencing of two gay men in Malawi would be an understatement. I was not just disappointed; I was highly disappointed, ashamed and above all chagrined that a person like him could make such a statement. Initially, I decided to ignore his response but lately realising that ignoring such a senseless ranting would only go a long way to empower the oppressors, I took the bold step of responding to him using this platform. However, the good news is that as am writing this, the two men have been ‘pardoned’ and released from the prison; a move that lends credence to the fact that commonsense and human rights would always prevail over stupidity and ignorance. Obasanjo’s statement lacked every bit of prudence, intelligence and commonsense and does not even have a modicum of decency in it. Obasanjo was once a victim of phantom coup charges and spent many months in the prison. This incarceration which nearly led to his death led to the eventual Deus Ex Machina that saw his rise from the Prison to the Presidency. Therefore considering his position as a victim of a phantom coup charges, an elder and a statesman, his comments are very irresponsible, disgusting and unacceptable.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and his partner Steven Monjeza were sentenced to 14 years hard labour for holding an engagement ceremony in Malawi in December last year. The sentencing generated a lot of outcry and international condemnation from all works of life including Barack Obama and Madonna who has two adopted children from the impoverished southern Africa country. The sentencing was described as an affront to the human rights record of the country and a great setback for the achievements made so far to advance the cause of democracy and human rights in the continent. The hostility shown towards the sentencing was taken to another level in the United Kingdom where the British Parliament nearly moved a motion to ask the coalition government to stop the £80 Million yearly aid Malawi receives from the people and government of the United Kingdom; a country where homosexuals rights are protected and homosexuals are allowed to enter into engagements and civil partnerships.

Obasanjo in his narrow-minded observation refused to agree with the voices condemning the sentencing. Frankly, I am no more pretending to be flabbergasted with his utterances. It was under his administration that an obnoxious bill to sentence gays to prison was introduced in the Nigeria Parliament. He and his friend Archbishop Akinola fought very hard to ensure that the bill made it into law; they failed due to external pressures from human rights groups. Arguing in support of the Malawi stand, Obasanjo opined that Malawi being an independent sovereign nation should be allowed to apply its own law as it deems fit without any form of external interference. He further alluded to the bible, culture, being unAfrican and the law of nature to defend his justification of the sentencing. Let me quote him: "I believe that God, who created man, male and female, is a wise God...who doesn't make a mistake. If he wants sexual relationship between man and man and between woman and woman, God will not have created them male and female. For me it is an abomination in my part of the world and if anybody practices it then he must be unbiblical and anything that is unbiblical for me as a Christian is not right”, he said

He continued: "If a country makes it a law then he should be punished according to the law of that country. If a law in my country says we shouldn't shake in public, that of course would be ridiculous, but let's say that is what the law says, until you can get that law repealed, you must not shake in public. If you say you will defy that law and you shake in public, and the law says if you shake in public you go to prison for three months, then you have to go for prison for three months."

I have taken my time to critically go through the arguments of Olusegun Obasanjo and in my views and with due respect to him, his arguments does not hold water and cannot stand the taste of time. I would not be too harsh on him if I say that he thinks like the men in the Stone Age. As usual, his utterances have every mark of a ranting from a short-sighted lunatic from a jungle. I have my reason for not agreeing with him and part of the reason is that no sensible person would ever think the way Obasanjo is thinking. His way of think is very myopic and does not reflect any iota of a person who has entered the four wall of a formal school. Every reasonable school of thought is in accord that the judgement is obviously a gross violation of the human rights of these two gentlemen. The issue of being gay is a no-go area since a state has got no moral ground to legislate on what happens between two consenting adult males in the privacy of their bedroom. Obasanjo does not agree with me on this point because to him once a country makes a law, it must be respected. I disagree with him. The fact that a country made a certain law does not make that law sensible and morally justified.

Just like he cited above, if a country makes a law that two people should not shake hands in the public, that law cannot be morally justified since it goes against all the ethics of human understanding and the masses are under a moral obligation to disobey the law. Obasanjo cannot be right because it would take only fools to condone a law knowing that the law is cynical and works against their welfare and interest. Does that mean that the story Obasanjo was telling us that he was roped into a phantom coup allegation is after all false? Under military decree that was used to try Obasanjo and his colleagues, the military court never relied on a concrete evidence to find them guilty. In fact the military tribunal relied on a ridiculous circumstantial evidence that never holds water to try them. One of these circumstantial evidence is what is a called accessory after the fact of treason and the meaning of this is that a person could be indicted even if he never plotted a coup but actually got information or heard about one. Obasanjo and his colleagues were found guilty and sentenced to prison under this cynical decree. We all knew it was wrong; even Obasanjo took all the time while in the prison and while out of the prison to defend himself and to assure the people of his innocence in the whole drama. He was eventually released from prison, pardoned and set in the path that led to his being the President of the fourth republic of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is also interesting to note that most of the men and women who were indicted and imprisoned with Obasanjo using same phantom coup allegations never received this pardon. One of them is General Oladipo Diya and even while Obasanjo who was pardoned became a president he vehemently refused to forgive them; not even Diya.

It is therefore ridiculous for Obasanjo to justify the 14-year sentencing of these two men to prison with hard labour simply because the country made the law. That justification seems to me that as far as Obasanjo is concerned every law is good and must be obeyed so far it is still within the law book of the nations that made it. That is an extreme view and could as well mean that Nazism under the German Nazi is justifiable. So should also be the case with the apartheid system under the apartheid regime of South Africa because both were codified into the German and South African constitutions of the era. I do not have a doubt that there is a great lack of good judgement on the part of Obasanjo over that statement and bearing in mind the role he plays today in Africa, he should retract the statement publicly and apologise because he let many people down. Comments like this flares the embers of homophobia across Africa and gives support to tyrannical regimes like the one that passed that judgement in Malawi.

Meanwhile, Olusegun Obasanjo in the interview quoted above was described as a devout Christian; I do not know exactly what that meant. He is a serial polygamist and early last year was in the centre of a controversial court case when his son accused him of sleeping with his wife. That accusation is certainly not what is expected from a devout Christian. In fact am beginning to wonder the moral authority he has in judging these two young men when there is a log of wood in his own eyes. Obasanjo whose two terms as Nigerian President was tainted with human rights violations and allegations of corruption also said in the interview that he does not believe that two consenting adult men have the right to the freedom of privacy in their bedroom. That could be fair enough, because same idea was also used by Sani Abacha to imprison him for accessory after the fact of treason even though he might have ‘thought’ of that in the privacy of his bedroom.

He also likened homosexuality to bestiality and I wonder why he did that. Does that mean that he has gone blind and brainless at the same time to the extent that he could no more differentiate between animals and human beings? It is a shame that an elder statement like him could make such a cynical comparison of humans and animals. In the first place there is a world of difference between homosexuality and bestiality. Homosexuality involves humans of same sex while bestiality involves humans having sex with animals. Homosexuals do not have sex with animals; they are having it with fellow human beings. Two conditions are very important in sex. One of them is consent and the other is age. For one to have sex with another person there must be a consent between the two parties for the action to commence and when that consent has been achieved then the issue of age comes in. The older partner in the affair must ensure that the younger partner is above the age of consent. The age of consent for sex varies from country to country. Here in the United Kingdom it is 16 years. When any of these two are lacking, the state should be involved because there might arise a question of rape or paedophilia. In homosexuality the conditions I outlined are usually met and if these conditions are met before sex, I do not honestly think that the state has got the right to interfere in what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom. In bestiality the case is very different in the sense that the person having the sex with an animal is a human being who reasons while the animal does not reason and in fact the act should be seen as an act of aggression towards the animal. Since animals are helpless creatures, just like kids who cannot reason and cannot wilfully consent, the onus lies on the state to protect them.

In addition to the above explanation, the claim that homosexual act is unnatural and unAfrican smells of ignorance and exhibits every sign of a celebration of stupidity. The fact is that homosexuality is natural and getting the message right would depend to a larger extent on how you want to define nature. Homosexuality has been around from time immemorial as attested to by various writings including the bible. It has nothing to do with the west as many Africans claim. In fact in Africa it has been there too for a long time. The reason we do not have many accounts of homosexuality in Africa is because unlike European cultures most African cultures are oral in transmission. The cultures we have today in Africa were transmitted orally to us by our ancestors and because of that, along the line and probably by selective perception they consciously failed to document homosexual incidents in our history. However, we were lucky enough to have one such account documented in Uganda. Between 1884-87, the Martyrs of Uganda were burnt to death primarily for resisting the homosexual advances of Mwanga II, the King of Buganda. In 1964 they were declared saints by Pope Paul VI. This account is the only one to the best of my knowledge we have of homosexuality in Africa but the fact that it did happen in 1800 is enough to prove that it must have been happening before then. I am therefore surprised where Obasanjo got his facts from.

I really have a big problem with this unnatural issue of a thing. It is a virtue for a person to keep his mouth shut, if he is ignorant of a topic or a particular problem. Many people have been studying this problem for a long time and it is only fair that we allow them as experts in that field to come to that conclusion. When it comes to the question of human sexuality, it is only the psychologists that are well equipped to talk about it and they must in all fairness be given that chance to do just that. Obasanjo is not a psychologist and therefore does not have the competency to talk on this issue. Even the theologians are not competent to talk when it comes to human sexuality for the simple fact that they are not competent to talk about it. The area of specialisation of the theologians is the bible and they have right to arrive at any conclusion they like but are under a moral obligation not to give their congregation hypothesis in place of fact. The fact is that homosexuality is very natural and for us to see how natural it is, we need to look at how humans came into existence in the first place. I would have to rely only on science here and the reason is that it is the only field were we could talk using evidences to support our hypothesis instead of a mere say. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the account in the bible of how man came into being is not clear enough and in actual fact it lacks a lot of facts to make it true. The biblical account is like a guide to what happened and never the fact of what happened. To claim that God made the world in six days smacks of insult to God for He never did that; the world and all its content came about through the process of evolution. And God is behind the process that set in motion this process of evolution.

On the other hand, the account given by scientists especially evolutionary scientists is more credible and makes a lot of sense than what is in the bible. In a nutshell, the account of creation in the bible was exactly not what happened and God never created man in such a way. The truth is that man came into existence through the process of evolution. In fact fish are the ancestors of the present humans. We share the same ancestry with animals like chimpanzees and gorillas and our DNA is a living proof to that. If we humans share the same ancestry or actually descended from these animals, then the simple conclusion is that we also inherited a lot of things from them including homosexuality which is very prominent in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality has been observed in thousands of animals but the one which am very much interested in citing here is one that is very common to Africa and the reason why I want to cite this animal is because I am very tired of hearing again and again the ignorant view that homosexuality is very unAfrican. The animal in question is the Bonobo Chimpanzees, an endangered specie and the closest extant relatives to humans. Homosexuality is very common amongst them.

Amongst the Bonobos, it is usual for the males to engage in various forms of homosexual behaviour. On one occasion experts observed two males hanging from a tree face-to-face while "penis fencing". This also usually occurs when two males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. Another form of genital interaction called "rump rubbing", occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital behaviour, possibly to bond socially with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding among females allows them to dominate Bonobo society. Although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group.

This is what Carl Zimmer had to say about the female Bonobos in his book ‘Evolution: The Triumph Of An Idea-From Darwin To DNA’: “A female Bonobo joining a new community also enters a perpetual orgy. While female chimps have swollen genitals for 5 percent of their adult life, female Bonobos are sexually receptive 50 percent of their time. Their sex lives start early: young Bonobos start trying to mate long before they can possibly conceive. And Bonobos sex is not just heterosexual. Young male will fence with penises or give oral sex to each other. Female, meanwhile specialise in rubbing their genitals together until they reach orgasm...Among Bonobos, sex is not just for reproduction or even for protecting babies against angry males. It is a social tool. A new female will work her way into a Bonobo community by approaching a resident female and giving her lots of sexual satisfaction. This favour wins her alliance and as she makes more of them, she can make her way toward the core of the community”.

Having seen this behaviour from one of our ancestors, it becomes ridiculous to see people like Obasanjo using their position and not knowledge to sway public opinion towards their religiously held convictions and sentiments that lack any iota of evidence. If Obasanjo is relying solely on the Bible to prove that homosexuality is an abomination as he claimed, then he has a hardwork ahead of him to prove also that he keeps every single commandment in the bible and to convince those who do not share same faith and religion with him that the bible is the truth and not just a collection of books that contradict each other. I am therefore utterly disappointed that people like Obasanjo are taking advantage of the people. Due to the high level of ignorance in Africa people like Obasanjo who refused his people access to free education that would have enlighten them, are now pioneering a poisonous campaign amongst the people to engage in campaign of homophobia against their own brothers and sisters. It is therefore foolhardy to keep pretending that it is a shock to know that some humans are homosexuals. They are! Frankly, it is not a shock. The fact is that some men are gay, some are bisexuals while others are lesbians.

As for the religious aspect of the whole argument, I do not have the intention to discuss homosexuality and religion here. I have a plan to discuss that in detail in another article in future.

Homosexuals: Do They Have Rights?

2010-05-20T22:26:00.001+01:00

I have to begin by quickly hitting the hammer on the nail. All of us have heard not for the first time but over and over again that some men like men, some like both men and women, some like to dress like women while others would prefer having a surgery to turn from a man into a woman and vice versa. When I say vice versa I mean some women fall into these groups too. There are others too, even though they are men are psychologically and emotionally wired to think they are women. There are women like that too. We all know about this and therefore let us not pretend to be shocked. Men who like only men are called gays. Their female counterparts are called lesbians while those who like both men and women are called bisexuals. Those who derive pleasure from dressing in clothes considered appropriate to the opposite sex are called transvestites while transsexuals are born with the physical characteristic of one sex but emotionally and psychologically feel that they belong to the opposite sex.

The summary of the above intro is that we have lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transvestites and transsexuals amongst us. They have been there for millions of years and will continue to be till the end of the world. We should get that fact straight! There are here and there and yonder. One famous maxim within the gay community captured it aptly: “We are here, we are there, we are queer”. I therefore think it is high time we began accepting that fact and accepting them for who they are for they will never go away. They are an integral part of the universe and God’s purpose here on earth. A recent Stonewall homophobic campaign put it appropriately, ‘Some men are gay. Get over it’, and that is the simplest truth ever told in the history of mankind. It is a fact that being gay-a term am going to use to refer to both gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transvestites and transsexuals in this article-cuts across all level and ladder of human existence. They are doctors, teachers, prison officers, politicians, pastors, administrators, scientists, musicians and any other thing you can think of including popes. Just like other human beings, they are good and they could be bad as well as ugly. They have talents just like every other person and breath and walk and have their being in the same God as every other person. They are in every country including Iran where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied they are and Nigeria where the former Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe told a group of learned audience in Geneva that they do not exist. He told lie and his audience knew that. Gays are simply everywhere.

The question here therefore becomes why some people are gay. I do not intend to answer the question here because that is not within the scope of this article. I intend to revisit that question later in another article. The main motive here is to argue that gays are human beings just like every other person and being human beings they also have human rights that should be protected and respected. My intention here is never to engage in religious lucubration; I am only interested in human rights and dignity after all religion has been playing a vital role in fanning the embers of homophobia. Many people are of the opinion that the ongoing homophobic attacks on the persons and dignities of gays are justified and should be tolerated. I do not share same opinion or sentiment. The world should have come of age to appreciate the fact that human rights are sacred and inalienable and that people should be allowed to live their life so far it is consistent with the law and does not infringe on the rights of others. It is very easy to condemn others but very difficult to proffer a solution and that is the reason I have chosen over a period of time to modify my philosophy of life and the core of my philosophy is that I will never remain silent or neutral when people are going through a difficult time as a result of their race, ethnicity, colour, language, sexual orientation, nationality or whatever other classifications unscrupulous people have invented to torment others.

People are going through hell today because they belong to a particular group or have certain features that are not as a result of their own making or consistent with what others expected of them or think they should be. Some white people still refuse promotion or employment to black people even in the UK simply because they are black. Due to equality law, they might end up giving other excuses for not employing them. UK is even better; other European countries could be a nightmare. Some blacks too are not even helping the matter. Some still have grudges against white people and Africans because of slave trade even though they are not directly affected by that evil trade. This is exactly the case amongst the Caribbeans who continually blame Africans for selling them into slavery. People are simply going through hell because of all these useless and baseless classifications and accusations. People are ridiculed all the time because their English is not as perfect as that of the Queen or because their table manners are not up to the standard of their host. The pathetic side of the whole scenario is that all these boundaries were simply man made. That is disgusting, appalling, pathetic and completely unacceptable.

Back home in Africa, my cousin's triplet would have been killed if they were born before the advent of white missionaries in the Igbo land of Nigeria. South African blacks went through hell during the apartheid regime because there were blacks and that was just barely a decade after the last major ugly racial incidents in the United States. The ethnic hatred that resulted in the Rwandan genocide just happened the other day and the massacre of Igbos in the northern part of Nigeria is not yet forgotten. Or have we forgotten so easily the sad story of the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire, that of the Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Jewish holocaust under the Nazi Germany. It is purely against this background that I have agreed that every individual in all parts of the world should be allowed to live their life without fear of intimidation so far it has got no negative impact on others. The right to live is a fundamental and inalienable human right and should be guaranteed. We may have our differences with people's sexuality but let that not be a reason for us to remain aloof when people are going through difficult times because of who they are sexually. Each time we refuse to condemn acts like this we degrade our personality as humans. Something in us diminishes and dies!

Homosexuality maybe deplorable but to the best of my knowledge, it is not as deplorable as corruption ravaging Africa today which has led to millions of deaths and millions of Africans seeking refuge here in the UK, Europe and America. It is not as deplorable as stoning a human being created in the image of God to death. It is not as deplorable as murdering a person created by God in the name of God. How can we tolerate the fact that people are being stoned, hanged, decapitated, imprisoned, ostracised and tortured just because of their sexual orientation? We cannot continue to remain silent and neutral for silence and neutrality empowers the tormentor and ridicules the victim. I say it again, no one can claim to believe in God and yet in the name of same God kill his fellow human beings. Any religion that advocates violence including killing in the name of God is not a religion. Most of us who are strongly against the homosexuals are heavily involved in fornication, adultery, abortion, sex before marriage, corruption, stealing, cheating and many other evils condemned by the same Bible being used to condemn homosexuals.

Where is the wisdom in condemning others of being sinners when we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory and mercy of God? It is purely because of this that Jesus Christ asked the hypocrites who brought the adulterous woman before him to be the first to cast their stone, if they have not committed such a sin before. And what was their response? They are all chickened away! That is the way all of us would soon chicken away if we don’t change our views towards these brethren. How can a man who claimed that murdering people in the name of God is a holy act condemn homosexuals? How can those who perpetrated the 7/7 bombing and September 11 debacle begin to condemn homosexuals. Or are the homosexuals the reason for the ongoing corruption and poverty in Nigeria despite being the second in Africa and sixth in the world in terms of oil reserve and even the highest in gas reserve. Or are the gays, lesbians and the bisexuals the reason for the never-ending war in Somalia and Sri Lanka. Are they the cause of the ongoing credit crunch? Are they the reason for the war between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland? Did they cause the genocide in Rwanda? Are they responsible for the looting that has devastated the economy of African nations and rendered millions poor? Are they the reason why Nigerians do not experience uninterrupted power supply? Are they the cause of the bad roads, lack of potable water, insecurity, assassinations, high maternal mortality rate, lack of access to quality education and numerous other things taken for granted in the west.

I think we better begin to get our own lives and allow others to live theirs. The present day argument being used to suppress the gays, lesbians and homosexuals was used over 200 years ago to justify the slave trade and some are still using it today to justify killing in the name of God. Live and let live! I am a Christian, a Roman Catholic and come from a place very rich in history of oppression, suppression, corruption and injustice that ordinary water and electricity is a luxury. As a result of my upbringing, I see everybody as my brother. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, white, disabled; all of them are my brothers and I love them and thank God for the spice and variety they are introducing into this world. God is capable of doing everything, if He does not want any of them, He could have wiped them off the face of the earth within seconds. And so far He has not done that, I am inclined to believe that they are still precious in the eyes of the Lord.

Therefore, let there be no more hatred. We have had enough of hatreds, bitterness, walls and wars. Love and Peace should be the watchwords. Wherever there is peace and love and unity and brotherhood, that is where I belong and that is my father’s land. Ubi pacem, Ubi patria! And wherever there is hatred, oppression and victimisation, please count me out! And when I die I would want to be remembered more as that guy who never sought the riches of heaven and earth, but the universal brotherhood, equality and freedom of mankind! The founding fathers and those who drafted the American Constitution were well aware of this issue hence the inclusion of the ninth and fifteenth amendments in that famous constitution.

Gordon Brown: Why He Was Hated And Loathed Like A Criminal

2010-05-12T15:11:00.001+01:00

It is now more than 24 hours since the exit of Gordon Brown as the leader of the Labour Party and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but I am still here wondering why he was hated and loathed by many like a criminal and pushed to resign like a village buffoon. He went through a very difficult time and was obviously lonely and alone as a Prime Minister. Even those he trusted so much deserted him when he needed them most. They broke his fragile heart and forced him to defy the law of nature by aging so far fast more than his age within few months. There were resignations and betrayals here and there as well as mutinies and campaign of hatred everywhere; even from within his own Labour Party. They loathed him, wanted to bury him alive and even concocted many reasons for this outrageous campaign of hatred. But the fact remains that those who accused him of these wrong doings cannot in actual fact intelligently say exactly what he did wrong; they often repeat what others accuse him of. One quarter wanted him to resign alleging that he is the main architect behind the recession. Their reason is because as a Chancellor of the Exchequer for over 12 years he must take responsibility for what went wrong in the financial system. The other quarter accused him of being arrogant and ambitious. But who is not?

I am chagrined by all these accusations because in actuality there are many elements of untruth in them. It is true that Gordon Brown was the Chancellor up till the moment we entered the recession but he was also the Chancellor when the economy was good and everybody enjoyed it. How then could he be suddenly accused of being responsible for the recession? That is what the British Conservative-controlled media conspired and agreed amongst themselves to give us as the main reason for the clamour for his resignation. But there is no element of truth in it. One thing we all know is that this present recession actually originated from the American housing sector. Or have we quickly forgotten how we partied and enjoyed during the boom when he was the Chancellor. We wined and dined with him when the going was so good and groovy, how then could we be so callous to abandon him now that he needed our support. I am therefore finding it very difficult to believe that Gordon was asked to leave simply because of the recession. There is a major reason for that and that is because of where he came from.

The simple truth is that the English voters are simply tired of Gordon Brown because he is Scottish and the idea of a Scottish man lording it over them is one last insult they do not wish to continue to bear. They wanted by all means one of their own and the events of the last few months has gone a long way to give credence to this fact. Many of his party members who are mostly English either abandoned him or obviously conspired with their fellow English Conservatives to resign from his government so as to weaken it and pave way for his eventual resignation and a general election. They succeeded. I am disposed to believe that it is conspiracy amongst the English voters, some Labour members in conjunction with the Conservatives to oust Gordon Brown from the office, “after all we are all English and he is a Scot”. The fact that the Liberal Democrats agreed to form a coalition government with the Conservatives says a lot because in the first place they do not have anything in common and suddenly having something in common to form a coalition government with them points to the fact that the conspiracy was not against Labour but against Brown.

Gordon brown never caused the recession. The recession simply happened in obedience to the law of economics. Boom especially the one fuelled by greed precedes burst and that is what the United Kingdom is facing today. But seeing that those he led into boom as the Chancellor have suddenly turned against him during the burst shows how callous and wicked we could be. Very wicked to the extent that members of his own party who are supposed to work with him and be there all the time come rain or sunshine and support him suddenly chickened out. This is a pure sign of betrayal and a good example of an anti-party activity. The Labour Party is like a family and when a family has got a problem, they have to come together and look for a solution to it. Chickening out is a sign of cowardice. The issue of some Labour politicians washing their dirty linen outside is completely out of question and should never be tolerated or accepted. It is not a good sign to abandon your party when you are supposed to be there to offer your shoulder for your party leader to lean on when he needs you most. What the Labour did to Gordon is not fair and that is an injustice that may come back to haunt them. Yes he is Scot and so what!

Once upon a time he was praised for the direction he was taking the UK in the battle against the recession only to be demonised few days later by the same people. But the fact remains that of all the leaders of the political parties in the UK, Gordon Brown would have been the only suitable candidate to lead this country out of this mess. He has been there for over a decade as the Chancellor and actually witnessed the signs of events that led to this recession and bearing that in mind, he will recognise the green shoot easily when they begin to come out. The Tories are pro rich and would never care about what happens to the common man.

Gordon may not be an epitome of humility but compared to David Cameron, he is above Caesar’s wife in humility and this is one thing I admired in him which David Cameron and Nick Clegg lack from every aspect. They are both arrogant. In actual fact listening to David Cameron speaking makes me sick while Nick Clegg speech makes me to vomit. They are arrogant and this is very evident from the way they addressed Gordon Brown with impunity during the house debates. With this I begin to wonder where David and Nick are going to lead us with this their level of arrogance. Gordon Brown may not be good, which I so much doubt, but David Cameron would be disastrous while Nick Clegg is likely to end up as congealed oil in a hot frying pan. Gordon sincerely speaking worked under a very difficult and different circumstance. He took over the government at a point in time when the Labour rating was irreparably damaged to the extent that they were a laughing stock before the voters. He took over from the very unpopular Tony Blair who led the nation into war in Iraq. This war was very unpopular and people transferred their anger to Brown. And the fact that he is a Scottish man in English heartland never helped the situation; it was like from frying pan into the fire.

Before the 1707 Acts of the Union that amalgamated the Scottish and English Parliament, both nations have been a separate and distinct independent government. That Union was actually opposed right from the day the idea was muted before it eventually took place in 1707. Scotland has always seen itself as an Independent nation with a very distinct culture different from that of their neighbours the English. Over the centuries there have been wars and hatred existing between the two nations. The Acts of Union helped to mellow down the whole hatred. The 1999 Devolution of Power to the Scottish Parliament with the ascension of the Scottish National Party reignited the quest for full independence. The devolution has been used by the Scottish National Party to make almost all services either free or affordable to the Scots. The English are obviously not happy with this because their thinking is that their tax money is paying for the free services being enjoyed by the Scots.

Against this background, one could perfectly understand the reason Michael Martins the former House Speaker was quickly sacked and then the pressure that eventually led to the resignation of Gordon Brown. The Conservatives are very good in what they know how to do best; creating confusion and scuttling the good intentions of the Labour Party. What a shame that the almighty Labour allowed herself to be thus used.

Funeral Oration For My Prime Minister Gordon Brown

2010-05-10T21:27:00.001+01:00

Friends, Britons, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Gordon Brown, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. The good are often interred with their bones. So let it be with Gordon Brown. The noble David Cameron told you Gordon Brown was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault and grievously did he pay for it. Here under leave of David Cameron and the rest-for David Cameron is an honourable man, so are they all, all honourable men-come I to speak in Gordon Brown's funeral. He was our Prime Minister, faithful and just to us and worked tirelessly to fix our poor economy. But David Cameron says he was ambitious and David Cameron is an honourable man. He brought many reforms home to the United Kingdom and who gained the most? Same people accusing him today of being ambitious! Did this in Gordon Brown seem ambitious? When that the poor have lost their job and home and cried, Gordon Brown wept and reduced the VAT from 17.50% to 15%. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. Yet David Cameron says he was ambitious. And David Cameron is an honourable man.

You all did see how he toiled day and night, travelled round the world with Barak Obama, Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel in search of solution to the recession and all the hardships we are facing but he was insulted by all of us including Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Commons. Was this ambition? Yet David Cameron says he was ambitious and sure he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what David Cameron said. But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once and not without cause. What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason. Bear with me for my heart is in the coffin there with Gordon Brown and I must pause till it come back to me. But yesterday the word of Gordon Brown might have stood against the world, now lies he there and none so poor to do him reverence. Oh Britons, if I were disposed to stir your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage, I should do David Cameron wrong and Nick Clegg wrong who you all know are honourable men. I will not do them wrong. I rather choose to wrong the dead, myself and you, than I will wrong such honourable men.

But here is a letter with the seal of Gordon Brown. I found it on his table in Number Ten. It is his will. Let but the commons hear this testament-which, pardon me, I do not mean to read-and they would go and kiss dead Gordon Brown's wounds and dip their napkins in his sacred corpse. Yes, beg a hair of him for memory and dying, mention it within their wills, bequeathing it as a rich legacy unto their children. Have patience, gentle friends and fellow Britons, I must not read it for you cannot fathom how Gordon Brown loved you. You are not wood, you are not stones, but men and being men, hearing the will of Gordon Brown, It will inflame you and make you mad. It is good you know not that you are his heirs for if you should, something horrible would come out of it! Will you be patient? Will you stay awhile? I have overshot myself to tell you of it and I fear it would wrong the honourable men whose opposition led Gordon Brown to his death. I do fear it.

If you want to hear the will my people, then make a ring about the corpse of Gordon Brown and let me show you him that made the will. Shall I begin? If you have tears, prepare to shed them now. You all do know this office. I remember the first time ever Gordon Brown occupied it. It was about three years ago in Downing Street. That day he overcame ambition. Look at him now lying helplessly in that coffin. In this place ran James Purnell's betrayal through. See what a damage the envious Margret Beckett made. Through this the well-beloved Caroline Flint finished him off and as she plucked his acid mouth away, mark how Gordon Brown followed her as rushing out of doors to be sure it was Caroline Flint he knew from day one and made a Minister in his cabinet. For Caroline Flint as you all know should have been there for him because she was Gordon Brown's angel.

Now my fellow Brits, Judge how treacherous and unfaithful it was for the dearly beloved Caroline Flint of all to have done such a nasty act. Gordon Brown loved and trusted her! Her brutality was the unkindest of all for when the noble Gordon Brown heard of her resignation, ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms, quite vanquished him and exploded his big heart and then our great Gordon Brown fell. Oh, what a fall was there, my fellow Brits! Then I and you and all of us fell down while bloody treason flourished over us. Oh, now you weep and I perceive you feel the dint of pity as well. Brits wait until you see the wounded corpse of Gordon Brown? Look you here, here is himself marred as you see by traitors.

Stay Brits! Stay good friends. Stay sweet friends! Let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny. They that have done this deed are honourable and what pushed them to do this is what am yet to understand. However they are all wise and honourable men and will no doubt with reasons answer you. I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts. I am no orator, as David Cameron is, but as you all know, a plain blunt man who love and cherish his Prime Minister and that is why am allowed to address you. I have neither wit nor words nor worth, action nor utterance nor the power of speech to stir men's blood. I only speak the truth and I have told you that which you yourselves do know by showing you sweet Gordon Brown's corpse with his poor mouth and bid them speak for me. If this fate had met any of these honourable men, by now they would have stirred up your mind, body and spirit towards mutiny.

How I wish you all comprehend or can fathom how Gordon Brown loved and cherished you and this country. If you know, you will bear me witness that he deserves your love? Alas, you know not and I must tell you. Have you forgotten the will I told you of? Here is the will with his signature. To every British citizen he mandated to be given, as long as the recession lasts, their full salary from the coffers of the government till they get a new job. He has also bestowed upon you all his incomes, his private arbours and orchards. He hath left them for you and your children forever as a common wealth for your pleasures and recreations. This Gordon Brown, the son of a pastor and how do we get another like him so soon? Having heard me Britons, it is now up to you to decide what to do for your future lies in your hand. I am done and let Gordon Brown now rest in perfect peace!

Jacqui Smith: ‘Atrocious Barbaric’

2010-05-07T14:41:00.001+01:00

One good thing I learnt from the embattled British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith is that there is no way you could build legality out of illegality. Jacqui Smith was responding to the suggestion of legalising about 750,000 illegal immigrants in the UK when she used this expression. Jacqui has been a strong opponent of anything that has to do with legalising the illegal immigrants saying that they have to bear the consequences of their action which is to run away from poverty and persecution to pick menial jobs her own people are unwilling to do. She was passionate about this that she sanctioned the deportation of a woman dying of cancer in a hospital in Wales. Ms. Ama Sumani, a widowed mother of two, was deported while receiving kidney dialysis and treatment in the University Hospital of Wales in January this year. The drug-thalidomide-she needed to prolong her life is not available in Ghana. She passed away in Accra, Ghana, hours after being told that friends and family had found doctors in the UK and South Africa to treat her. They had also raised more than £70,000 from donations to pay for drugs which were not available in her home country of Ghana.

Sumani came to England as a student in 2004. Her lack of good English prevented her from taking up her course and she then sought work, which broke the rules of her student visa. With this scenario one begins to wonder who gave her the visa in the first place despite her poor English. News of her death re-ignited the controversy surrounding the decision to deport her in the first place. The Archbishop of Wales, Dr. Barry Morgan said her death was on the nation's conscience while an article in the respected British medical journal ‘The Lancet’ described it as an "atrocious barbarism". It is therefore with joy that I received the news of her intention to resign from the cabinet following serious allegations of misconduct levelled against her. Jacqui Smith is not fit to be a politician and she is an epitome of what wickedness is all about. She lacks an active conscience, humanity and compassion within her heartless heart and it was basically because of this that she used the taxpayer’s money to pay for adult movies watched by her husband. In a very simple term adult movie means pornography.

Putting into consideration her stand on no amnesty for illegal immigrants, one would think that Jacqui Smith is an epitome of law and order and respect for the tax payers but the event of the past few weeks suggested otherwise. Smith is not from any angle what she claims to be and right from the day she sanctioned the deportation of Sumani, I concluded that she will go the same way. In fact her intention to resign is just the beginning and I have no doubt that she will end up the worst way compared to this poor woman she killed. Jacqui has no sense of decency and respect for human life and not resigning after the deportation of the woman is a shame on all of us. It is also a very big shame that only few people raised their voices in protest over that ungodly decision. Democracy is a form of government that relies heavily on the voice of the people which is the voice of God and having the effrontery to heedless the voice of the people and God for her to stay, the Labour Party and all those involved in that barbarism must be punished by voting them out in any election. Politics without morality ends in the bin and that is actually where that of Jacqui Smith and her cohorts are heading to.

A person who has no respect for the sacredness of life usually does not meet a good end. Jacqui Smith in as much as she is resigning from the cabinet should also be forced to resign from the British politics and prosecuted for a gross misconduct in the office for what she did with the tax payer’s money. How the mighty fall. The rise and fall of Jacqui Smith! In as much as am not laughing over her down fall, I strongly associate with her downfall and hope she learns a lesson from her heartless heart devoid of human milk and compassion. I hope she takes a trip to Ghana to say sorry to the children of Ama Sumani for killing their mother otherwise she cannot expect to see goodness in her life for depriving motherhood to the two kids Sumani left behind.

Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants: How Nick Clegg And The Liberal Democrats Got It Right

2010-04-27T00:14:00.001+01:00

The second election debate of the leaders of the three major political parties in the United Kingdom has once more highlighted the deficiencies of essential ingredients urgently needed in the British politics and leadership. The evaluation of the leaders’ responses-especially that of the clueless Cameron and brainless Brown-to questions posed to them especially that on immigration shows that they are very far from the reality and never in touch with the pace, thinking and plights of the British voters. They were very cosmetic, kept repeating themselves, bickering amongst themselves like kids struggling over a chunk of meat and at the end of the day succeeded in exhibiting high level of ignorance, idiocy and characters of Machiavellian politicians desperate to deceive and win an election by all means. They are still living in the winter wonderland and there is no doubt that it would be business as usual if any of them are elected. They have nothing to offer. Their main preoccupation is to say what the voters want to hear and then do whatever they have in mind once in Number 10. It is therefore imperative that voters look before leaping to achieve that change we are clamouring for. Giving chance to a new party and a new face would surely introduce the reform urgently needed in British politics.

As an immigrant, I was very much interested in the question of immigration and so was glued to the television like a fanatic when the three leaders were answering questions on the issue. I am sure, I was not the only one who tuned in to watch this epoch making event. In fact, over 9 million viewers tuned in to watch the debate in various channels. The Labour Party was represented by Gordon Brown, the incumbent Prime Minister who was once described by Jeremy Clarkson of the Top Gear as a ‘one-eyed Scottish idiot’. In fact his response during the debate nearly made me to completely agree with Clarkson for Brown’s response was more of a mantra being repeated by a blind fanatical idiot. There was no air of originality at all in his speech. He kept saying same thing over and over again and bored a hell out of the audience and viewers. One of the people in the audience ended up yawning like a hungry angry lion. David Cameron of the Conservative Party fared no better. In fact, for once he was in complete agreement with Gordon Brown and the Labour Party on how to address the immigration issue especially as it concerns the illegal immigrants already here in the UK. The only person who made a sense to the public was the leader of the Liberal Democrats who facing the camera uttered what has been adjudged as the most painful truth in the history of the British democracy. He deviated from tradition and using his common sense filled with air of originality said something that eventually portrayed him as a man you can trust with your vote.

I do not intend to beat about the bush over this issue. I would therefore go straight to the point. The debate took place in Bristol and the question came from a young black lady. She wanted to know what the parties intend to do to fix the immigration problem of the nation which is already at an alarming and embarrassing level. The first to reply was the clueless Cameron. He completely objected to any idea of amnesty for the illegal immigrants already here in the UK and added that if he becomes the Prime Minister, he would put in place a cap on number of people that would be allowed to come into this country yearly. When asked the number he intends to allow in the country yearly, he failed to answer and his failure is not because he has no answer to it. He could have said 10,000, 20,000 or even 50,000 but the fact is that capping immigration is the worst way to solve an immigration issue. We are in a new era of globalisation to the extent that the world is already a small village. There are skills elsewhere that are highly needed in the UK but which are not in the UK presently. The only way to get those skills is through immigration. But if you cap the number of people that could come in here yearly and all of a sudden there is an urgent need for an oncologist somewhere in Wales what would you do? It would be madness to say no because saving lives is more important than capping immigration. Besides, the fact that European Union countries are free to come in and live and work in the UK makes meaningless any plan to cap immigration. Immigration is evolving and it demands dynamic leadership to face it squarely; Gordon Brown and David Cameron are obviously the two people who cannot do it. Nick Clegg has got a clue and could do something. In fact, David Cameron is wrong with his idea of capping the immigration and his being wrong is a sign that he has nothing to offer; only lies and deceit just to win the election. He is desperate and could say anything to confuse the electorates in order to get their votes.

Gordon Brown also repeated same mantra as David Cameron. It seems same person lectured both of them before they came out to face the audience to exhibit their ignorance and stupidity. Anyway, I was happy to see the two men agreeing on one thing for the first time and that brings me to another issue; how could such brainless and clueless men lead the United Kingdom of the 21st century when they do not have a working platform on how to solve the most pressing and urgent problem facing the nation they want to lead; the immigration problem. Gordon Brown is fiercely against the legalisation of illegal immigrants already here in the UK and his reason which was also cited by David Cameron is because such an exercise is a push factor for illegal immigration. Really? If Brown and Cameron do not know what the push factors for illegal immigration are, then it is high time we hired a toddler from an Early Years Centre to tell them that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is one of them just as the west-including UK-condoning of investments in the UK by corrupt African leaders is another. The west knows that the money these corrupt leaders are investing is looted from the commonwealth of their countries.

I am not alone in blaming the west for this. Professor Joseph Stiglitz, a former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist in the World Bank and a Nobel Laureate in Economics painted a picture in his book, ‘Globalization And Its Discontent’, to concur with me when he noted that “The issue of the moral responsibility of the creditors was particularly apparent in the case of cold war loans. When the IMF and World Bank lent money to the Democratic Republic of Congo's notorious ruler Mobutu, they knew (or should have known) that most of the money would not go to help that country's poor people, but rather would be used to enrich Mobutu. It was money paid to ensure that this corrupt leader would keep his country aligned with the West”. This is exactly what happens in Africa today. The west give these corrupt African leaders billions in aid, not to help the poor masses but to enrich the corrupt leaders in order for them to be loyal to them. Here it is apparent that the west in a bid to please corrupt African leaders end up impoverishing millions of the masses who in turn would look for a way by all means to run away from the condition orchestrated by the west. The end result of this is illegal immigration. One is therefore 100% right to say that corruption being condoned by the west is the main push factor for illegal immigration. In addition, the suffocation of the African and Asian Economy by the IMF especially with her imposition of loan conditions and economic models that does not suit the continents is another reason. It is therefore a sign of stupidity and naivety to say that amnesty is a push factor for illegal immigration. The fact that African and Asian leaders could loot the wealth of their country and invest them here in Europe and America, is the main reason illegal immigrants come here on daily basis. The money looted and stashed here by these corrupt Asian and African leaders could have built industries that could have gainfully employed these illegal immigrants or even give them a decent free education which is a step out of life of perpetual poverty. Therefore for Brown and Cameron to look the British voters in the face and tell them lies upon lies is a sign of what they would do to them in the next five years. They would continue to lie ad infinitum! They cannot be trusted and we do not need another mene mene tekel upharsin to know that this is a time for change; a real change.

The question of immigration is a big problem facing this nation today and an urgent and decisive action should and must be taken to nip the problem on the bud. It is not time for pretence or currying the favour of the voters to win their votes. It is a shame that Brown and Cameron, being intent on deceiving us did not get that message. Fortunately Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats got the message very well and spoke like a man, a politician of repute and somebody to be trusted with the future of this nation. He is a man to be trusted and that is why the United Kingdom would be safe if they entrust their votes and future into his hand instead of that of the clueless Conservatives and brainless Labour.

According to the finding of a recent report commissioned by the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and undertaken by the London School of Economics, there are about 750,000 illegal immigrants living in the UK; that is just a peanut compared to about 12 million living in the United States. Most of the illegal immigrants living in the UK work either with genuine or fake identities and pay taxes as well as contribute towards the National Insurance scheme. Most of them do not claim any form of state benefit because that could be a step towards early detection and deportation. They often live underground and avoid all forms of contact with the police. They cannot report to the police when robbed, raped, cheated or assaulted because that could lead to their deportation. Also, when they see crime being committed they are powerless to do anything because that could land them into trouble. Therefore, they have to live like men in stone ages; living in perpetual fear, squalor, poverty, ill health, hunger and anxiety. The weak and lily-livered ones among them would eventually join the crime syndicates and gangs to commit various crimes including selling of illegal drugs and banned substances. The ugliest part is that most of them go scot-free because since they are not documented, it would be difficult to get them to face the law; they have no identity and the state does not know about their existence or whereabouts. Also, some of them especially those in handiwork sector like handymen pay no tax and this cost Her Majesty’s Custom and Revenue billions of pounds in loss of income yearly. These are the people we should target by documenting them, taking them out of the criminal gangs and syndicates and putting them into the hands of the taxman.

This idea makes more sense because the cost of deporting them would be very heavy on the already tired-looking and epileptic economy of this country. There are about 750,000 of them and going by the present rate of deportation by the Home Office which they claimed is about 60,000 yearly at the cost of 11,000 for each person, it would take about 34 years to deport all of them and that would be at the cost of about 9 billion pounds. But, if they are documented and allowed to work and pay tax Her Majesty would surely gain by manifold. This is exactly the argument of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg and it makes every sense on earth. This is called solving a problem and not waving it away with a back hand or sweeping it under the carpet. Brown and Cameron are evading the problem and I am wondering what type of Prime Ministers they would make in this time that demands an urgent action on this issue. It is only Nick Clegg who has a concrete answer and solution to the question.

It is true that amnesty would hurt the ego of some of us. It would make these illegals equal to us in status by converting their status from that of slave workers to legal workers. Whatever is the case, the fact remains that it is high time this issue is settled once and for all. The brainless Labour is introducing the National ID Card to stem the tide; that is very stupid and foolish. That money should be diverted towards providing more Border Police presence in the borders of the United Kingdom to stop them at the point of entry. I think the Labour is very desperate to cling to power just as the Conservatives are mad to taste the power once again after the power was snatched away from them about 13 years ago. But the idea of playing on the emotions and intelligence of the voters is very insulting, a bad politics, irresponsible politicking, very Machiavellian and therefore completely unacceptable. That is exactly what Brown and Cameron are doing. The voters are entitled to the truth; no matter how painful it may sound and no matter whose Ox would be gored. That simple and painful truth is exactly what Nick Clegg told us in the second debate and that is exactly what is demanded of a good leader and leadership.

I am not trying to encourage or support illegal immigration; I am only being frank and that is why I am approaching this issue from a holistic and candid point of view. In tackling this issue, it is pertinent to realise that we are dealing with human beings who evolved or were created in the same image as us and therefore should look at them first as human beings and then as human beings who broke the law. Illegal immigration is breaking the law and those who break the law should be punished and that is why even a conditional amnesty would be fair on them; conditional amnesty in the sense of paying back something to get that privilege. I would come to that in detail in another article but it would take the form of giving them something like initial 10 year visa on the condition that they must pay a fine or do a community service. They could be made to pay a fine of 5,000. This fine must be paid at once or by instalment. If, however the illegal immigrants choose an option of community service, they must do any community service of their choice for above 1000 hours. At the end of the 10 years, if they are able to live with all the conditions without breaking any law, being law-abiding, showing sincere respect to the Queen and the nation and learning English language and culture, they should then be put into the path to citizenship.

I will talk about this in detail in my next article.

Friday, April 9, 2010: Si Deus Pro Nobis Quis Contra Nos?

2010-04-18T12:56:00.000+01:00

In the early hours of Friday, April 9, 2010, I had a near fatal experience. I was involved in a ghastly bike accident that left me in a shock for few minutes and set in motion series of events that culminated in the sharing of this experience with you. I had a fraudulent reason for leaving work that day by 7am on the dot. In fact, I lied to my line manager that I needed to meet up with my GP appointment in thirty minutes. The truth is that I had an appointment with my GP but it was supposed to be on Tuesday, April 13, 2010. The implication is that I told lie in order to leave work earlier to attend to other personal pressing issues. My plan was to get from Chelsea to Walworth within thirty minutes and to do that I had to up the ante of my speed. Upping the ante of my speed on this particular day does not necessarily mean that I was biking furiously; in fact I was still within a reasonable speed limit. I was doing something around 20 miles per hour and that is actually my normal speed.

To get back home to Walworth from Chelsea, I had to take my normal route. This route which is about 8 miles usually takes me about 25 minutes on the average to cover and the meaning is that I do 18 miles every working day. This is what the journey looks like; I begin from Walworth to Elephant and Castle and from there to Lambeth North Station, St. Thomas Hospital, the Big Ben, the West Minster Abbey and Cathedral and then to the Victoria Station. From the Victoria Station, I would head to Belgravia and from there to Chelsea. To go home, I had to do the same thing again. It was exactly what I was doing on that fateful day. In fact, I never prepared for this moment for I am not only a professional biker but also a very careful one; only that on this fateful day I was not using my crash helmet. In fact, I hated it with passion and cannot think of having used one in the last 5 years. The event of that day taught me a bitter lesson especially on the need for crash helmet every time one is biking and I must confess that I learnt my lesson. I couldn’t have been so stupid not to have known the importance of one. I admit I was being stupid, naive and reckless with my life but all the same am grateful that my life is spared.

Anyway, as I was riding back home on that day, everything was normal as usual; just like every other day. I had my iPod and was listening to various tunes. By the way, I have got about 10,000 songs in my iPod and the songs help me a lot in concentrating and covering those 18 miles. Meanwhile, as a biker, you should be aware of dangerous places that you must exercise extra caution to navigate. Every biker has his and I have mine too. Personally, the junctions of Elephant and Castle and that of the Big Ben are two monsters I have to avoid everyday to get to work and to get back home. Between the two evils the lesser one is that of Elephant and Castle. The junction of the Big Ben is a monster in the sense that a biker heading towards the West Minster Bridge from either the Trafalgar Square or Victoria is in a deep trouble; akin to being in between Scylla and Charybdis. There is no provision to give a pride of place to the biker. In fact you have to struggle for the same high road with both motorists and motor bikes and that was exactly what I was doing that day that could have led to the end of my life.

As I was coming from the Victoria direction towards the West Minster Bridge, I was on a high speed; in fact you have to be otherwise other road users would knock you off the road. And under a blink of an eye, just out of nowhere, this guy with a high powered bike-those types that make hiuge annoying noise-came out of a space between two big London buses just by my left side and knocked me off the road. He was trying to change into my lane but never thought a biker would be on that lane at that point in time. It was a spur of the moment decision and he could not have seen in that condition. Even if he sees me, he would not have done anything because it was too late. The only and best option would be to knock me out of the road to avoid being hit by the double decker London bus behind him. And that was exactly what he did and I was miserably left somersaulting in the air and ended up hitting the other side of the road with the back of my head. I was more than lucky because if the oncoming bendy bus driver was not fully alert to apply his brake, he would have simply crushed me like a tomato. But thank goodness that I escaped that ugly fate.

Hitting my head on that road was not a joke. It was terribly bad and hurt like the most painful thing in life. For a brief moment, my brain was just like a tabula rasa. It was virtually left with nothing and I could not have known my name or age at that point in time. However, as luck would have it, I regained my consciousness within couple of minutes and rushed to the guy on the motor bike to make sure he is fine too. He was and I was happy that none of us lost our lives even though as expected I was the only one left with some injuries. I had a small cut at the back of my head which was bleeding and that was exactly where it hit the road and then some bruises by the left side of my thigh. The other guy as I noted was fine except little damage to the chassis of his motor bike. The greater impact of the whole accident was borne by my poor bicycle. The impact of the crash on the back wheel bent it beyond repair. That was really painful for I just replaced that wheel and I love that bike to bits.

The impact of the accident on my head could have been minimised or completely avoided if I had my crash helmet on. In fact the health workers in the Accident and Emergency of St. Thomas Hospital where I rushed to ensure there is no injury to my skull made me understand that not many people’s brain are spared like mine was in this type of accident. They were chagrined that at my age and level of exposure and intelligence, I could still be riding a bike in the United Kingdom without a crash helmet. Frankly, I was ashamed that such an incident took place and the fact that it took place without my crash helmet made me to bury my head in shame. How can a writer who wants to change the world with his writing not be wearing a crash helmet while cycling? I am not unaware of the fact that an old English adage says that charity begins at home and if that is true why then did my own charity refused to begin at home? I am very ashamed of myself and cannot forgive myself so soon and easily for this gross lack of judgement, stupidity and being silly as a silly stupid cunt.

Honestly, I think I should consider myself very lucky and should be in the church now with praises and thanksgiving. If the accident had occurred at least a mile from where it happened, I would have be drowned because it happened just near the West Minster Bridge and I could have easily somersaulted into the River Thames and got drowned. I have never swum before. Even my luck where it happened still baffles me. I was thrown off from one side of the road to the other and in fact in front of an approaching bendy bus and if not for the alertness of the driver whom I was told applied his brake suddenly, I would have been crushed like a tomatoes.

It is therefore with a heart filled with joy that I remain grateful to those who made it possible for me to survive this ordeal that day. The motor biker should be thanked for not killing me. The London bus driver should be praised for being on alert and being cautious to notice my somersaulting body and applying the brake of his life that saved my own life. How about those fine gentlemen working with the West Minster Underground Station? They are angels. They took me as one of theirs and gave me the First Aid before I rushed myself to the Accident and Emergency of St. Thomas. In fact their kindness is beyond what humans can give. I do not even know their names; one black and another white guy. The white guy is such a living angel that he showed concern to the highest level by accepting to safely lock my bike in their locker room till I am fit enough to collect it back. I remain ever grateful to them and even to the bus driver who agreed to carry me and my bike despite the fact that it is not allowed. I thank him very much for making use of his good judgement, common sense and situation ethics to arrive at that wise decision. Most of them do not actually use their common senses most times. It is therefore a thing of joy to see a bus driver putting his common sense into use. Same gratitude must also go to the staff at the Accident and Emergency of St. Thomas Hospital. It used to be called Guy and St. Thomas Hospital. I was surprised to notice that on that day the Guy is gone. Anyway, I thank them from the deepest part of my heart. They are amazing especially the young white nurse that called me naughty for not using my crash helmet. It was very funny when she called me naughty because I busted into laughter and what made me to laugh was the way she shaped her mouth to say that; just like a dominatrix in a sadomasochistic orgy.

I am also not forgetting the doctor who examined me. She is young and black but I completely forgot her name for I was too preoccupied with admiring the fact that a young person like her is in such a position. Finally, I thank God for this second chance. If God is for us, who can be against us?

Blood And Oil: A Response To The Film

2010-04-02T13:27:00.001+01:00

Couple of days ago, I took out time out of my tight schedule to watch a BBC Two film on the Niger Delta of Nigeria. It is a long film, about two hours and runs into two episodes. Without mincing words or beating about the bush, my verdict on the film is that it is awesome, very interesting and something to write home about. I am highly impressed with the talent, sincerity, research, balance, maturity and high sense of responsibility exhibited in the film. In fact the balance of the film especially as it pertains to apportioning blames to appropriate parties without minding whose Ox is gored is unprecedented. In this case, both Nigerians and the west were equally implicated and blamed for the problem with the Niger Delta of the country. These problems are multi-faceted and I am quite impressed with the way the brains behind this project were able to squeeze these problems into one film. Though oil takes the front bench as the main issue in the Niger Delta, this film was also right in acknowledging and highlighting the problems of prostitution, paedophilia, child labour, unfaithfulness, make-money-quick syndrome, oil bunkering and sabotaging of oil pipelines by those in high places. Abject poverty is also given a prominent position as another hydra-headed monster threatening the survival of the Niger Deltans and region.

In a nutshell, the film is about three expatriate oil workers who were apparently set up by their Nigerian colleagues to be kidnapped from an oil installation in the Niger Delta by the MEND. One of the expatriate oil workers is Mark Unwin whose wife Claire had to abandon their home in London to see to his release. She was very unlucky for despite the assurances from her husband’s employer, Krielson International that Mark would be released alive, he was released but as a dead man, an unfortunate event very uncommon with the kidnappers in the region thereby raising a strong sense of suspicion within Claire that somebody must have been up to something very fishy. Her discovery also of a clip recorded by an apparent distressed Mark in his laptop shortly before his kidnapping and death added more weight to her suspicion and set in motion series of events that made her to determine to stay back in Nigeria until the truth is told of what happened to Mark. Claire’s discovery opened a can of worm that revealed the duplicities of Mark’s infidelity and corruption surrounding the oil politics in the Niger Delta.

MEND, an acronym for Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, a local militant group that kidnapped Mark and his colleagues were later confronted by bold but terrified Claire but they assured her that they took the ransom money and released the men alive as promised and therefore had no hands in their death. In fact MEND would later tell Claire that the three expatriates were obviously murdered by the officials of the Nigerian government as a decoy to get both the US and UK military support to kill and silence them and by implication silence the plight of the poor Niger Deltans. A Nigerian and mercenary trainer who survived the ambush by the Nigerian military personnel corroborated the MEND evidence. Krielson PR executive Alice Omuka is given the task of managing Claire until her husband is returned. Omuka, a Nigerian by parentage was also weaved into the web. Her father, a onetime government official made his money corruptly by oil sabotaging and bunkering.

The film which features some notable Nigerian actors including Sam Dede, David Oyelowo, Chike Okonkwo, amongst others is frankly a true reflection of what happens in the Niger Delta today. Most of my friends do not share same opinion with me for they are strongly of the view that the BBC Two used the film to add more injury and insult to the already battered image of Nigeria. I appreciate their argument but the fact is that very important issues were highlighted in the film including the perennial issue of corruption which is the bane of Nigerian future today. This is not the time to defend our country. It is the time to be in solidarity with millions of Nigerians, about 80 million of them, living in abject poverty. It is a shame that being one of the biggest producers of oil and gas in the world, about 80 million Nigerians are still living hopelessly in misery, hunger, squalor and abject poverty. This is not the time to protect the rich and the image of the country. It is the time to feel pains and be part of the misery of the poor and the down trodden.

It would be a great injustice for anyone to criticise the film negatively or accuse the film of having a sinister or evil motive against the welfare of Nigeria and Nigerians. I refuse to see the film from that angle simply because the film despite its supposedly hidden agenda and ulterior motive was also able to highlight the plight of the common people and that has been what I have been preaching ever since I entered the world of journalism and blogging. Journalism should always be on the side of the poor and never on the side of the rich, the oppressors of the poor. This is my whole idea of Liberation Journalism. It is a corporate social responsibility on the part of the media. It would be a huge ethical and moral failure, if the media fails to carry out this function of being on the side of the poor and it is basically because of this that we must praise the film for using the medium to speak for the millions of speechless residents of the Niger Delta of the South South of Nigeria.

I have always maintained that the oil companies in Nigeria should not be solely blamed for the evils in the Niger Delta. You should therefore imagine my happiness when the film actually spoke in my own favour. The problem in the Niger Delta is principally with corrupt Nigerians especially the village chiefs in the affected communities who would take money from the oil companies meant for the development of their place and siphon it into their pockets. The government officials including the ministers and former heads of state of Nigeria were also implicated in the film. It is no more a secret that most of this corrupt Nigerians have private oil refineries outside Nigeria where they refine oil and gas illegally tapped from the sabotaged pipelines they masterminded. This is true and nobody alive on earth today would ever dispute this. These people are corrupt and the poor people are bearing the consequences of their glutton and corruption. That is what the film is saying and that is why we must support the film because it speaks our mind.

How on earth could a human being accuse the film of being anti-Nigerian? Are we not in the first place anti-Nigeria by the mere fact of sabotaging our own oil for selfish motives and not even speaking against it in the name of protecting the image of our country? Wealthy Nigerians pay poor Nigerians to sabotage the oil pipelines and illegally tap oil for them and at the end of the day they get richer while the poor suffers and we are here blaming the BBC Two. This is not acceptable. The problem is with us. People are dying and their futures are being gambled upon and sacrificed on the altar of greed and corruption. We therefore must use every available means including the use of films, facebook, twitter, YouTube and all of them to highlight the corrupt government officials behind this heinous situations; a situation that has demoted the Niger Delta to the status of one of the poorest and most dangerous places on earth.

Niger Delta is the main and only source of the oil and gas revenue for Nigeria yet majority of its people live below poverty level. The gains of millions of dollars being generated daily from the proceeds of the oil has not tickled down to the people simply because few unscrupulous elements in the government and communities in the region are siphoning the money meant for the development of the region into their pockets. This situation has led to untold calamities. The farms in the region are all turned into wastelands coated with oil, their source of potable water is also coated with oil while gas flaring which has been banned for long is still in use by some oil companies courtesy of corrupt Nigerians who take bribes and refuse to speak out against the evil. It was these notorious acts that Ken Saro-Wiwa was strongly against.

Prior to his hanging, Ken Saro-Wiwa had predicted that the evils being perpetrated by the oil companies in the Niger Delta would come back to haunt them. As the film is being shown here in the UK, the region is rehearsing another Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan combined with bombing, shooting, kidnapping and likes of them becoming the other of the day. The peaceful protests against the companies especially the Royal Dutch Shell strongly encouraged by Saro-Wiwa is now turned into a violent hell leading the oil companies to be recording annual looses of unprecedented level since their arrival in Nigeria. A clear case of had we known, we would have listen to Ken. Even the overall export of oil from Nigeria has since gone down almost by half. And we know the solution; get those past head of states, government officials and community leaders to answer one or more questions and everything would be okay.

The Vatican And The Condom Conundrum

2010-03-16T21:33:00.001Z

As a Roman Catholic and an African, I am already worried about what would be the outcome of the instruction being prepared by the Pontifical Council for Health on the use of condom by married Roman Catholic couples in the fight against STDs and HIV and AIDS. HIV and AIDS are already causing havoc in different parts of the world especially in Africa which unfortunately is bearing the highest brunt of these epidemics today. The Pontifical Council for Health is equivalent to the Department or Ministry of Health.

I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the instruction but am very much afraid and worried that once again a very important issue bordering on human life would further be complicated by a verbose academic lucubrations from the Vatican. The fact that the final document is taking too long to come out is worrisome. The Pope, Benedict XVI, gave the instruction as far back as 2006 and up till today we are yet to have a document on this issue even as many are still succumbing to the threat of the virus. I am also afraid that the outcome may not be very far from the traditional views of the Roman Catholic Church. The instruction at the end of the day is likely to repeat the usual Vatican cliché and familiar tune of procreation being the essence of marital sex and that whatever goes against this would be considered obstruction to the Will of God and therefore not just a sin but a mortal one that can only be absolved by bishops. For conservative Roman Catholics the argument maybe quite plausible and understandable since they are wired to take hook, line and sinker whatever comes out of the Vatican. But we have to take a holistic view of this argument especially from the angle of the theory of lesser evil to grasp the reason the Roman Catholic Church should for once be liberal on issues like this; after all we are talking now not about contraception but saving of lives of millions of people.

I am just wondering what would have been the response of Our Lord Jesus Christ on this issue if He were still physically present here on earth. But before then recall that instead of outright condemnation He told an adulterous woman to go and sin no more. Recall again that when accused of breaking the Sabbath day by healing a diseased man He asked his accusers which is lesser evil to heal a diseased man on the Sabbath day or to abandon him in his suffering and sorrow. Bearing these in mind, I have no doubt that Christ would have sanctioned the use of condom by married couples in the fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS. He would probably have asked, “Which is lesser evil; to contract a disease and die or to prevent a disease and live?”

A conservative Roman Catholic who has not been to Africa or other parts of the world similar to Africa may not appreciate the tone of this argument. Still he is not likely to read further if he has not been privileged to know what it means to be poor or ignorant. An Italian friend once told me a story of his poverty. The story at the end of the day left me wondering if his mental state is okay. I was very much miffed because this is a young man who lives in a two-bedroom flat in the centre of Rome with a nice small car and has been touring the world each summer since the last four years. At the time of this conversation, he was 26, had a degree in Architecture and still has got a very bright future ahead of him; yet he claimed to be poor. I was a little offended because that statement was made in a midst of a very serious conversation. Well at the end of the day I concluded that this young man needed to take a vacation to Africa to see what the other side of the world is like. His idea of poverty is completely naive and I am sure that this also the case with many other Europeans and Americans who have not been to Africa. In fact if that is what poverty is all about I pray the Lord to bless Africa with more poverty.

My argument is not actually that Africa is poor as such. Africa has a lot of natural, manmade and intellectual resources to play a leading role in the comity of nations but as a result of injustice being condoned by the west, Africa may not enjoy in the next one thousand years what Europeans and Americans are taking for granted today. For instance, all the money looted from the commonwealth of my country Nigeria by our corrupt politicians past and present including the former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his fellow crooks are either in Swiss banks or in form of tangible assets in other European and American cities. As a result of this wanton looting of the commonwealth, Africa today has an unenviable record of being the world poorest continent with a huge population of the poorest of the poor and illiterates. From this picture it could be appreciated how African problems including health issues, terrorism, wars, conflicts and the likes are intertwined with poverty and illiteracy. It can only take a visit to understand this scenario well.

Therefore if the proposed instruction fails to take into consideration the African background and the role she plays in the 21st century Roman Catholic Church, it may end up being a decoy to ridicule the poor Africans. The possibility of not including African consultants in the framing of this instruction is very likely since most Vatican polices in the past have always been Ameri-Eurocentric in outlook with little or less contributions from Africa. This becomes very sad when one considers the fact that Africa today has if not the highest population of active Roman Catholics, the second largest in the world. I am also very much afraid that the Vatican might have been infected with this attitude of nothing good coming out of Africa; and therefore consulting them for their contributions may not be important.

The present Vatican stand on the prohibition of condom as a lesser evil in the fight against the virus is based on a 1968 document ‘Humanae Vitae’ issued by the papacy of Pope Paul VI. When the document was issued there was nothing like HIV or AIDS, therefore the document had no HIV and AIDS in mind in the first place. The crux of the document is that the essence of marital sex is procreation and any use of sexual device which impedes that goal of procreation, is immoral and therefore a sin. Good! But we are today talking about saving and prolonging that life.

When ‘Humanae Vitae’ was issued, there was no reported case of HIV and AIDS and I am certain that little or no African consultation was deemed necessary before the promulgation of the encyclical otherwise the Africa experts would have advised on the over technicality of the document and why it may not work in Africa. I have not also stopped wondering if that highly academic document is meant to instruct my illiterate parents, brothers and sisters back home in my poor small village in Nigeria. Having lived in Europe for quite some time now, I have no doubt that most Europeans are not just ignorant of what happens in Africa but lacks even the simplest basic fact about the continent. Sarah Pallin, former Republican vice Presidential candidate thought that Africa is a country.

Nigeria may be an exception to this argument because of our luck in having a reasonable number of educated citizens as well as families who live a little above poverty level. In fact about 60% of our about 145 million population live below poverty level. But then the twin issues of HIV and AIDS have not been very fair to us. Today with more than 3.5 million people living with the virus, we have the third highest rate of the virus after South Africa and India. These three countries have also noticed in the last few years the continuous depletion of its active population especially those between the ages of 18 and 45 and consequently the leaving behind of huge army of orphans with the virus as witnessed in countries like South Africa, Uganda and Botswana and of course Nigeria and India. In these countries, it is now a case of grandparents taking care of their HIV and AIDS infected grandchildren.

That is actually not the most pathetic part of the story. The most pathetic side is that these grandparents do not have the strength and the money to feed their hungry grandchildren; as a result they die by instalment of hunger and complications associated with these viruses. Let us not talk about the life saving Antiretroviral Therapy because it will expose a lot of corruption in the African health system. As of October 2005 out of about 3.5 million Nigerians who are living with the virus, it was only about 10,000 that were benefiting from the Federal Government sponsored Antiretroviral Therapy Programme. The Government had an ambition to raise it to 150,000 by June of the following year but the fact is that it is only the rich and those connected to the rich that have access to these drugs thereby leaving thousands of the poor masses behind. Due to the ignorance and low literacy level of the poor masses the cycle of transmission continues spreading, sparing nobody not even the riches who depend on the poor for their sexual gratifications in exchange for money, employment and other gratifications.

It is therefore completely unacceptable for one to stay in the Vatican and issue a highly academic instruction to poor dying souls in remote villages in Africa. This would not only be considered funny but highly offensive to Africans. It would not only tantamount to not appreciating our sufferings and plights but also ridiculing and scorning us while we suffer and die. Christ who refused to endorse the stoning to death of a woman caught in adultery and forgave those who killed Him would certainly have not kept Africans in a very difficult situation like this if He were still alive. I have the impression that the Vatican at the moment is busy debating over a cup of coffee while people are dying elsewhere. It could be very dangerous placing the faithful on a very high moral pedestal. May be it was because of this that Christ forewarned that we should first remove the log of wood in our eyes before looking for a speck in that of our neighbours.

Being a former health journalist with the Guardian Newspapers of Nigeria, I was opportuned to have almost a two year non-stop contact and interaction with people living with the virus especially women and children. Most women I met and spoke with told me that they contracted the virus from their husbands. Africa is a very patriarchal society and as a result women have little or no say in the family not even on issues that revolves around them including sex. They cannot negotiate sex with their husbands. To refuse your husband sex is considered highly offensive. In most African cultures, men do not sin and therefore a man having an extra-marital affair is considered normal while a woman could be publicly disgraced or even stoned to death for the same offence. This is just a little picture of how most women get the virus from their husbands. It is also how some women infect their husbands. However, it should also be noted that even though these women are aware that their husbands are already infected and that this situation could endanger their own lives and that of their children, due to societal pressure and culture they are forced to continue to fulfil their marital obligation by ensuring that their husbands are supplied with sex whenever and wherever he needs it.

Under this difficult situation the stand of the church is that they must not use condom otherwise it is a mortal sin. This has left many women in a dilemma and a very difficult situation. They are left with no option at all and for them to remain good and loyal Roman Catholics they must remain subjects to their infected partners.

I have been wondering what manner of love would make a woman to subject herself to her infected husband to the detriment of their children. That is not love; it is utter stupidity. I personally believe and think that what would be the right thing to do under this circumstance is for the partners to enter into an agreement that will put an end to sex within that marriage. A sexless marriage. But since this idea sounds angelic and utopian, I strongly believe that something must be done to save that marriage and protect those lives. It is therefore based on this ground that I strongly believe that the use of condom by the partners justifies itself as a lesser evil. Though some quarters are of the opinion that condom may not be highly effective in halting the spread of these viruses but experts are of the opinion that if well used condom could protect the transmission of STDs, HIV and AIDS to a reasonable extent. Couples therefore should be allowed to make a choice in this case and the Vatican could be of immense help by not placing a very big obstacle to this choice. A man who has never married, I mean a celibate, may not be competent to talk on this issue.

For that reason, the Vatican while still preparing this document should endeavour to let it have a human face and a realistic tone. If it sounds too utopian and angelic, it would put us in a very difficult situation and add to our already heavy burden. It may also force most Roman Catholics in Africa to follow their conscience especially at this difficult and trying time they are faced with only two options; life or death. As an African who has seen a lot of friends succumb to the viruses, I have no doubt that we are likely to choose life if the church refuses us that precious option of life. It is stupid and unreasonable for us to join in a dance step of a song we do not know its tune.

And what would the Roman Catholic Church gain if tomorrow our pastors open the church to see empty pews because we have all died of the viruses. God forbid we should get to that stage but even if we must get there the church should make hay while the sun shines. She must place herself under a moral obligation to act fast to save our lives and the church of tomorrow.

Tolerance, Respect And Accommodation: My Birthday Reflections!

2010-03-07T00:33:00.000Z

Today is my birthday and incidentally the birthday of the Republic of Ghana. I think it would be a good idea for Ghana to make me an Honorary Citizen, a Goodwill Ambassador, an Ambassador-at-Large or even an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. What do you think about that? Am sure it is a good idea! You can stop laughing now. I am so thrilled and excited to be celebrating my birthday today. The fact that I am alive today to celebrate yet another birthday is interesting in itself. But then, when I realise that the meaning of birthday is getting old I become agitated because I do not want to get old; I want to be eternally young, maybe like Benjamin Button and do things young people do including youthful pranks. My birthday in particular brings a lot of anxiety to me. The brutality of coming to terms with the fact that my birthday is a reminder that I am getting old could be horrendous. Culturally, amongst the Igbos of the Southeast of Nigeria, old age is a blessing. To live long is what everybody prays for and the Igbos in particular considers it a bad omen to die at a tender age. Every Igbo man or woman is expected to live well beyond his parents and bury them and not the other way round. It is a taboo for parents to bury their children in Igboland. Am sure this is also applicable to many cultures in the world.

But the fact that birthday is a reminder that we are gradually moving into that phase of life where we would be depending more on people, makes the whole idea of birthday so scary; just like scary movies. Getting old comes with anxiety. The fear of not knowing the condition we would find ourselves in is the main source of the anxiety. The fear that our kids might not be there is another source and the fact that old age comes with a lot of incapacitations is the primary source of anxiety related to old age. I am not immuned to these anxieties; in fact today am scared even though it is supposed to be a day of merriment. But the fact is that this day would always come up yearly to remind me rudely of that fact; the fact of aging. Aging as I noted at the outset is one thing people are always afraid of at all times, probably due to anxiety and insecurity of what tomorrow would bring. People get shivers about their age and to make things easier for themselves, they shroud their age with utmost secrecy. This is exactly why people would not want to discuss it openly or let others know their age. We prefer keeping it as a top secret probably because not making our age known or keeping it a secret makes us feel younger. But, does age really matter? People should be allowed to claim to be as young as they would want to be and I mean it.

I am strongly in favour of this opinion and identify myself staunchly with this school of thought. As far as am concerned age is just a number. Age is usually not written on one’s face and if that is true why then should we be bothered with the aging process. You cannot look at one’s face and predict accurately their age. While some may look younger than their age, others look older than their age: I think I prefer the former. There are even some who look ageless. To most people age is a thing of the mind and actually in the eyes of the beholder. I might choose to be as young or as old as I would want to be and that should be my business. It becomes a public business when it is legally required of me to give my age and in deference to the law it must be given without any form of deception.

It is therefore, with a heart filled with anxiety and an air of mixed feeling, that I am sharing this birthday reflections with you. Yes, today is my birthday anniversary. As I noted at the outset, I am so excited and at same time have some reservations about it. Am excited because it is one of those days you are remembered in a very special way and sent not only good wishes and good health but also gifts. As am writing this reflection, my facebook page is already filled up with birthday wishes from men and women of goodwill. By this time last year I had same birthday in a very quiet and solemn mood to reflect on my life. Nobody was invited. It was a nice opportunity for me to reflect on the life I have been living and what lies ahead of me. I celebrated the day in Birmingham in the Midlands of the United Kingdom. This year I am in my house in London to celebrate it; do not get me wrong, there is no fanfare just me alone in a very quiet and calm mood. I think I like that way.

A lot has happened since my last reflection about a year ago. New friends were made while others rejected me probably because of my belief, views or ideology which they are yet to come to terms with. I have a very deep respect for them but bearing in mind that friendship has got more to do with what Latin scholars called ‘Ejus Dem Generis’ which in English could be translated as birds of same feathers flock together, I really need to move on. If friends do not share anything in common, it is cool if they come to agreement to accommodate each other otherwise the best solution would be for them to fall apart and follow with passion their different opinions, views and ideologies in life.

I value my friends especially those who do not share the same views about life with me. We must not belong to the same school of thought and that is one good thing about life. Everyman is free to obey his conscience and stick to his opinion so far it is not cynical and antithetical to the right of other men to pursue happiness. The greatest thing that has ever happened to mankind is the ‘discovery’ of democracy. Democracy warrants that we respect and accommodate other people’s view and opinion and that is why even though I do not accept their opinion and understanding of what life is all about, I still respect them and value their friendship. Often, we tend to reject our friends when they come up with extreme views but the fact is that we owe them an explanation on the reason why their views are not only outdated but also completely unacceptable under the present system. I have met friends who not knowing where I come from said to me that they have a deep-seated hatred and animosity towards Nigerians. But come to think of it, how can one person hate about 145 million people. What are the reasons for that hatred and animosity and if you really want to go into it the person who hates deserves help because it is a clear manifestation of insecurity and ignorance at the highest level. People like this are obviously not those we should ignore. We owe them a thorough lesson on what life is all about. War has its foundation on hatred and if hatred is allowed to grow, the consequence could be calamitous.

Forcing others to believe, follow our own way of life or behave the way we do is a mark of ignorance and the highest form of stupidity. Dialogue and not compulsion is the highest virtue. Compulsion is evil and if it is not checked it is likely to lead to tyranny, murder and wickedness. We have a duty to suffocate it by speaking against it instead of maintaining neutrality and silence. Every human being is unique in his or her own way and that is why no two human beings have exactly the same finger prints, not even identical twins. This is a principle I cherish a lot and it is because of this love for this principle that I have dedicated these couple of years to disseminating the gospel of moderation, acceptance, dialogue, tolerance, respect and accommodation. Moderation is a virtue, a sign of wisdom and intelligence while extremism is a manifestation of the highest form of ignorance, insecurity, blind faith and doubt in whatever the person guilty of it believes in. Extremist views are very dangerous and could have a negative social impact. One man’s cynical view is likely to have a negative implication on the whole population. People like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and many like them began this way. They nurtured their hatred for other people from day one and waited for an opportunity to unleash their venom of hatred on their victims. Hitler’s hatred for the Jews was not an evil plotted in one day. It was an idea he nurtured probably from a very young age and grew up with it. It was always in his mind. What he needed was to wait for the right time to unleash it and the time came when he became the German leader and he killed nearly 6 million Jews as well as gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped. War, animosity, bigotry and hatred begin from the heart.

I have in the past couple of years met many people especially through the Facebook who openly told me of their hatred for a certain way of life. A friend told me of his hatred for gays, lesbians and bisexuals and his willingness and readiness to be the first to stone them to death. Another told me of his intention to legalise abortion if he becomes the Prime Minister of his country. Another told me of his intention to introduce the Sharia legal system in the United Kingdom while another told me of his heart desire to ensure that Islam is banned in the United Kingdom. All these are views coming from human beings like you and me. Whenever am confronted with situations like these, the first step becomes the art of persuasion to convince them to drop such views. This I do by pointing out the negative impact such obnoxious views could have on them and on the people if they happen to become leaders. Sometimes I have to undergo a very thorough academic research and lucubration to convince them into dropping these views. Some would eventually drop them while others out of ego would continue holding tenaciously on to it like an ignorant mule or a silly ewe. Those holding on tenaciously to negative views like this without any hope of being reformed are not worthy to be called friends. Friends are people you share many things in common with.

Therefore, as am celebrating my birthday again, it is important to revisit this issue once more. The fundamental human right to opinion is one of the rights I personally cherish a lot. To me this right is not only inalienable, it also sacred. Man is a thinking being whose existence is made meaningful due to his ability to think. ‘Cogito ergo sum’, a Latin phrase popularised by René Descartes summarised the whole concept aptly. Man exists because he thinks and he thinks because he exists. The right to opinion should be protected and guaranteed and any attempt to stifle this right should be seriously fought against. Democracy is democracy simply because people’s right to air their opinion is not only guaranteed but also respected. The right to opinion is one of the main foundations of democracy. It is a freedom that goes in pari passu with the right to the freedom of conscience and speech. In fact the right to the freedom of conscience and speech are parented by the right to the freedom of opinion. The freedom of press in democratic countries is as a result of their deep understanding and respect for the sacredness of the freedoms of conscience, speech and opinion.

Consequent on this argument, the people’s right to hold and express their own opinion should be respected as a sacred right. Accommodation and respect demand that we respect their views and opinions about life. We cannot and should not impose our opinion on others; no matter how strong we think they are. Imposition of an opinion on others by compulsion is a sign of immaturity, naivety, bigotry and pride. We are only allowed to use the two instruments of dialogue and persuasion to effect opinion change especially when the opinion that needs to be changed does not conform to common sense, democracy, the common good and the welfare of the people. The arts of persuasion and dialogue are virtues worthy of emulation; however we should not hesitate to call in the law enforcement officers if the negative views in question are getting out of hand. Failure to do so could lead to something more dangerous, one of them being production of another Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. Meanwhile, the right to hold and air our opinion does not give us the right or the freedom to disrespect others. A person who holds a view that gays, lesbians and bisexuals should be murdered, should be reminded that in as much as his right to hold and air his opinion is guaranteed under the law, he is not allowed to promote hatred against other people as a result of their way of life which is also guaranteed under the law. That same right does not give a white man the right to call a black model a golliwog or address blacks as nigger neither does it give a licence to a black man to call an Asian a Paki, Sooty or chinco or even call a white man, a whitey or any other derogatory terms.

It is therefore pertinent for me to use this occasion to remind my friends what I believe in. I am a product of a new generation and a new school of thought and would never ever condone any form of intolerance. I value my friends so much, but inasmuch as I do value them so much, am very willing and ready to drop my friends who do not passionately share this way of understanding life with me. The essence of life is hinged upon respect, tolerance and accommodation of other people’s views. I would be a liar to still have friends who do not share these views with me especially those I have made every effort to convert to the kingdom of moderation. Respect, tolerance and accommodation are virtues that are next to godliness. With them we could achieve an everlasting peace in the world.

People kill because they hate and people hate because they refused to tolerate, accommodate or respect others. Bearing this in mind then, what good are we doing to ourselves if we continue to support those friends who do not want to share these golden principles of existence with us? We are simply not doing ourselves any good because our friends are among those who kill people, who stone people to death, who hang people, who hate people, who do not accommodate, respect or tolerate other people and their views. What a disaster that despite all the lessons we have learnt from the story of slavery, apartheid, wars and invasions, we still find it difficult to say no to evil and be on the side of peace and goodness. Pacem et Bonum!

As a result of what I have said above, I have decided never to keep silent or remain neutral when people are suffering. Keeping silent or remaining neutral does not help the victim. It actually empowers the oppressor. The mere fact that we keep silent in the face of the oppression adds energy to the wickedness of the oppressor. Speaking out is the only solution and that is the reason am begging you to join me as I celebrate my birthday to speak out against the evil of intolerance, disrespect and lack of accommodation.

Drama Queens: Yar’Adua, His Clueless Cohorts And The Politics Of Intrigue In Nigeria

2010-02-25T19:30:00.001Z

Hardly 24 hours after his return following a three month mysterious disappearance on an undisclosed medical trip in Saudi Arabia, had the drama revolving around the vacuum created by the sudden absconding from duty of the President of Nigeria, Shehu Musa Yar’Adua commenced in earnest, this time with lots of fanfares and dramas. It began on the early hours of Wednesday last when he was flown in from Jeddah in Saudi Arabia on an air ambulance. News of his arrival emerged after two planes suddenly landed at the presidential wing of Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja and were met by a convoy of police vehicles and an ambulance. Soldiers lined the route from the airport to welcome him home. Yes, they did; bunch of drama queens!

A friend, Kwentor McWillymz Emeruwa who witnessed the drama while waiting to pick up her sister from the airport in the outskirts of Abuja had this to say, “It is painful my brother. I was at the airport waiting for my sister that morning. My brother you are talking of what you heard or read but I am telling you what I saw. He came back with a Boeing 777 ambulance and the iron First Lady came with a private jet. See troops of Arabic security men and the security men of this country. I was asking myself with tears, if my people could spend this kind of money for a man that is close to his grave in the name of power, what will the ones healthy enough do with the country’s resources”.

This drama may be funny to you but frankly it is not to me. I am boiling with anger! Why would Nigerians of all people be subjected to this type of mockery and psychological punishment and trauma? The fact that one man could do such a thing to over 145 million people sends a very clear message and the message is that Nigerians are not yet ready to reap the dividends of democracy. I made it very clear in my last article that the future of Nigeria lies in the hands of Nigerians. It is up to us to take our future into our hands and radically change the way things are done in Nigeria. Nigerians have been insulted enough and frankly no sane country, not even in Africa could tolerate such a drama as attested to by the recent events in the neighbouring Ivory Coast and Niger Republic. The fact that the second part of this drama commenced barely a month after the Vice President, Jonathan Goodluck was sworn in as the Acting President goes a long way to explain the motive behind the ongoing drama orchestrated by this sudden and impromptu arrival back to the country of President Yar’Adua despite the glaring fact that he is still not in good health.

The ongoing drama is a welcomed one, if not for anything, but to assuage our suspicion that Yar’Adua and his cohorts intentionally wanted to damage the image of Nigeria and return the country back to the stone ages. His action lacks any modicum of wisdom and could be best described as stupid, unpatriotic, irresponsible, selfish and wanton lust for power. He is sick and everybody knows that he is very sick. The better option would have been to remain in Saudi Arabia to complete his treatment or even to resign which is the best option for a person that uses his brain to think and not his stomach. Due to love, quest and lust for power, the sick man was dragged like a rag all the way from Saudi Arabia back to Nigeria just to scuttle the opportunity of Jonathan Goodluck to have his happy hours as the Acting President of Nigeria. Nigerians should have gotten this message very clear. We are too big to be an object of mockery by few idiots and lunatics in Abuja. Yar’Adua and his cohorts have an agenda. They do not want power coming to the Christian south and so they are bent on doing everything possible under the face of the earth to foist him on Nigerians even if he is at the point of death. This is sick, unbelievable and completely unacceptable. It makes me sick because Nigerians deserve better than this.

The era of ‘sit down dey look’ is gone. This is time for action and Nigerians must act to ensure that this madness does not get out of hand. Yar’Adua is sick and therefore not fit to act as the President of Nigeria and based on this singular fact, he should resign and I mean resignation with honour. What he simply needs to do is just to take a cab or even walk over to the National Assembly and inform the houses that he is choosing the better option which is resignation due to his bad health in order to take good care of himself. He must do this because we are tired of this endless drama. He should for the love of the country and benefit of Nigerians do this as urgent as possible. Posterity will be on his side for ever if he does. Honourable resignation due to sickness is not a bad thing. Even Fidel Castro of Cuba honourably resigned when he was too sick to continue as the President of Cuba. In Israel, the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in coma for months was declared permanently incapacitated, a decision that officially ended his tenure as Israel's leader. Sharon was declared temporarily incapacitated after he lapsed into a coma following a stroke and Ehud Olmert stepped in for him immediately as acting prime minister, but under Israeli law he served in that capacity for up to 100 days before an official replacement for Sharon was named. Why then must Nigerian case be different? Was anybody born to rule this country alone? Is there no other person that could take the mantle of leadership in the absence of Yar’Adua?

Yar’Adua as a matter of honour should resign. Failure to toe this honourable line should be followed up immediately with the option of impeachment. For the sake of suffering Nigerians, the Senate and the House of the Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is under a moral obligation to impeach him and there are many grounds for which that could be done. He came to power through a fraudulent and dubious means. Before he was elected, he failed to tell Nigerians that he is sick and therefore not likely to discharge his duties as the President of Nigeria. He hid that information from the electorates due to his lust for power. The mere act of hiding this information from the electorates was an impediment to the office he was elected to hold and that should be a reason he should be forced to resign because ab initio he should not have been elected.

Besides, the concealment of that vital information is costing Nigerian taxpayers millions of naira on daily basis; an amount that would have gone a long way to build a first class teaching hospital in all the six geopolitical regions of Nigeria. How much was he charged on daily basis in Saudi Arabia for all these treatments? How many of his family members were there with him? How much were they paying in the hotels where they were lodging? How much did it cost for him to be in a private presidential suit in the hospital where he was receiving the treatment? How much was he charged to be flown home in that air ambulance? How about his wife or even wives? Where did they stay when they visited him in the hospital in Saudi Arabia? And who is paying all these bills? Your guess is good as mine!

There is nothing wrong in Nigerians paying for the hospitalisation of their elected leaders especially the President but there is something fishy in this particular instance. This is a man who came to power through a very dubious means by rigging the election and concealing his medical condition. The game here is that when he becomes the president, Nigerians would then have to foot his medical bill since he is the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It worked and today Nigerians are being punished to bear the financial consequences of his lack of judgement, deception, lust for power and myopic northern hegemonic political jingoism. And we are bleeding to abject poverty and bearing the consequences of an action of one selfish individual. This is completely unacceptable and every sane Nigerian of various shades of opinion would readily agree with me. We all knew he was sick before he was foisted on us by the former President Olusegun Obasanjo. He has been suffering from pericarditis, an inflammation of the lining around the heart as well as a chronic kidney and skin conditions for at least 10 years now. In the past three years he was twice flown to Germany for emergency treatment and had visited hospitals in Saudi Arabia severally and in the process bleeding money out of the poor Nigeria. To add insult to an injury he vehemently refused to tell Nigerians what is going on with him. In previous interviews with the press he had always refused to say what he suffers from and has repeatedly said that his life is "in the hands of God". I have the deepest sympathy for his condition but we cannot because of sympathy forget to do the right thing. The right thing would be for him to resign or face impeachment.

Elsewhere, I noted with deep regret that these dramas have got a very bad consequence for all of us including the nation. People and nations especially the west would never take us serious since it is obvious that we are incapable of solving even a simple domestic problem in our own backyard. And since we cannot solve our problems, how on earth do we expect people and nations to do business with us? It is basically because of this type of drama that Nigeria was placed by the United States of America in a list containing name of countries whose citizens must be thoroughly searched and humiliated before they could board any flight going to the United States. That decision followed the failed attempt by an alleged Nigerian bomber to blow up an Amsterdam to Detroit bound flight last December. And to give them a moral boost the United Kingdom Border and Immigration Agency came up with a decision that slashed almost by half the number of Nigerians that could come and study in the Kingdom . To complicate the already compounded problem, those coming on short stay would no more be allowed to come in with their dependents and if they do they would not be able to work even as those doing sub-degree courses would henceforth only be allowed to work for the minimum of 10 hours a week, a 50% slash from the previous 20 allowed.

I thought that we should have learnt millions of lessons here; alas that was not the case. We just spiralled down to Act 2, Scene 1, of the whole drama. Who knows what will be the next step of the United States? Maybe a blanket ban on Nigerians coming to the United States and of course followed by the UK her main ally. But please God let it not come to that level! But before we begin to disturb God as usual, it is pertinent for Nigerians to know and appreciate the fact that God is not a toy or a robot. He is God and that is what He is and to the best of my knowledge He helps only those who help themselves. Nigerians therefore must act. We must make hay while the sun is still shining otherwise it would be completely difficult in the dark. I have no doubt that we have a leaf or two to borrow from the neighbouring Niger Republic as well as the Ivory Coast. I do not support or call for military intervention but dramas like these are just what the military are looking for as an excuse to grab power. Let it not come to that level but then Nigerians must act to curb the excesses of their unscrupulous leaders who are clearly out of touch with the people they are elected to serve.

Once again Nigerians have got a choice and the choice is to take the bull by the horn and move the nation forward or be forever in the same ladder with countries like Somalia. There is an obvious and imperative need for regime change and it has to be now. The PDP has messed up Nigeria. It is a can of worm filled with maggot-infested pot-bellied corrupt clueless idiots. Something drastic has to be done to break the stronghold of that epitome of corruption in Nigeria. A nation determines the kind of leadership it wants. If that privilege is meddled with, it is left with only one option; the kind of leaders it deserves. I am certain that Nigeria does not deserve these drama queens. We can have something more beautiful, trustworthy and decent than all these drama queens!

The Future Of Nigeria Lies In The Hands Of Nigerians: Revolution Could Be The Only Way Out Now!

2010-02-22T05:07:00.000Z

The way you dress is the way you are going to be addressed. Do not expect to be addressed as a gentleman when you dress like a hooligan. Since it took about 145 million Nigerians about three months to solve the problem created by the sudden disappearance of their president, other nations would certainly not take us serious and the United States of America and the West would continue treating us like a pariah and failed state. The way you make your bed is the way you must lay on it. You don’t expect to harvest a tuber of yam when you have planted a banana or do you?

This may be a bitter pill to swallow but the simplest truth is the fact that the west especially the United States sees Nigeria at the moment as a failed state, otherwise why would the United States in particular place Nigeria alongside other quasi-failed and failed states in a list of countries whose citizens must be thoroughly searched before they could land in the United States. Other western countries have copied that too including Holland where a Nigerian man who was having a 'running stomach' and therefore frequenting the toilet was followed right inside the toilet to find out what he was doing. A shame and I frankly weep for my country Nigeria!

The fact that Nigeria made it in that list with countries like Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and even Iraq, Iran and Sudan says a lot about how the United States and the west perceives Nigeria at the moment. All these negative perceptions simply because one man refused to relinquish his post despite the fact that his sickness has rendered him incapable of discharging out his functions as the president or even to transmit power to his vice to formally take over as the Acting President. Well the latter option was eventually forced on him when the stakeholders especially the National Assembly and the Federal Executive Council after series of political impasse, brouhaha, jingoism and of course litigations and sensing the fact that Nigerians were no more in the mood to continue tolerating their myopic stupidity decided to go ahead and formally install the Vice President, Jonathan Goodluck as the Acting President. That solved the problem partially; however by this time the harm to the image of Nigeria has been irreparably done. We threw caution to the wind and danced naked in the market place and now everybody who saw us dancing naked in the market place thinks we are mad. That is how the west sees Nigeria today; a naked mad man dancing naked in the centre of the market who must be shunned by all means to avoid embarrassing them.

From what happened before the formal installation of Goodluck as the Acting President, Nigerians should ask themselves a question. We should be able to ask ourselves if what we have today in Nigeria is democracy as practiced in sane countries or a democrazy. I am convinced that the latter is what we have today in Nigeria. The fact that it took Nigeria about three months to fill a vacuum created by its absconded president should be a reason for a revolution. Nigerians have been taken for a ride for a long time and it is obviously time for them to take these unscrupulous elements posing as politicians for a ride too. They need a lesson and the lesson is that Nigeria is not a private property just like Congo-Kinshasa was under King Leopold of Belgium during the colonial era. Nigeria belongs to everybody and that is a fact everybody must be aware of. Nobody, not even an ethnic group or any religion has a monopoly over Nigeria. It belongs to all of us and that is why we must take our future in our hands and fix it ourselves since it has become obvious that the bane of Nigeria are the Peoples Democratic Party otherwise called the PDP and some unscrupulous selfish idiots high in new wine and skunk posing as politicians.

It is a shame that those who live presently in Nigeria or who have never been able to go out of Nigeria could not understand the meaning of Nigeria at the moment. In fact, Nigeria at the moment simply means a nation without a viable government; just like Somalia. It is a shame and to complicate the already compounded problem, the UK Border and Immigration Agency just announced that it is slicing the number of Nigerians to be admitted yearly to study in the UK. The meaning is that even with your magnanimous intelligence and money, you cannot come in when the quota is exceeded. In addition to that, those coming in here on short courses would henceforth be banned from bringing their dependants. The implication is that married people may not be able to bring in their family with them if they are coming to do a short course. This is very cynical though, since it is tantamount to being a cog in the wheel of progress of the family life, a sin which is a clear contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Article 8 inter alia stated that “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

This immigration tightening for countries such as Nigeria which was just announced has been in the pipeline for several months now. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown mooted the idea in the wake of the Detroit plane bombing attempt by a 23-year old alleged Nigerian called Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab.

Following this stringent measure tens of thousands fewer visas are expected to be granted, although the British Home Office refused to give any estimate at the moment. Already Nigerian students hoping to study in the United Kingdom are being marginalised by the Points Based System introduced about a year ago which requires students to secure 40 points to come to the UK. Applicants are given 30 for holding a course offer from a college or university, and 10 for proving they can pay the fees and support themselves while in the country. Many genuine Nigerian students cannot and can never meet these criteria unless their parents are part of the looters of the commonwealth of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The new rules will not require legislation, and are due to come into force within a short period of time. In addition, would-be students from outside the European Union will have to speak English to a level just below GCSE standard. The new level would require mastering English language as a foreign language rather than at beginners’ level as at present. Also, to protect jobs for British youngsters, students taking any course at below degree level would only be permitted to work for 10 hours a week instead of the current 20 even as those on courses lasting less than six months will not be allowed to bring dependants at all, while the dependants of students on below degree-level courses will not be allowed to work.

These reforms orchestrated by the actions of the alleged Nigerian bomber came up right in the midst of the controversy surrounding how to fill the power vacuum created by the non-resident president of Nigeria. And despite the implication of this new development on prospective Nigerian students, the senseless, selfish and clueless Federal Executive Council and the National Assembly were busy resisting every effort to have President Shehu Musa Yar'Adua either impeached, forced to resign or transfer power to his vice. Something akin to what Nero did; fiddling while Rome was burning. Oh! By the way are we sure he is still alive? Even a decent patriotic attempt made by the Information Minister, Professor Dora Akunyili to force her colleagues to act in the interest of Nigerians resulted in her being lambasted and upbraided by the National Assembly and other members of the Federal Executive Council including the clueless, brainless and skunk-filled former Nigerian Minister of Justice and Attorney General, one lunatic called Michael Aondoakaa.

Well, need I say more? It is left for Nigerians to either take their destiny into their hands since it is very obvious that those they ‘elected’ do not have the national interest in their minds. They are there to cater for themselves and their family alone and since it is this way, Nigerians should and must do something. Since Nigeria is a place where dialogue does not work, I would strongly suggest that Nigerians embark on civil disobedience to demand for a good governance which is their right; a right inherent in them as humans and given to them by God. Nigerians have this one last chance to make themselves heard loud and clear or be doomed. Opportunity comes only but once and especially for those who are up for it. Let us grab it now or never. Our children and the future generations may not forgive us if we miss the golden opportunity!

The nation must rise against the government since it is obvious that the government does not care about the nation and the people. The government is not and has never shown interest in uplifting the people and uniting the nation; an indirect carte blanche to take their destiny into their own hands and save themselves and their children from the present politics of suffering and smiling.

In a very simple parlance Nigerians are greater than the National Assembly and the Federal Executive Council combined. They must therefore come out en mass to make their intentions known. I am actually calling for revolution of the masses against the government, the proletariat against the bourgeois; a civil disobedience to protest the present state of the nation. We have been ridiculed enough and now is our chance to ridicule those responsible for the mess we found ourselves in. Nigerians deserve better than the status quo ante. They deserve quality education, good and affordable healthcare, efficient transport system, 24-hour power supply, decent and affordable housing, transparent governance and freedom to pursue happiness with no limit. It is never a privilege to have all these; it is the right of every Nigerian and the money to provide them is there. Nigerians must therefore demand for what belongs to them. A man cannot be a stranger in his father’s house!

Pastor Haggard And Mrs Robinson: Two Most Disgusting Bigots And Hypocrites Of The Century

2010-02-15T22:55:00.000Z

I do not want to appear very judgemental here but bearing in mind that the measure you use to measure for others would ultimately be used to measure for you, I would entertain no excuse if I eventually appear to be judgemental. When the bible says that thou shall not judge so that thou shall not be judged, it was not meant to be a joke; it was being damn serious and when it placed a curse on the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees, it was not meant to be a child play; in fact it was meant to be warning to all hypocrites and a lesson for all of us on how repulsive and repugnant, hypocrites are to the founder of Christianity.

Having said that let us now listen to the tales of the two most disgusting hypocrites of this century. It is the tale of one Mrs Iris Robinson, the wife of the First Minister of the Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson and Pastor Ted Haggard the disgraced founder and former presiding pastor of the 12,000 member strong New Life Church in Colorado Springs in the United States. He was also the founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches and later the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) from 2003 till November 2006.

Mrs. Iris Robinson and Pastor Ted Haggard have got many things in common. Both are very good conservative Christians; I mean those that sleep with the Holy Bible as their pillow. Their Christianity is so deep that they are ever ready to condemn even with their life whatever is not in accordance with the dictates of the Holy Bible. But the greatest tragedy is that both of them are hypocrites of the first class order. They are the likes of those whom Jesus Christ the founder of Christianity warned his followers of. They are wolves in sheep clothing; whitewashed walls who have the name of God all the time in their lips but within their heart is a complete opposite of what they are preaching; hatred, hypocrisy, lies and whatever have you.

But while they were busy hypocritically condemning and damning others, the hate-filled Mrs Iris Robinson and Pastor Ted Haggard also have dark sides and scandalous secrets they were hiding from the public. They did everything possible to hide their hypocritical side from the public but the fact that we are in the internet age did not help them to hide that dark side for too long. Their stories are simply unbearable, a shame on good Christians and testimony to the fact that all judgements should be left for God alone since He made it very clear that vengeance belongs to Him alone. He does not share the prerogative with no one for all of us have sinned and fallen short of His glory and therefore could not boldly come forward to be the first to cast our stone or to look for a speck of wood in the eye of our neighbour when we have got a log of wood in ours.

Let me begin with Mrs Iris Robinson. Early last year Mrs Iris Robinson made a very insulting homophobic remark and refused to apologise citing the Holy Bible as the reason for her statement. Quoting from the book of Leviticus, she described homosexuality as an abomination on a par with paedophilia which makes her nauseous and called upon homosexuals to seek help from psychiatrists and Christianity. She was unrepentant in her remark and despite all entreaties to retract the statement and apologise she vehemently refused. While she was busy resisting every attempt to apologise for such a cynical remark a similar drama was taking place in the United States of America. Pastor Ted Haggard, a pastor of a mega church of about 12,000 faithful was busy in his church condemning homosexuals and homosexuality as an evil that would end them in the deepest part of the hell fire. He too was unrepentant about his position and also vehemently refused to apologise. I do not want to go into his own story right now. I would come back to him later in this article.

Back to the holy and immaculate Mrs Iris Robinson. Despite being vocal in her condemnation of the homosexuals and her suggestion that homosexuals are paedophiles who need both psychiatric and Christian help, Mrs Robinson was in actual fact indulging in same ‘sin’ he was condemning in others. She was having an affair with a teenager young enough to be her grandson. She began the affair with the teenager when she was 59 years while the teenager was just 19 years. The teenager later identified as Kirk McCambley who is now 21 is a family friend of the Robinsons. The affair is not only the issue at stake; Mrs Robinson also fraudulently extorted about 50,000 pounds from donors to set up a business for the youngster. By the way how did the affair began?

I think we should first of all look at how they met and that would throw more light on how the affair began. Mrs Robinson an MP for Strangford, a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as that of Alderman of Castlereagh Borough Council and wife of Northern Ireland's First Minister, Peter Robinson was a frequent customer of William McCambley's butcher's shop in Ballyhackamore in east Belfast and that was where he met his young son Kirk and apparently started her contemptible plans of seducing the poor boy. She succeeded and the relationship took another dimension when Billy McCambley died in early 2008. As a family friend, Iris made a promise to look after his only son, Kirk. It was a well executed ploy that sealed her evil intention towards the teenager. By summer 2008 they were having an affair; a great shock considering that Peter and Iris Robinson are vocal evangelical Christians from a deeply religious and conservative unionist culture.

Shortly after they started sleeping together Mrs Robinson showed her young lover a new cafe development for which Castlereagh Council was advertising for tenants. Being only 19 with little or no business experience and limited capital, McCambley needed help. Her sugar mummy provided the help by coning out £50,000 from two developers with affiliations to her party and passed on the sum to McCambley. There was one more thing; McCambley was to give her a £5,000 kickback in cash so that she could pay off her own debts. He did. When a debate on the lease came to be decided at the Castlereagh Council meeting, McCambley was judged the only candidate suitable for the lease. Mrs Robinson was present but did not declare any conflict of interest.

By the end of 2008 the relationship was over. "Just cut links with Kirk. God's word was very clear on it. He was reasonably OK on it. I am not," she texted a friend. But despite her belated invocation of God, the real reason seems to have been money; Mrs Robinson wanted the investment back. "It seems cruel but I am not going to soften until he has paid back the 45k and he has got until Christmas," read another text.

By this time the damage has been done. The news of the affair was leaked to the press by a whistleblower. In a damage control Mrs Robinson after unsuccessful bid to take her life released a statement saying that the affair was the worst thing she has ever done. "I grieve that I have damaged my profession in Christ, but I am comforted that He was able to forgive even me," she said. The husband Peter Robinson said he had considered leaving his wife but she "would certainly have been less likely to recover if I had left".

As the Robinson-McCambley scandal in Northern Ireland is concluding, a similar one that started earlier in the United States was also nearing its conclusion. Ted Haggard the pastor we met at the outset who fell from grace to grass in a 2006 sex and drug scandal is already making efforts to redeem himself using a documentary in which he reveals new details about sexual abuse he claimed he suffered as a child that led to the scandal that brought him from grace to grass. An interesting excuse common with bigots like him!

To put his picture in perspective, we need to go down the memory lane. In November 2006, Pastor Ted Haggard disgracefully resigned from all of his leadership positions after he admitted soliciting for homosexual sex from a prostitute named Mike Jones. He also admitted to buying and taking the illegal methamphetamine drug. Haggard initially denied ever knowing Mike Jones but as the media became interested and launched an investigation he acknowledged that some allegations such as his purchasing of methamphetamine were true. He later added "sexual immorality" to his list of confessions.

Prior to 2006, Pastor Ted Haggard was one of the main homophobic pastors in the United States and a big opponent of the same sex marriage. As is common with hypocrites like him, Haggard used the pulpit and the Holy Bible to justify his action and even added that homosexuals have a special place prepared for them in hell fire. While Haggard was busy doing that, one thing his church and Americans did not know was that he was leading a double life. He was using the services of a male escort who was also supplying him with illegal drugs called methamphetamines. Haggard was busted when the male escort came forward to expose him in the media after hearing him lambasting homosexuality and homosexuals in one of his sermons. The male escort in question is named Mike Jones and he noted in his revelation that he has been servicing Pastor Ted Haggard who gave his name as ‘Art from Kansas City’ for years. For your information and benefit of clarification, male escorts otherwise called male prostitutes are often homosexuals paid supply sexual pleasure just as you pay female prostitutes.

Before the scandal broke out, Haggard was a powerhouse and a star in the evangelical world, rising quickly from the humble founding of Colorado's New Life Church in his basement in the 1980s. By 2006, the church was 12,000 members strong and Haggard, as president of the evangelical association, was exchanging weekly phone calls with President Bush.

In the new documentary made by Alexandra Pelosi the daughter of the United State House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Haggard says he is angry with the New Life Church for expelling him even as he begs for forgiveness blaming his struggle with his sexuality on being molested by his father as a 7-year-old.Though he had repeatedly damned homosexuality in the pulpit, Haggard says he has struggled and continues to struggle from time to time with same-sex attraction. When the story of his dark side came to the open Haggard said he was struggling with a "dark, repulsive side" and was "a deceiver and a liar." Later he admitted that he was afraid to tell the truth because of his role as the president of the 30-million-strong evangelical association and pastor to 12,000 faithful.

The temptation to condemn and stereotype others is very enticing and mouth-watering, but when it comes to practicing what we preach and keeping the faith till the end, it becomes obvious that we are all humans capable of falling. The lesson here is never to judge others. Everyman carries his own secret like a hand bag. The feeling that we are better or holier than the Pope is just a fantasy. Nobody can claim superiority or holiness over others based on sexuality. Each person is made in his own way to give God glory in accordance with the way he was uniquely made. God has a purpose for each person and yes for the homosexuals too for there are wonderfully and fearfully made by God after His likeness and image.

As for Iris Robinson and Pastor Ted Haggard, it is very difficult to sympathise with bigots, liars and hypocrites whose utterances have gone a long way to put the life of many homosexuals in jeopardy especially in countries like Uganda, Nigeria and Jamaica. However as a human and Christian I sincerely extend my sympathy towards them and their plight and ask that they be given the opportunity to reform which by their utterances they denied to the homosexual. And may the good Lord forgive them!

Another Valentine: How About Showing That Love This Time To The Haitians By Making A Donation?

2010-02-14T05:38:00.000Z

Today is Valentine's Day and oh by the way do the people in Haiti know it is Valentine’s Day? Your guess is good as mine. Am sure most of them are buried in their sorrow and pains to even remember that today is the special day of love. Who are they supposed to love when most of them lost their loved ones? This is a sad story. Most of them do not have somebody to tell them how lovely they are but you and me could do just that for them by making a donation, no matter how small it is.

We all know or claim to know about love, therefore am not here to lecture on the meaning or evolution of the feast of either Saint Valentine or the eventual adoption of February 14 as Lover's Day. Am not really interested in feasts celebrating love or stuffs like that because I belong to the school of thought that believes that everyday should be a day of commemorating love. Love is inherent in human nature and therefore must be celebrated at every time of the day. This moment of agony for the Haitians is a golden opportunity to show that we really care and love. Since love is blind, we do not need to have relations in Haiti to show that love. Love is infectious and the more you show love to other people especially to the people in a faraway place you do not even know, the more it is shown to you. By the way it is biblical; the measure you use for others would be used for you. Even Jesus Christ, the greatest philosopher of all time made it very clear, ‘Love thy neighbour as you love thyself’ for that is the greatest commandment of all.

Stories have been told of famous love affairs throughout the history of mankind including that well documented by William Shakespeare in his drama called Romeo and Juliet and of course the most recent love drama in a famous film called the Titanic featuring Leonardo Dicaprio. Even the bible noted that the reason for the death of Jesus Christ, the only son of God and the founder of Christianity was because of the love God has for us. He loves us unconditionally and because we have been so greatly loved, we must show that love back to others without discrimination for God first loved us without distinction. Freely thou received and freely thou shall give! Think of making a donation to Haiti to express that love or even buying products or songs in aid of the victims. In fact if you are really in love, close your eyes and dig deep into your pocket and make a donation to the people of Haiti. By the way, that reminds me you can donate by writing cheques or using your credit or debit cards, in case your pockets are cashless. Do it! Love does not give excuses.

Everywhere you go people are shouting of love. Think of millions spent every year just to print cards bearing the word ‘love’. There is love here and there is love there. In fact everywhere you go there seems to be love. This baffles me because in spite of this, human heart is still filled with hatred and bigotry. I think the reason is because man does not really love. He pretends to love but he does not know the meaning of that four lettered word called ‘love’. Man simply has refused to love. He blatantly refused to love despite the everyday pressure to love and numerous poems and writings extolling the virtues of love. The holy books are all centred on the theme of love, yet the more we read them, the more we hate. It seems that we do not understand what we are reading. The irony of the whole saga is that those charged with the gospel of love have completely thwarted the meaning of love and even turned out to be the most hating. They have taken it upon themselves to spread the gospel of hatred in the name of gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of preaching the gospel of inclusion so that none should be left out in the one fold, they have chosen to preach the gospel of hatred rooted in bigotry and hypocrisy thereby excluding some people. They have devoted much of their time promoting intolerance in the name of the gospel and the love of God. Even those we placed our hope on expecting them to understand more are not making any effort to understand.

How many times have we claimed to love only to chicken away when it come to proving that? That is not love. It is being selfish and cowardice. Love is not selfish nor is it a coward. Love is always there for good or for bad. It takes a stand and stands on it. It is there when things are moving well and in time of difficulties. It does not run away during the credit crunch and come back during the feast days. It is always there. Love does not discriminate and does not favour a part. Love loves holistically and absolutely. It does not look for a fault. It sees the fault and still loves. It is a universal phenomenon and one language we all understand despite our various tongues and tribes and differences. It is a very famous word and probably the most widely used word in the world and sadly the least understood. Love is a very simple word, very ubiquitous and yet very hard to comprehend. Often we tell people we love them but come to think of it how many of us do really love to the extent of laying down their life for the one they claim to love. Are we there all the time for the friend we claim to love or is the love only manifested when we are in need of something or need to satisfy our concupiscence.

Unfortunately our generation has completely distorted the meaning of the word love. They simply do not understand or chose not to understand what it stands for. When it comes to love, we leave the substance to pursue the shadow. To our generation it simply means having marathons of sex with the person we claim to love. When wounding a person you claimed to love begins to be love is what am yet to understand. For our age, the meaning of the word love has become sex and that is why it is an often repeated word during sex and rarely after that. I do not disagree with the fact that sex is still part of the loving process but what I do not understand is taking advantage of somebody we claim to love sexually in the name of love. A school of thought does not agree with me; to them, it is making love and not sex. I do not agree. There must be a clear distinction between love and sex.

There is no doubt that today in different parts of the world pants and condoms would be flying here and there and yonder. There is definitely going to be scenes of moans of pains and pleasure in the name of love and valentine but is that really what love and valentine is all about. Young women would be crying confusedly of the stuff either being too sweet or very painful or both at the same time while young men would be screaming, uttering gibberish and promising heaven and earth during the climax of the ejaculatory pleasure. Sadly, these promises they would soon forget not to talk of fulfilling and that is Valentine for you. Immediately after the whole business of sex, the whole promises of buying the young lady France when he travels to Peugeot would fizzle away in complete denial or forgetfulness. The saddest part would be that in three months time, these young men who were once madly in love today would be in complete denial of making the poor young lady pregnant. Some would go a step forward to deny knowing the young poor girl ever. Once more love is never in denial, it accepts his responsibility as a matured man.

Sadly, this is what we have made of love today. William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet must be turning in their graves. Love is there when we are going in and out and as soon as the end of that going in and out is achieved it stops till next time we are in need of that pleasure again. That to me is part of the loving process but a minute part of it. Love is supposed to be there at all time. Love is very blind. It is not only geared towards our opposite sex. It could be for a person of the same sex. It could be towards an animal. It could be towards the Mother Nature. It must not always be towards a living being. It could be towards a book, your laptop, you car, a radio, a person you have never seen, a person you have seen and even an object you could only imagine. And more aptly at this point in time, should be towards the Haitians as they mourn the loss of their loved ones.

A day like this is also suitable for us to show that love to people that we would not have ordinarily shown our love to. These are people who do not share the same opinion, view, belief, creed, colour or sexual orientation with us. We are ordinarily tempted to hate them because of their extreme views or their way of life which does not conform to our own standard and expectations or even because of the colour of their skin or their circumstances in life. This day is a day to tell our neighbour who is a member of the BNP that we do not share his views but we still love him. It is a day to say to our friends we rejected because they are gay, lesbians or bisexual that we still love them. It is a day suitable even for us to buy a bottle of wine for our neighbour and tell them that despite all these years of altercations over nothing that we still love them. How about the people of Haiti going through a very difficult time at the moment, we could out of love make a donation, no matter how small to express our love and sympathy towards them and their plight. Yes we can do that. It will not even take anything. You can donate anything even one pound. By the time all of us give one pound each we would end up making a world of difference. Think of how much you would spend unnecessarily today and think of the impact that amount would make in the life of Haitians.

Showing this love should not be limited to people in Haiti alone. We could buy a flower for the fireman for the nice job he is doing to keep our house and property safe from fire. Even for the weather man for predicting the weather for us as well as for brave men and women in the police, the army, the customs and even the immigration for the good works they are doing to safeguard us. How about the NHS, we could send a card to our nearest hospital saying thanks to them for being there all the time for us.

Today is the day we need to tell somebody that we love them, cherish them and that they are the apple of our eyes. On that note I tell you in particular that I really love you from the deepest part of my heart and please be aware that I will always love you come rain or sunshine. You worth it! Kisses over and over again!!!

Illegal Immigrants: What If We Give Them Amnesty?

2010-01-23T18:03:00.001Z

Recently I had an opportunity to engage in a little but highly intelligent discussion with a facebook friend on the question of amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. It was a discussion I must claim was full of intelligence and common sense and therefore worthy of being shared here too.

What actually transpired was that the friend in question berated the Liberal Democrats Party for suggesting amnesty for the illegal immigrants. I do not intend to mention the name of the friend in question because she might be termed a racist. Minorities are using this ‘R’ word to play a fast game. If you do not identify with what pleases them, you are likely to be termed a racist.

In the politics of the United Kingdom, immigration is one of the issues that is seriously considered a no go area. It could make or mar a party’s chance of winning or losing an election. Presently, any party that shows sympathy towards this question of immigration or even think of amnesty for the illegal immigrants is more likely and certainly sure of loosing votes. The British electorates are fast becoming xenophobic and afraid of what would be of their future in the face of the pace of the present immigration system, trend and level. As a result of this, a party that comes up with a very hard line on this issue is more likely to win. This could explain the reason the electorates are fast embracing right wing parties like the British National Party and United Kingdom Independence Party.

However the question here is a moral one. The electorates are more likely to be deceived by the parties to get their votes and do nothing at the end of the day. Parties are in the business of winning elections and never loosing. For them to win they must do everything possible by all means to achieve their aim. That according to Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli in his ‘The Prince’ is allowed in politics; get what you want by all means because the end justifies the means. One of the things they could do would be to tell the voters lie by making false promises including leading them to the Promised Land and building mansions for them in the air. If they are able to win the election at the end of the day, every other thing becomes a promise after all they have got five years to work hard to deceive them again. The electorates are gullible and to deceive them you have to tell them what they want to hear. The parties could tell them that once they are voted in illegal immigration would be a history while those already here would be deported within few years. The former could be possible only when factors necessitating their illegal immigration are nipped to the bud while the later is completely impossible.

The United Kingdom at the moment according to the London School of Economic has about 750 thousand illegal immigrants. Most of them live and work in London and to deport them could take many years including the heavy cost on the tax payers. As a matter of fact the deportation option could be ludicrous and practically impossible and even if it is possible and going by the rate by which illegal immigrants are being removed in this country presently which is about 60,000 a year, it will take about 34 years at the cost of about £11,000 each to remove all of them. At the end of the 34 years it would have cost the nation about £9bn to remove them all. Therefore the realistic thing to do would be firstly to work hard to secure the UK border which frankly may not solve the problem till corruption in the country where these illegal immigrants are coming from is genuinely tackled and secondly to legalise those already here. Both make sense. But due to the egoistic reason of winning an election a party need only to pretend that the illegal immigration is a no go area even though the problem is there. Another thing the party could do to ensure that it does not mess herself up in the public would be to try as much possible to either evade the question entirely or confuse the electorates by being very ambiguous and loquacious in their action plan regarding the question.

This drama of either alluding to a no go area principle or being very ambiguous or garrulous is exactly what the main parties are rehearsing today with the exception of the Liberal Democrats. Amongst the three main political parties, it is only the Liberal Democrats that comes very close to being realistic with the question of solving the perennial issue of illegal immigrants already here. They do not actually have an action plan on how to tackle illegal immigration just like other parties. Labour and the Conservative parties are blindly opposed to any form of exercise that would eventually provide a platform for the illegals already here to be normalised. They do not have a cogent reason for that. In fact they have only two mantra they repeat all the time to support their claim. One is that the exercise would end up justifying illegality while the other is that the exercise would be a push factor. The fact that these illegal immigrants are here working and making profit and sending profits back home does not bother them at all. They more or less live comfortably compared to the legal immigrants since they have little or no bill to pay and therefore enjoy life just like every other person.

The Liberal Democrats are very much aware of this fact and certainly talks out of experience. The Liberal Democrats are in charge of the Southwark Council which has the highest percentage of these illegal immigrants, most from the sub-Saharan Africa. Due to this first had experience, they are of the view that any solution that thinks of deporting all of them would be unrealistic, pennywise and pound foolish and would surely end up being a huge problem to the society and the people involved. In fact the Liberal Democrats believes that the only solution to the problem of illegal immigrants already here is simply granting them amnesty; any form of amnesty even conditional one to enable them turn their lives around, come out of darkness into light and live openly like others instead of living underground. I strongly identify with and share the views of the Liberal democrats. It is noble and more realistic than sending them home. They score high here when compared to other parties.

My identifying with the Liberal Democrats does not in any way suggest justifying illegal immigration but the fact is that I have also thought of this issue over and over again and concluded that we cannot continue to pretend that the problem is not there. The problem is there and must be addressed after all we are dealing with human beings and not dogs. This democracy is therefore under a moral obligation to give this shame a butt and for the sake of humanity must courageously cut a deal that would go a long way to give a second chance to these people. They have made the mistake and we cannot dwell on that forever after all rapists and murderers are routinely paroled. The United Kingdom would not cease to exist if that is done and it would obviously have no negative impact on any part of life of the Kingdom. The United Kingdom stands to gain from this exercise. Somebody therefore must make the first move no matter whose Ox is going to be gored.

I am therefore strongly in support of the steps advocated by the Liberal Democrats. My view is that the Liberal Democrats may not be wrong after all considering the amount of food we waste and throw away in this country and the money we spend daily on our pets. If we consider the fact that illegal immigrants are human beings, then the liberal democrats are making a sense and a big sense indeed. If we can spend so much money on our pets and use same money to buy food and either waste them or throw them away, then all of us need to join this campaign to give a second chance to these people. They are humans like us, though less fortunate due to their place of origin and present status.

My case is very concrete and makes more sense if there is any iota of truth in the fact that every authority comes from God. God is an instrument of good government and if God is indeed an instrument of good government, then the poor and the marginalised are on the side of God as the bible stated and that is where every authority on earth including that of the United Kingdom should be. The UK government is not unaware of this hence its motto ‘God and my right’ which reflects the fact that this kingdom does not only know but is ever conscience of the fact that there is God. This is a very strong statement which suggests that the foundation of the government of the United Kingdom is built upon awareness of the fact that there is something like universal fatherhood of God, brotherhood of mankind, justice, human rights, compassion, sympathy, consideration, selflessness, fellow feeling, egalitarianism, mercy and the opportunity for individual pursuit of happiness.

It is widely held that the main obstacle towards this proposed amnesty comes from the Lords and the Commons. If that is true then the events of last year should have taught all of us that nobody is above mistake or beyond getting their ends by all means. I am talking in particular of the recent scandal relating to the MPs expenses. The fact is that the MPs are not telling the voters the truth. They are brainwashing them into believing that the illegal immigrants are the reason for the woes of this nation. They are not. Almost all of them work and pay their taxes and the only thing they miss is inability to travel home and that is not a big deal for them so far money is remitted to their families at intervals. Also the emergence of twitter, facebook, mySpace, bebo, linkedin and mobile phones has made it very simple and easy for them to be in constant contact with their family thereby obviating the need for travelling which is denied them by their status. Therefore the case for amnesty is meaningful and worthwhile. Illegal immigrants in the past may have had it very hard but with the present ones, the case is a different thing altogether. The globalisation and emergence of social networks and internet technology including the ubiquitous camera and webcam and low cost international calls especially the Skype and the likes makes their travelling less important.

When I think of the plight of the illegal immigrants, I find it absolutely difficult to comprehend that people are still living like dogs in the west despite all the noise about human rights and civilisation. My feeling is as a result of what I see in the South East of London on daily basis. This place boasts of thousands of illegal immigrants and I know of a particular family with 6 children in one bedroom room apartment and by their status of being illegal they are forced to bring up their children underground in that one bedroom apartment; a breeding ground for angry young people. Children brought up in that type of environment are more likely to grow up to become angry young men and women and the society would surely be forced to bear the consequences. Ever thought of the reason for the high rate of crime in the south east of London? That could be partly a reason for that!

Once again, normalising these illegal immigrants would never cost heaven in this country. The United Kingdom has got enough to feed our need but never our greed. In fact the amount of food we waste in this country on daily basis if saved would enough to offset the cost of whatever would be the financial consequences of the amnesty exercise. Also looking at the cost of the ongoing immoral and illegal war and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, then you would agree with me that amnesty is long overdue. How can reasonable people support the wars and oppose fiercely the giving of life and second chance to their fellow humans? Something must be wrong somewhere and God and the angels must be turning with anger in heaven!

Amnesty is long overdue. In fact so long overdue and we are all well aware of that. Sending these illegal immigrants home would never solve the problem. It would create more than it would solve. The solution to this perennial question lies in tackling the corruption in their home country which leads to situations like this. Corruption and not even the quest for better life is the push factor in illegal immigration. Think of Nigeria with enough oil to feed the need of the whole world and yet is still poor because of corruption and bad leadership. These corrupt leaders are bent on avariciously looting the commonwealth and thereby impoverishing millions of their people. These poor and the wretched of the earth are the people who end up coming here by all means to end up as illegal immigrants. They prefer staying here washing plates, cleaning floors and doing all sorts of menial job to staying hopelessly in their country with the heartbreaking reality that their contributions towards the development of their nation is being looted by few unscrupulous individuals.

These people are going through a lot and history may not after all be very harsh on them. The natural instinct to survive is the reason they are taking numerous risks to come to the west and do even the menial jobs to survive even with their university degrees. Therefore sending them home or building a very huge wall across the whole of United Kingdom would never solve the problem. Even if we succeed in building a first class border here, civilised British people would tear it down for no sane person would ever feel comfortable when his brothers and sisters are suffering. There is still something like circle of life and ubuntu. Think of the state of Israel on one side and the big wall they are building to protect themselves from the Palestinians and yet the problem unfortunately is still there. The meaning is that 24-hour vigilance over the UK borders would certainly not solve the problem. Common sense and being more realistic would and that obviously involves fighting corruption everywhere including Africa with special emphasis on Nigeria. What happens in Nigeria is miserable!

African leaders are senselessly corrupt and we should join hands together to fight them. They are thieves and cheats and they are the reason these illegal immigrants are running to this place for succour. We therefore cannot turn them away for we also contributed to their plight. Their leaders refuse to develop their educational sector and yet send their own kids here to receive the best education. They refuse to develop their healthcare and yet send their own families here to receive the best healthcare. This is evil and should never be encouraged. The west must find a way to stop this. I would suggest an embargo on African leaders and their elected officials from sending their families here to receive western education and healthcare whilst in the office. Their children should stay in their country and be part of the mess their fathers put their nation in. The fathers have eaten the sour grape and now let their children’s teeth be set on edge! If this is done, the problem of illegal immigration would surely be reduced by half, at least.

At this point she asked if Nigerian problems just like that of other African nations should not be their own problem which they must solve themselves. In my reply I again picked Nigeria as a case study since I come from Nigeria and know more about Nigerian politics than that of other African countries. Nigeria is corrupt and when I say corrupt I mean very corrupt. I think God was fast asleep when the British gave Nigeria independence. If God had been awake that day, He would obviously have resisted any attempt to give independence to Nigeria and to be sincere, the 'baddest' thing the UK did to Nigeria was to give her that independence. It was too premature.

The UK and the west as I pointed out earlier have got a huge role to play in stopping this nonsense. I have some points to prove that. Am sure you know about DFID which stands for Department For International Development. It is an arm of the British Government charged with giving aids to poor countries like ‘Nigeria’. DFID is the equivalent of the United States USAID. Every year DFID dishes out millions in pounds to Nigeria as aid without making any effort to know how that money is being spent. Majority of this amount goes into the pocket of corrupt government officials. DFID give us this aid to help to develop our local healthcare, education and poverty alleviation but because DFID does not have a mechanism to check how this money is being spent, they end up being diverted into private pockets. This is the reason why aid is the worst the west can do for Africa at the moment and I mean it! Trade is better off compared to aid. If it must be aid then give it directly to the people.

For instance instead of giving 1 Million pounds to the Federal Government of Nigeria to provide books for the Federal Polytechnic at Oko, Nigeria, DFID may think of using that money to buy the books from the Waterstones here in London and ship it directly to the Federal Polytechnic at Oko. This way we are using one stone to kill two birds. First it will completely obviate the need to give cash to these corrupt government officials and secondly we would be definitely sure that the aid gets to the intended recipients. This model could also be replicated in other areas including healthcare, provision of potable water, Scholarship, rural development and many others.

Besides, our government has completely messed up our educational and health care sector and they are not even bothered because they could easily send their own family to the west for western education and healthcare. What the west and the UK government can do here is to place a ban on any of these government officials from sending their family here to receive either medical care or western education so far they are still in the office. They should be forced to use the money to develop our local education and healthcare system. We have both the money and the personnel. Nigerian health workers are performing wonders in the west. What we need is to lure them back home with juicy working incentives and packages. This is definitely going to work and I am very much convinced of that. The only thing required is for somebody to make the first step. However that first step could be very difficult but the fruit is going to be unquantifiable including a sharp reduction in illegal immigration.

In addition most of these corrupt government officials have assets worth millions of pounds here. The UK government should demand to know how much they earn as salary in Nigeria and then figure out how it could be possible for them to earn such amount of money to have those assets in the United Kingdom. The Government of the United Kingdom has a moral obligation towards Nigerian masses and to the mankind and therefore should as a matter of urgency seize those assets and use the money for the betterment of those people living in the place it was stolen from.

In addition there is an urgent need to ban these people who are violating human rights in their own country from coming to the UK at all. If they do not want human rights for their people, they should not come to the UK to enjoy human rights. In Nigeria, there is currently a bill in the House of Assembly seeking to imprison homosexuals for 5 years. Its counterpart in Uganda is seeking for death penalty for them. What the United Kingdom can do here would be to formally warn Nigeria and Uganda of the implication of such a bill on human rights of the homosexuals. If they go ahead to pass it into law the UK should then come in with travel ban on the people behind the law on the understanding that they cannot come to the UK , a ‘country of homosexuals’ to enjoy life while at the same time refuse to respect that of homosexuals in their own country. If they do not like the idea of homosexuality, then they should as well not think of coming to a country that recognises them by law. If this is done, then there would be no need of any homosexual coming to the United Kingdom to seek for asylum or to live illegally. This point is very vital since respect, tolerance and accommodation as well as commonsense and justice are an integral part of democracy.

These approaches would obviously go a long way towards ameliorating the problem of illegal immigration because by the time these corrupt governments see that looting of public fund is no more appetising they would be forced to invest the stolen funds in their own country for the betterment of their own people or better still would not steal at all knowing that the UK and the west would definitely always seize them. I do not have a doubt these measures would work and I hope that somebody should table it before the Commons one day.

Idiots! Am Still Your President: Between President Yar’Adua And The Rest Of Us

2010-01-18T20:08:00.001Z

The beauty of democracy lies in accountability. The elected officials are accountable to the people. They cannot do anything even things they like doing without telling the electorates. The meaning is that they have to exercise utmost precaution in both their public and private actions and utterances. In fact they do not have a private life. Elected officials by the act of being elected automatically forfeited their right to privacy and private life to the nation and they cannot do anything to stop this part of their life from being under public scrutiny at all times especially by the press.

Privacy and private lives are antithetical to holding public offices. If elected officials cherish their privacy a lot, they have one option and that option is relinquishing their public office and reverting to their private lives. This way they could be able to lay claim to the right to privacy and private life as well as having a ground to sue for invasion of privacy. The argument is very clear; stand for public office and you lose your privacy and private life.

It is because of this that the electorates have the right to know at all point in time the actions of their elected officials including their privacy and private life, their whereabouts and in fact everything about them. They are entitled to know everything and should be concerned about their previous and everyday lives including convictions, qualifications, extra-marital affairs and whatever on the face of the earth you can think of. The electorates have the right to know and this right is not negotiable. It is the core of the right to democracy and it is inherent in human nature and therefore inalienable. Therefore no public official has the privilege to claim the right to privacy and private life or to lay claim to any form of compensation for the invasion of their private lives. By electing to serve, they also elected to have their dirty linens watched in the public.

This lost of the right to their private lives and privacy also extends to their immediate family, extended family, business acquaintances and in fact any form of relationship they exercise and the reason is because a country cannot afford to be led by people of questionable characters or people whose families and acquaintances could bring public opprobrium and disrepute to the country. The implication of this statement is that elected officials are supposed to be men and women of good behaviour, outstanding character, unblemished record, sound wisdom, strong judgement, impeccable integrity and not just any tout or thug from the bus stop. That does not actually stop there; these people should also be ready to surrender their privacy to the nation and cannot do anything and I mean anything even the minute ones without informing the electorates. Like in the famous Meerkat television commercial the electorates have the right to know, simple!

The reason for writing this is because of what is happening at the moment in Nigeria. It is quite unfortunate, appalling and disgusting that one man could have the gut to treat about 145 million Nigerians like idiots and yet be allowed to go scot free. That could never happen elsewhere even in tiny Africa countries. I am therefore flabbergasted that Nigeria, a country very rich in human resources could allow this to happen to her. Where has the giant in us gone to? Are we now so stupid that we are lacking in wise men and women?

It all began on November 23, 2009. The President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Shehu Umaru Musa Yar'Adua just woke up, collected his belongings and left for Saudi Arabia on a medical treatment. Nobody was informed about the plan, not even the House of Assembly or the media. He just abandoned his duty and absconded. While leaving he refused to formally handover to his vice as the Acting President. He vehemently refused to do this due to his love and lust for power, personal aggrandisement, ego and the desire to cling to power till he drops dead. This is the president of the most populous black nation on earth. His action is unprecedented and a sign that this man has no respect for the electorates, the constitution and even the democracy. He has got no regard for Nigeria and does not consider her sacred enough to tell Nigerians that he is not only leaving the country but would also not be handing over to his vice as stipulated by the constitution. This would later create a big problem for the nation especially in the judiciary sector.

The action of the president should have warranted the immediate initiation of impeachment process by the National Assembly but the cowards refused to do anything preferring to justify his actions. If that is painful, how about the fact that the president of Nigeria had the effrontery to leave the shores of Nigeria to seek for medical attention abroad? Does that mean that he does not have faith in the healthcare system of his own country? Unfortunately no one sees the argument from that angle. The National Assembly who is supposed to initiate the impeachment process against him for that affront added insult to injury by asking Nigerians to pray for him. These are people who were ab initio never told of the whereabouts and the problem of the president they elected. An insult beyond comparison! They were denied the basic right to know about the whereabouts and conditions of the president they elected and yet asked to pray for him. Well some people prayed and I wonder what they were asking God.

The whereabouts was a closely guarded secret until pressures from here and there and yonder including a judicial threat made the powers to be to reveal that he is in Saudi Arabia on medical treatment for an undisclosed ailment. Three days later, a grapevine had it that he suffers from Pericarditis. Inflammation of the pericardium is called pericarditis The pericardium is a thin layer of specialized tissue that covers the outer surfaces of the heart. This tissue helps to anchor the heart in place, prevents excessive movement of the heart in the chest when body position changes, protects the heart from infections and tumours that develop in and may spread from nearby tissues, and may help keep the heart from enlarging. Pericarditis frequently causes a characteristic chest pain that usually compels one to seek medical attention. There are many causes of pericarditis, including infection, kidney failure, metastatic disease, some medications and radiation therapy. Recent viral infection often precedes pericarditis in young, otherwise healthy patients. In idiopathic pericarditis, no clear cause is determined.

The president is also allegedly suffering from kidney complication, skin infections and probably others they do not want us to know. His life and presidency is completely shrouded in secrecy that is unprecedented in the history of democracy and this country. This leaves all of us wondering if that was actually what we bargained for! We want democracy by all means but obviously not this type of democracy. As the conclave-like drama was going on, one sane Nigerian and a foremost activist and lawyer, Femi Falana initiated a suit against the Federal Executive Council asking the Abuja Federal High Court to declare the actions of the Council in the absence of the president illegal, null and void and of no effect. He also sought for an order of mandatory injunction compelling President Yar’Adua to send a written declaration to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives stating that he has proceeded on medical leave and therefore empowers the vice president, Goodluck Jonathan, to discharge the functions of the president as the acting president of Nigeria.

Mr. Falana, in his suit stated that despite the assurance of the federal government that the vice president is ‘in charge’ the exercise of any of the functions or duties of the president by the vice president is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever unless the office is properly transmitted to him. The Federal Executive Council comprises the president, the vice president and all ministers. The council meets weekly to take decisions that determine the direction of domestic policies of the government and to award contracts. According to the 1999 constitution, the president presides over the council. The president did not officially hand over to his vice before he disappeared and since the disappearance, the vice president had held about four FEC meetings, where several decisions had been taken, including the award of contracts running into billions of naira. It is the validity of these decisions that Mr. Falana is asking the Federal High Court to quash.

In the midst of that suit, a new Chief Justice for Nigeria was sworn in on December 30, 2009. By the stipulations of the Nigerian constitution, the swearing in of Aloysius Katsina-Alu as the new Chief Justice and president of the Supreme Court is illegal, as only the president has the power to take his oath of office. The ceremony was presided over by the outgoing Chief Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, who retired on 31 December, 2009. The constitution made it clear that the chief justice can only be sworn in by the president meaning that the legality of the swearing in exercise is questionable, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. This claim was denied by the outgoing Chief Justice who posited that law had long been in existence to allow chief justices to swear in their successors.

Meanwhile, in the Abuja Federal High Court, common sense finally prevailed when the presiding judge ruled that the Vice President Goodluck Jonathan should commence exercising the full powers of the president pending the return of Yar'Adua. Justice Daniel Abutu, observed that Yar'Adua did not transmit any letter to the National Assembly informing it that his deputy should begin to exercise his duties pending his return from Saudi Arabia, where he is receiving medical treatment. As a result of that negligence he therefore ordered the enthronement of Jonathan Goodluck as the Acting President. What a Goodluck for Goodluck!

The order seems to have finally put to rest the controversy. Justice Abutu declared that the vice president could become the acting president but could only carry out the functions of the president in his absence, which he has been doing and should continue to do as enshrined in section 5 (1) of the 1999 constitution.

Few days later after this judicial pronouncement, precisely on January 12, 2010, President Yar’Adua in a blatant disregard for Nigerians and the Nigerian media connived with his northern brothers at the Hausa Service of the BBC to air a telephone interview where he claimed that he is getting better and would soon return home to resume his duties. I find the whole drama very absurd and I have many reasons for that. In the first place why would Yar’Adua choose the Hausa Service of BBC for the interview and not other services like the English service? The conclusion is that some cabals in the north are working tirelessly to ensure that this impunity being perpetrated by Yar’Adua continues and that is why it was very easy for them to use the Hausa Service to achieve this aim. The BBC World Service Trust has therefore a responsibility to initiate an investigation to find out how Yar’Adua and his cohorts were able to manipulate the Hausa Service to air the interview. Something is definitely wrong somewhere and BBC Hausa Service knows that.

Besides why did the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic Nigeria abandoned his own media in preference for the foreign media. What happened to the Nigeria Television Authority, Radio Nigeria, Voice of Nigeria and even the News Agency of Nigeria? Nigerians should begin to ask questions because the implication is that this man who abandoned the Nigerian healthcare sector to receive medical attention abroad and on top of that chose to grant an interview to a foreign media instead of his own media does not have any iota of faith in his own country and that is the reason why he should be forced to resign.

I do sympathise with President Yar’Adua and his health condition but the fact is that I do not see why he should hide under his sickness to flagrantly disrespect Nigerians. He has an obligation to resign and take good care of himself since it is obvious by his actions that he is no more physically and morally fit to lead this country. He is sick and the best thing for him to do would be to resign. He has a responsibility towards himself and that responsibility involves taking adequate care of himself healthwise. It is obvious that there is no way he could combine his fragile health with the business of presiding over Nigeria. He is incompetent, clueless, egoistic, proud, not in touch with Nigerians and therefore should resign so that the nation could move forward.

Nigeria is made up of about 145 million people and Yar’Adua cannot be more important than all of us. He is a minute figure in this ocean of people. He should therefore leave the scene now that the ovation is still high so that the nation could move forward. It is an act of wickedness, irresponsibility, lack of love for the nation, pride and lack of patriotism for Yar’Adua to think that he could preside over Nigeria from a hospital in Saudi Arabia. That is not acceptable. He is not the only person who could preside over Nigeria. We have many other Nigerians who could do the job and even do it better. He should therefore step aside and stop being a cog in the wheel of progress of this country.

Nigeria and Nigerians have been going through a lot of hard times and the idea that Yar’Adua should be a new addition to the problems we have already is what we do not want at this point in time. His insatiable appetite and lust for power is making him to overlook the basic thing which is to take a good care of himself. He is simply not capable at this point in time and therefore should resign. Yar’Adua is obviously what we do not want right now. His actions are deplorable, reflect African leaders’ mentality and remind me of the conversation between Banzai and Scar in the Walt Disney’s ‘The Lion King’. What a coincidence that the cartoon was set in Africa. In the cartoon Scar was so full of pride and himself that he thought that he is the only one suitable to be a king and each time Banzai euphemistically confronts him with the fact that he may not after all be suitable for the position, he would burst out ‘Idiots!..I will be your king!

That is exactly what Yar’Adua is telling Nigerians today. He is telling us that we are idiots and whether we like it or not, he would still be there and that we should better get over it. Good talk but maybe it is time for Nigerians to remind him and his other myopic, clueless and brainless cohorts that we deserve the best.

Humiliation Beyond Description: The Plight Of Nigeria In Distress

2010-01-13T23:52:00.002Z

On December 25, 2009, Nigerians woke up to a bad news. A Nigerian that goes by the name Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was on the news for allegedly trying albeit unsuccessfully to blow up a US bound plane with 289 passengers and crew on board using high explosives concealed around his waist region. The extraordinary lucky Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam was heading to Detroit in the state of Michigan in the United States. Luckily for all us and the passengers and crew aboard the flight the explosive was not able to explode to the extent he had planned. That stroke of fate led to the saving of the lives of the 289 passengers and crew on board the flight and probably others on ground who would have been caught up in the fumbled fiasco.

According to eyewitnesses in the plane, the 23-year old Nigeria had high explosives moulded to his body and sewn into his underpants. As he was struggling to detonate the device, he was overwhelmed by the passengers and crew just minutes before the plane was due to land in Detroit from the Dutch capital Amsterdam. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab has since been charged with placing a destructive device on the Airbus 330 and attempting to destroy the jet.

The story was received with shock worldwide, particularly in Nigeria. Nigerians of every walk of life have been condemning the ugly incident. A facebook group called ‘Get us off that list: Nigerians are NOT Terrorists’ had at the time of writing this attracted 99, 287 fans. Another one called ‘150 Million Nigerians speaking up against Terrorism...Yes we can’ has 26, 501 fans not to talk of other similar groups with fans in their thousands. However as Nigerians were busy condemning the ugly incident, the United States of America came out with a bombshell. Nigeria in conjunction with other 13 countries viz Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Cuba, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan were placed in a list of countries of special interest. In fact countries that poses terrorist threat to the people and interest of the United States of America. The listing was accompanied with directives that passengers travelling from these countries to the United States must face extra security screening. This screening includes the thorough searching of body parts and hand luggage. A shame; in fact a humiliation beyond description which has since gone a long way to add to the already burdened plight of Nigeria in distress!

It was a blow not only to Nigerians but also to those who have the interest and welfare of Nigeria and Nigerians at heart. In fact words have been flying here and there and yonder that Nigeria is not a terrorist country and should not have been included in the list and as a matter of urgency should be removed from the list. I share same view but partially because the idea that Nigeria does not know anything about terrorism smacks of complete ignorance, naivety and denial of what has been happening in our backyard for over 50 years now. Nigerians cannot pretend not to know where am going to otherwise it would tantamount to ignorance and ignominy.

Before I go into the intricacies of this argument, it is pertinent to point out clearly and honestly that the call to remove Nigeria from the list is akin to pouring water on the stone. America is not ready to do that now because they have already reckoned that they can live and do without Nigeria before arriving at that decision. Recall that President Barack Obama in his maiden visit to Africa last year snubbed Nigeria, the most populous black nation on earth to visit the neighbouring Ghana. That says a lot about how the United States thinks of Nigeria. In international diplomacy there is an acceptable modus operandi to follow when issues like this come up to ensure that it is resolved peacefully, amicably and diplomatically. But the bad news is that from the movement of things at the moment Nigeria is never going to resolve this issue so soon; Nigeria must continue to be in the list till she puts her house in order and I mean tackling corruption with all seriousness and honesty. America and the west hate and loathe the enormity of corruption in Nigeria and the fact that Nigeria is still stagnating developmentally despite her abundant natural and human resources. The reason for this my conclusion is that people address you the way you dress. As you make your bed so must you lie on it. Nigeria has a lot of question marks and therefore could not possibly resolve this issue with those question marks still revolving round her neck. Presently, Nigeria is dressed shabbily like a thug and America is addressing and treating her like one. If she decides to put on suit like a lady, America would obviously change her mind and treat her like a lady.

For over three months now, the People and the Federal Republic of Nigeria have been moving like a rudderless ship. The whereabouts of the President of Nigeria, Shehu Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has not been known since he left the country about three months. Some quarters says he is in Saudi Arabia receiving a medical treatment for an undisclosed cardiac and kidney problems. Another quarter said it is in Germany while the third quarter says that he’s been dead or brain dead or brain damaged since the last 6 weeks. Nigerians simply do not know the whereabouts of their President or what to believe and to compound the whole problem Nigerians are not being told the whereabouts or the health condition of the man they ‘elected’ couple of years ago. In fact one top diplomat rudely told Nigerians that they do not have the right to question or know the whereabouts of their President. I was told it was the Nigerian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. This allegation cannot be authoritatively confirmed at the time of writing this article.

Echoing similar sentiment the National Assembly and the Federal Executive Council of Nigeria vehemently refused to take constitutional action to pressurise the ailing president-in-absentia to resign so that his vice could take over the mantle and continue with the journey that has been taking ages to get the country to the Promised Land. In fact the rumour mill is of the view that the reason the ailing president refused to hand over to his vice before absconding from his duty was because of his determination to ensure that a southerner and a Christian does not become a president too soon after the former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The Nigeria media is filled with many conspiracy theories of how the incumbent vice president, Jonathan Goodluck would either be forced by the northern cabals and extremists to resign or whatever to pave way for another northerner.

To add insult to injury, the National Assembly posited that the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria does not specify a limitation on how long the President could be out of the office or the country. They even added that he could be absent for over a year and even till thy kingdom. This statement from the National Assembly summarised Nigeria to the rest of the world and it is apparently because of that stupid picture drawn by the National Assembly that a country like the United States could have the gut to place Nigeria along other 13 countries as a country that poses risk to the people and interest of the United States of America. A polite way of saying that Nigeria is now in the league of failed states. However looking at this impartially, one could begin to understand and appreciate why the United States had the gut to do what they did despite the fact that the young terrorist in question was never brainwashed in Nigeria but apparently in the United Kingdom and Yemen.

Every country relies on intelligence to carry out the day to day protection of their country. These intelligence reports are usually collected by individuals often called spies, contacts or agents stationed in various parts of the world including the embassies, high commissions and nunciatures of the spying countries. The information these spies collected are eventually collated by the central intelligence agency of the country seeking the information. In the United States of America it is called the Central Intelligence Agency or the CIA. In Israel it is the Mossad. In Nigeria it is known as the National Intelligence Agency while the United Kingdom calls hers the Secret Intelligence Service or the M16.

The American CIA spy in Nigeria who may even be a Nigerian and even your neighbour must have considered a lot of things before passing the intelligence that eventually led to the inclusion of Nigeria in that list and to be sincere and fair to impartial journalism, Nigerians cannot claim not to be aware of the volatile nature of the northern Nigeria which in the past few years has been a breeding ground for terrorist activities including indoctrination, brainwashing and religious intolerance. Same picture is also being replicated gradually in the south-south and south-east regions where terrorism takes the form of kidnapping and ransom for freedom. The terrorist activities in the south-south do not have any link with any religion unlike in the north where it is rooted in and linked to Islam. Every Nigerian is well aware of this; accepting the fact is another issue altogether!

In the northern part of Nigeria comprising mostly of about 50 percent of Nigerian Muslims, religious intolerance, intimidation and riots are the order of the day. On a very slightest provocation some unscrupulous elements there would go on rampage and begin to torch public buildings, churches, cars and killing people including women and children. Raping is also another cherished medium of intimidation for them.

Some few years ago, prior to a beauty pageant that was to be hosted by Nigeria, some Muslims in the north of Nigeria went on a rampage burning and killing everything on their way to protest holding the pageant during the Ramadan season and a publication in a Nigerian daily where a reporter called for calm and dialogue and suggested that if Prophet Mohammed had been alive, he would have been happy to sanction the beauty pageant and even be glad to pick one of them as a wife considering his teachings and penchant for women. The office of the media the writer was writing for in the north was razed to the ground while a Fatwa was placed on the head of the writer. She luckily escaped with her life intact to Europe where she is living at the moment.

Few years later it happened again when cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed were published in faraway Denmark by a Danish Newspaper. The Jyllands-Posten Mohammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted Prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that the publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. Despite the fact that the incident happened in faraway Denmark, the Muslims in the north of Nigeria picked up arms as usual raping, killing and burning everything on their way.

This type of incidents is never new in Nigeria. It has been part and parcel of the life in the north for quite a long time now but we kept ignoring and containing them as if any person, group of people or religion is automatically given the monopoly and right to violence while others are meant to be guinea pigs for their killing pleasure. This type of religious violence as a result of indoctrination and extremism also played a huge role in the Nigeria/Biafran civil war and recently, to be precise July 2009, it reared its ugly head again in the name of Boko Haram terrorist group. The most agonising part is that despite all these, the Nigeria government has not deemed it necessary to come out boldly and genuinely fight this evil. This evil has a direct link with the action of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab.

He came from the northern state of Katsina carved out from the former sate of Kaduna, an area notorious for being the melting point of the worst religious riots in Nigeria. Incidentally the present Nigerian president-in-absentia came from the same state as Umar. He grew up in that mess and obviously inculcated the culture of hatred and extremism from these experiences. What happened in the United Kingdom and Yemen was just the finalising of the culture of hatred and extremism that began from the north of Nigeria. Many others like him are still there and these likes of him are obviously inspired by his action. Many would be willing to join the bandwagon if given the slightest opportunity and that is the reason the Nigerian government as a matter of urgency should put a special searchlight on the north of Nigeria, no matter whose Ox is gored. Extremism is alive and thriving in the north just as the culture of retaliation to counter it is fast germinating and spreading in the south!

Nigeria should take the north serious and of special interest to the government and intelligence agencies in that region should be Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky and Abubakar Mujahid. Both are firebrand clerics. Zakzaky may have mellowed down in his firebrand hate speeches especially against Israel and the west but Mujahid who broke away from him should be of major concern to the Nigeria authorities. He is today leading the more radical Ja'amutu Tajidmul Islami-The Movement for Islamic Revival. There are still many more out there and the government is implicated in shielding them in order not to provoke their followers. These people preach hatred and therefore should be treated as hate preachers. We cannot continue to tolerate the pointing of accusing finger on the whole population due to some unscrupulous elements. The bad news however is that Nigeria has got no law against hate speech and inciting hatred meaning that these people would always be free to continue with their radicalisation of the young people. On the other side it is very consoling to know that we still have millions of young Nigerians living exemplary life worthy of emulation.

Against this backdrop, the United States should therefore reconsider the dilemma they have put about 145 million Nigerians into. The United States cannot morally justify her action based only on a few unscrupulous people. It is akin to branding the whole United States an extremist state due to unscrupulous behaviour of few. Citizens of the United States cannot all morally be seen as a replica of Bernard Madoff due to his Ponzi scheme. Why then did the United States throw caution to the wind to deal with Nigerian in this manner? The United States obviously went to the extreme. The fact is that the decision was taken hastily in a rage and without regard for other good and well meaning Nigerians. But come to think of it, the father of this Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab did something very worthy of emulation. He betrayed his increasingly fanatical son to the authorities to take suitable actions; but they ignored the ticking bomb. That action in itself warrants US apology to Nigeria but instead it warranted our inclusion into a terrorist list or whatever it is called.

When he began to notice negative ideological transformations and political views in his son, he immediately alerted the authorities. This is a heroic act which many parents can never think of doing; not even most Americans. This kind gesture was rewarded by placing Nigeria alongside 13 others as a country of interest. His father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, is a prominent banker and well-connected in Nigeria's political arena. Mr. Mutallab alerted the US embassy in Abuja for the first time in November 2009 to voice concerns and to report that he has lost contact with his son since he moved to live in Yemen.

He would eventually leave Yemen for Ethiopia and then went to Ghana and finally Nigeria before boarding a flight in Lagos to Amsterdam. This is despite being on a database known as Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (Tide) which lists individuals of concern to the authorities. According to the US authorities, his case was not strong enough to have his name included in the smaller Terrorist Screening Data Base, which includes a no-fly list. This raises a very vital question; how was Umar allowed to board a US flight despite being on Tide list. The fault therefore becomes obviously that of the US authorities. The reprimand given to Nigeria is therefore uncalled for and the inclusion of Nigeria in the list is immoral, detestable, disgusting, disturbing and in fact a clear show of ungratefulness. It is obvious that Nigeria in this case especially the father of the bomber cooperated with the authorities by alerting them of the changes in his son. He told the Nigeria authorities as well as the US authorities and yet the blame was shifted to Nigeria.

Nigeria therefore has a strong case against Washington DC. She deserves to have her name removed from that list. And I mean it. Our cooperation is unprecedented in the ongoing fight against terror. But the question now is who would bell the cat. Nigeria at present does not have an active president. We do not know exactly where he has been since the last three months. In fact rumour says that he is sick and in a hospital in either Saudi Arabia or Germany; no Nigerian knows exactly where or what to believe. In our type of democracy the president and elected officials are above the law. They are not accountable to the people. They are accountable to themselves and that is the reason why the president of a country as big as Nigeria could just wake up one day and gallivant away out of his duty and country like a Mary-go-around without bothering to tell those who ‘elected’ him where he is going to or how long he is going to stay. On top of that disrespect, Nigerians are being prodded to pray for a man they do not know his problem or whereabouts. Meanwhile calls for the president who was finally revealed to be seriously ill to resign have been falling on deaf ears.

The president despite his ill health vehemently refused to resign; preferring to be a boil in the arse and ruling Nigeria in comatose from either Saudi Arabia, Germany or God knows where and as a result holding the future of the nation to ransom. By this singular action and a stupid act of irresponsibility, personal aggrandisement, lust for power, selfishness and myopism, he ended up hanging the fate of over 145 million Nigerians on the balance. It is in this vegetative situation that Nigeria woke up to find herself in the international news on that fateful December 25 of 2009. Unfortunately we are still there and America is still tossing us about like a ball because we do not know the whereabouts of our president. Is that not a shame? I mean the greatest shame on earth!

In addition to that when things like this happen, the Ambassador of Nigeria to the United States should be the first link between Nigeria and the United States. But the agonising part of the whole saga is that prior to the incident, during the incident, after the incident and even up till now Nigeria has no Ambassador to the United States of America. Does that not tell us how serious Nigeria is in pushing this case? When a country does not have an active president who refuses to delegate power to his vice and no ambassador, how and who do we expect to resolve the problem? Your guess is as good as mine!

Therefore in as much as we do not want our name to be on that list and not want to be branded terrorists, available evidences revolves around the reality that Nigeria is getting what they bargained for and that is why the United States has the courage to be tossing us around like a ball. As you make your bed so must you lie on it. Hope that adage is making more sense to you now!

Bigotry: The Greatest Tragedy On Earth

2010-01-06T14:47:00.005Z

I have always made it very clear that the aim of my writing is never to please anybody. I am not in the business of writing to promote any particular belief, religion, creed, political affiliation or whatever that is in vogue. This does not mean that I cannot criticise or praise a particular religion, political party or an ideology if they disregard or show serious commitment towards one of those principles I believe in. These principles include those of tolerance, accommodation, respect, egalitarianism, rule of law and the pursuit of happiness. They are my most cherished and beloved principles. I believe in them as I do in God.

I find it particularly dreadful to engage in any form of religious debate with people and the reason is very simple. Religion does not have solution to most of the contemporary problems we are facing. Science could play a very huge role in solving these problems. Religion could only offer a solace and that may not be what people would want when situations on ground calls for immediate pragmatic actions and solutions. This however does not mean that I do not believe in religion; yes I do though I would prefer not to be associated with any for the mean time. The implication of my statement is that I am not a fantasist. I prefer to be referred to as a realist. As a result of this I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt and despite being a Christian that there are some issues that faith cannot solve; only science could. This does not in any way oppose my belief in miracles; in fact I am of the belief that we should allow science to seek solutions to human problems and where it cannot find solutions to these problems, miracles should then come in. We should use our brains and give God time to rest sometimes! By being the originator and cause of everything, God Has set the process of discovery, evolution and invention in motion and we should take advantage of that. We cannot stay in sin so that grace would be made abundant for us.

The bible is a very old book, the last part of which was written about 2000 years ago. The collection of what makes the Holy Bible as it is today is a different story altogether. At a point in time the Church had to sit down to decide what should be included or excluded from the bible. That was what happened in the Third Council of Carthage in 397AD. Some experts are of the view that in the process the bible must have been tampered with in one way or the other to suit the needs of the church, the time, the council and the editors. The veracity of this story is not what am here to discuss. It could be a topic for another day but suffice it to say that in the process many other canonical documents were either judged unsuitable to be included or regarded as too mundane or too critical of Jesus Christ, his teachings and his followers to be included. Ever heard of the Gospel of Judas or that of Mary Magdalene? Well, am not implying that they are some of these documents excluded, however it is important to note that the Roman Catholic bible has got more books compared to that of other Christian denominations. This disparity says something. The bible therefore is the work of men allegedly written under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Considering the age of the bible, it could therefore not have all the solutions to the contemporary problems. Today’s problems are well beyond the scope of the bible. For instance, the bible never discussed anything about HIV and AIDs, not even Malaria, aeroplane, DNA, psychosexual analysis, trains, condoms and cars and many other things meaning that using the bible or other holy books as a base to judge today’s problem could be nonsensical. It makes no sense and could be a sign of delusion and stupidity. Faith does not mean gullibility; it means rationality.

Against that backdrop, it is pertinent to note that the bible was obviously not written to explain science and I pointed it out very clearly elsewhere that the main purpose of the bible ab initio was to propagate the Jewish culture and religion. This is very true of the Old Testament while the New Testament was written to propagate Christianity. The Igbo people of the south east of Nigeria or the Hutus of the Rwanda or even the Xhosas of South Africa were obviously not included in that plan. It was written and tailored to the needs of the Jewish people, as a result the bible cannot sensibly be used as a landmark to judge these three cultures since before the advent of Christianity, they have their own system of belief and worship. If Christianity did not come to them they would have still been worshipping their gods according to the dictates of their conscience.

The argument of whether the bible is or not the word of God is also beyond the scope of this writing. However suffice it to say that if we push the theory of the bible being the word of God too much, other religions would surely push theirs including Islam which may likely land us into the hot fire of actually endorsing the ‘Holy War’ and whatever it means to Muslims. It is because of this that I have always tried to be more realistic in my writings by not quoting holy books; not even the bible despite being born and baptised a Roman Catholic Christian. I have my reasons for that and one of them is what I have already cited at the outset. Another reason is what I have already dealt with in my previous article titled ‘The Ugly Side Of Religion: A Review Of Mankind Abuse Of God And Religion’, where I posited that religion being an instrument of propaganda could be used to brainwash and indoctrinate vulnerable followers into doing harm and evil to their folks. The Muslim terrorists are a good example here. The American conservative Christians who fund African churches to persecute their homosexual brothers is another example.

Against this background, I am therefore not interested in pleasing people with my writings. Man by nature is insatiable and therefore what pleases man should not be my focus but the promotion of virtues of democracy, peace, stability, tolerance, respect and accommodation. I have a mission and my mission is never to please anybody’s religious convictions. I cannot do that because I am not a theologian. To the best of my knowledge I majored in Mass Communications and minored in Print Journalism. To set the record straight, even though I was born a Roman Catholic, I do not share in the belief that any Christian denomination is more superior or more authentic than others or that any religion is better or more authentic than others. To me, just as all denominations within the Christendom is equal and do same work for the Lord, so is all religion equal and do same work for the Lord according to their modus operandi and understanding. The issue of religion is just a question of chance. An Italian Roman Catholic would more likely have been a Muslim, if he had been a Saudi Arabian, just as Pope Benedict XVI would have been a Buddhist, Shintoist, Confucianist or even a Muslim if he had been Asian. Therefore no one could claim that his religion is the best simply because he is a member of that religion. A religion becomes the best when members of that religion adhere strictly to the ‘Golden Rule’ which fortunately is one rule that all religions share in common.

Just as I defend the right of each individual to belong to any religion by choice and freewill without force, coercion or compulsion, so am I also strongly in favour of those who opted to remain in the worship of their ancestral gods especially the adherents of traditional religions as well as those who decides not to believe in anything and by this latter group I mean the atheists. In democracy every individual should be given the right to believe or not to believe; the right to the freedom of choice. That is the fundamental pillar of democracy. Religion should never be by coercion or compulsion. The use of force to convert one to a particular religion is sinful and antithetical to the meaning of religion while the imposition of our religious belief on others is as sinful as the biggest sin in the bible.

At all point in time especially when circumstances calls for religious debates and arguments, provisions must always be made to include and accommodate the beliefs and philosophies of others; no matter how old school we may think they might be when compared to our own beliefs. A Muslim must be given same platform as a Christian to market or defend his faith. Same opportunity must also be given equally to atheists and traditional believers. It is bigotry, stupidity, immaturity and idiotic to impose our religious belief on others and that brings me to the reason for all these lucubrations.

On the eve of Christmas 2009, I posted a poem on my blog ‘The Rantings Of Chukwunwikezarramu Okumephuna’ at www.chukwunwikezarramu.blogspot.com and the title of the poem was ‘Another Meaningless Christmas’. A fan, Okos Okoduwa made a comment after the poem and his comment read, ‘I have always loved your intelligent comments on National issues but am afraid to say I don't buy your position on Gay whatever. An Ibo man fronting for a cursed cause is absurd’.

I found his comment distressing, upsetting and disgusting for two reasons including the fact that he never crosschecked the gravity of the words he used to express his outburst. He was overwhelmed with the desire to insult me and ended up making the comment in the wrong place. His comment was supposed to have been made after my status update where I asked, ‘Who Is Your 2009 Person Of The Year And Why Is The Person Your 2009 Person Of The Year?’ The reason he made the comment was because of who I chose as my 2009 Person Of The Year. I chose the Homosexuals in Africa as my 2009 Person of the Year and this is exactly what I said: “ My 2009 Person Of The Year are the "Homosexuals In Africa". My reason for picking them is because of my deepest conviction as a person and a Christian that they are also the chosen children of God and part and parcel of Africa as a continent and culture. Nobody is less important or more important in the sight of God otherwise the concept of God become meaningless and questionable. No animal is more equal than others! God cannot create and condemn! These homosexuals obviously for no fault of theirs are presently going through a hard time in Africa. In Nigeria, five years imprisonment awaits them for expressing their sexuality in any form. In Uganda, they could be sentenced to death for that. In Rwanda, a country that just came out of the worst genocide of the 21st century, they are outlawed. In The Gambia, the president gave them ultimatum to leave that country or face the music. In Zimbabwe they are equated with pigs. The story is the same in different parts of Africa except South Africa which is the only country in Africa where being a homosexual is permitted and protected by law. We cannot continue to tolerate the insanity of killing, ostracising and degrading others because of their sexuality based solely on our blind cultural and religious convictions. What they are asking for is the right to love someone just as we all have someone we love. They are not asking for too much. They deserve to love and be loved! I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ is still here, He would have treated them as He treated Mary Magdalene. But the most agonising part of the whole story is that our governments instead of protecting them are making laws and even encouraging us to harm and kill our own brothers. Africa Unite And Do Not Leave Your Brothers Behind For Their Blood Would Come Back To Haunt Us! They are going through a lot and just like the civil rights activist they have been resisting all attempts to have their rights emasculated and dignity as human beings trampled upon. I therefore crown them as my "2009 Person Of The Year" even as I thank and encourage all those who sympathise with their plight to continue till Africa is made a place where everybody is treated as somebody and somebody treated as a human being. Where all would have their human rights valued, cherished and respected, have access to all the basics of life including education and healthcare and above all be happy and proud of coming Out Of Africa!”

Another reason why his comment distressed me a lot was because of his verbal attack on me. I would not have had any qualm if he had stopped at saying that he does not buy my idea, but going a bit further to tell me that ‘An Ibo man fronting for a cursed cause is absurd’ is way too far beyond the boundary. I thought he crossed the boundary of decency, ethics of conversation and civilisation because there is a clear case of argumentum ad hominem in his comments. That is basically the reason why I decided to do what I have not done before here; replying to one of my fans. It would be very stupid and cowardice for me not to. It would also amount to victory for stupidity and ignorance, if I do not. By the way I am an Igbo sometimes spelt as Ibo from the South East of Nigeria hence his attack on my ethnicity.

Once again, I am not a theologian. I see myself more as an activists than as a writer. Writing is just a medium for me to lay down my grievances. I am very confident that many things are not going the way they ought to have been going especially in Africa. My blogging is my own little way of pointing out these anomalies as well as contributing towards making the world a better place. There is too much poverty in Africa, not because we do not have the resources to be like Europe and North America, but because there is too much greed, corruption and wickedness amongst our leaders. They do not have respect for the people they are called to serve and that is why a country as big as Nigeria does not have good roads, quality education, constant power supply and all those things that are taken for granted elsewhere even in the neighbouring Ghana.

Instead of tackling the problems, the corrupt leaders who are responsible for the mess and quagmire resorted to scapegoating and the people at the receiving end are the homosexuals. They are being blamed for all the evils in almost all the African states notably The Gambia, Nigeria and Uganda. But a closer look clearly betrays this scapegoating as a ploy to deviate the attention of their citizens from the fact that they are unable to deliver the dividends of democracy to them. The idea behind this is that when they bring up issues like homosexuality which many Africans do not tolerate, it would end up being the talk of the day, a rallying point, a point of focus and eventually divert the citizens away from asking the main question; the dividend of democracy. Elsewhere, I made it very clear that I am not the right person to be asked about my opinion on homosexuality if you are looking towards getting a negative answer. I refused to join the bandwagon of condemnation simply because as I have noted earlier, the bible is not strong enough on the question of homosexuality. Psychology and science came up with a better, strong and cogent explanation on why people are gay. Their conclusion is that being a homosexual is not about choosing a lifestyle but falls under one of those situations in life we cannot control. Another good example is the colour of the body. Others include colour of the eyes, fingerprints and even where to be born. We do not have control over these and just as we do not have control over them, so do homosexuals not have control over their sexuality. They are victims of some circumstance beyond their control and they have to live with it. My call as a blogger is not to add to their already heavy burden!

It is based on these grounds that I refused to condemn homosexuals and homosexual lifestyle. My conservative Christian friends do not share same belief with me. They have many passages in the bible to justify their condemnation of the homosexuals including the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to which I always reply that there are also many other things in the bible which are forbidden and we still do them. Amongst them are adultery and fornication. Who has not done it before? Same bible they quote to justify homophobia also mandated exile for any man who sleeps with a woman during her period (Leviticus 18: 19), killing of disobedient son (Deuteronomy 21:20-21), made it an offence to mix linen and wool in any garment (Deuteronomy 22:11) and mandated that if a girl is raped in the city and no one hears her scream both she and her assailant shall be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-25). Same bible also placed an embargo on anyone born of undesirable marriage from worshiping the Lord up to the tenth generation and many others including the eating of sea animals-oyster, lobster, prawn-that has no fin and scales which the bible said in the book of Deuteronomy 14 are unclean.

From the above therefore, it could be concluded that the bible forbade almost everything we do today and if that is true why then singling out the homosexuals for public opprobrium? Is homosexuality the only sin in the bible? Why did the church and all of us suddenly became aware that the bible condemned homosexuality but not also these things I mentioned above? That was the basis of my refusal to condemn anybody based on his sexuality. The selective teaching and interpretation of the bible does not conform to the teachings of the bible itself. Am sure God is still almighty and can still use that almighty power to bring down fire and brimstones on the homosexuals and since He has not done that yet, it is not my responsibility to carry out that function for Him because vengeance belongs to Him and it is neither your responsibility because all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord hence his poser that anyone who have not committed this type of sin before should be the first to cast his or her stone.

After going through all these passages in the bible with my limited faith, I must admit that I find it very difficult to understand why those with faith big enough to move mountains would be the first to cast their stone or to look for a speck of wood in their brother’s eyes whereas they have a log of wood in theirs. On that note I concluded that the whole thing boils down to ignorance and bigotry and it is based on that conclusion that I replied to Okos Okoduwa. In my reply to him I posited, “As a writer, you are the conscience of the people, the fourth estate of the realm and the voice of the people. I may have personal opinions but as a writer those opinions should not becloud my sense of service to my readers and the wider audience. The fact is that my job is never to pass judgement on human sexuality. I am not interested in knowing whether people are homosexuals or not or the merits and demerits of being one. Am only interested in what people can contribute to ensure that the world is a better place to live in. As a result of this I have the deepest respect for homosexuals who are striving in their own way to make the world a better place. The problem with Nigeria and the world today is not homosexuality. They are not the reason for the massive corruption, bad roads, dilapidated infrastructures, poor economy and many other ills plaguing Nigeria and because of this fact I refuse to condemn them. In fact they are fearfully and wonderfully contributing to the will of God on earth. As a writer I am called to be on the side of the poor, the less privileged, the ostracised and others being marginalised for one reason or the other and it is because of this that my writings are clearly aimed at attacking people victimising the poor and the marginalised and I do not think I have any regret doing that. Once again, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual but if you think there is then there is something wrong with being a Christian in Africa because Christianity is not part of African cosmology. I think it is high time we left the homosexuals alone for the simple reason that they are not the reason for corruption and underdevelopment in Africa. And by the way, to think of it deeply, what have you got to loose with two men loving themselves? You really need to think about homosexuality with an open mind and if homosexuality is 'cursed' as you wrongly said then being black is also cursed as being pushed by some white extremists. Well, we have come a long way out of that and we should rather concentrate on creating more jobs for young people in Nigeria rather than devoting precious time to persecuting the homosexuals. By the way being a homosexual is so Igbo since homosexuality has got nothing to do with tribe, ethnic group or culture. Every culture, ethnic group and tribe has got homosexuals”.

I thought he would get the message, unfortunately he did not and he replied to me, “My Bible tells me that God we will all come to judgment. If your dad was gay, you would not have been born. Little wonders you chose to send this write-up via personal message to me. It would have been better if you came out openly, let your Ibo brothers recognise you on Facebook without obscuring your face and identity. This is akin to cultural bastardisation. Your argument on this clearly shows what you are. Get on with it. If you use your wisdom and intelligence to insult God Almighty, you will surely give account. Jesus loves you. Go to the National Assembly and sponsor a Bill to legitimise this in Nigeria”.

His reply was very childish to me and the poor construction made it pretty difficult for me to perfectly understand what he was implying. Once again he made reference to my ethnicity and added my dad. I would have stopped because my further conversation with him would be akin to celebrating ignorance but because of the fear that he might think am a coward and the fact that he even involved my father in the argument, I replied to him, “I do not think am interested in going into further argument with you on this. Using your bible to judge others is a sign of ignorance. Democracy accommodates every shades of opinion and democracy is well aware that everybody does not share the same faith with you and that is why every reasonable democracy strives never to mingle religion with democracy. Every democracy should be build upon secularism and that is the way it ought to be. Your religious beliefs should be kept within you and must end in your room. It is ignorance and bigotry to judge others using your religion and even the bible you called 'My Bible' was written by people you do not know and the veracity of the stories there may not be the whole truth. In addition, I do not need to have a straight father or even a father at all to be born. Science made it possible to have kids without a father or even a sexual intercourse. Meanwhile I do not share the same opinion with my dad on various issues and I would wish that you do not involve him in a discussion like this. You can still make your opinions known without involving my ethnicity and family. My dad is a staunch Roman Catholic and I do not obviously agree with all his beliefs since most do not make sense to me. Meanwhile this reply was never sent into your inbox. It was initially replied to you on my wall and copied to your inbox to ensure that you get it. Listen if am not convinced in what I am doing, I would have stopped. At this my age and level of exposure, education and travel, I am convinced that there is something wrong with holding opinions like yours. I do not have regret on my stand on this issue. You are certainly filled with hatred probably due to no fault of yours and I do not want to be drawn into that. As a young man, I wish you would begin to change things around you. Furthermore, my writing has not in any way suggested insulting or lacking belief in God. What I know for sure is that my writing as far as possible is devoid of any stand that uses religion to condemn people or their way of life. The bible was not written to explain science or psychology. It was written by a group of men to highlight the relationship between them, their culture and their God and that does not obviously cover science and psychology as we have them today. On sponsoring a bill in the National Assembly on the same question, of course you and I know that the Nigerian National Assembly is not fit for purpose. The Assembly is akin to kindergarten filled with kids high in skunk and new wine and behaving wildly like those having an orgy. They are only after money and never about the welfare of the people. What have they done to solve mountains of problems confronting Nigerians including the newest addition of terrorism?”

At this point he left the subject of the argument and came back to attack me again. “You write like someone that is a bit exposed but you seem to believe you are the only Nigerian that is trained abroad. Thank God I hold a Masters degree from one of the best Universities in the UK as well. I will not be drawn into arguments with an atheist. It’s sad that you think you can use Facebook to indoctrinate people like me who believe God cannot be wrong. It is a sin for a man to have sex with another man. Bible says all sinners will find themselves in a lake of fire that burns with fire and brimstone. You need to give your life to God. You were created for a purpose. I am sure your dad and mum cannot even imagine what you gay men do to yourselves. I will not read any message from you otherwise you will continue to irritate me. I have got young boys. On daily basis I ask God to shield them from doctrines in favour of homosexuality like yours. You hide under the cover of freedom of speech, rule of law etc whereas what you want is freedom to "fuck" shit. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of this evil.”

Following this, I become convinced that the whole drama is getting funny, getting out of hand and becoming like arguing with truck pushers, bus conductors, touts and thugs in Ajegunle market of Lagos, Nigeria. I decided to stop responding but then I said no for I am a strong believer in the fact that knowledge and commonsense would always be triumphant over ignorance and bigotry. I therefore replied to him, “You have a Masters Degree from one of the best universities in the UK? Congratulations but I'd rather end up as a Molue bus conductor than to acquire a foreign degree and end up as an empty bigot. Oh! By the way, am not struggling for heaven with you because I have already decided to rot in hell than to share heaven with people like you. I never said am an atheist but if that is what you called me; I think it is better than what you believe in at the moment. Am not really offended, am only trying to respond to you using the tone you used above to reply to me. Holding a Masters Degree is not a measure of wisdom, after all idiots and scums can have or buy one. The greatest disaster is that you do not actually allow that Masters you got from one of the best UK universities to go through you. Am sure most Nigerian leaders have Masters too including those from Toronto University but look at the mess they have put our country into. Therefore Masters Degree is nothing if it could not be applied into everyday thinking and practicalities. How can you acquire a Masters from one of the best UK universities and still think like those in the Stone Ages? Once again, I do respect your opinion and am happy that you share same room with God. But as for me I still believe in what I believe in. Any religion or belief that canvasses the persecution of others because of their sexual orientation is not worthy to be and one cannot profess to believe in God and yet in the name of same God persecute and condemn his own brethren! Religion is all about bringing all together towards God and never about excluding them and by the way what made you think you are better than homosexuals?”

He then got mad and wrote, “I have told you I will not continue in this with you. I did not read this and will never read anything from you. Jesus loves you. Give your life to him” but I refused to give up. I replied to him, “Well I thought you want to prove your blind religious convictions to me. Why are you running away? Come on, go on and talk! The greatest disaster ever to face man is hypocrisy and bigotry. On that note, I think we stop here but make sure you repent of your hatred and ego which makes you think you are better than others. Before I leave please tell me what makes you think you are better than homosexuals?”

He never replied. He chickened away quietly removing his profile from my fans page and that actually made me happy because I cannot condone ignorance ruling over wisdom, intelligence and commonsense. Everyone is entitled to their religious belief but using same to judge others is going too far. It is bigotry to use the bible to judge a Muslim or an atheist just as it would be ridiculous to use the Koran to judge a Buddhist. Everyman should be allowed to practice his religion without flaunting it disrespectfully in front of others, forcing it down their throat or imposing it on others. We have come a long way out of the stone ages and to the best of my knowledge this is 2010 and we cannot continue to tolerate the fact that people are still being ostracised, lynched, imprisoned, abused, killed and murdered just because of their sexuality. That is ignorance and that is completely unacceptable.

It is ridiculous to claim superiority over another person by virtue of birth or sexuality. A heterosexual is never superior to a homosexual just as a white man is never superior to a black man! And since there is no scientific evidence to prove that homosexuals cannot reach the same level of achievement with their straight counterparts, I once more refuse to be intimidated by any blind religious convictions until that time when the Lord shall come in judgment to settle disputes amongst nations and force them to beat their swords into ploughshares!

The Ugly Side Of Religion: A Review Of Mankind Abuse Of God And Religion

2010-01-02T18:04:00.002Z

Few days ago, a friend Deinde Falase made a comment after my Facebook status update and that comment prompted the writing of this article. The Facebook status update in question asked, “Do You Really Believe That God Made the World in Six Days by Mere Word Of Mouth and Created Man out Of Clay? Reasons?” After a lot of intellectual lucubrations that went back and forth between us, he posited, “Indeed. I’ve been wondering about the high standard of living here in the UK where they are not religious and the poverty and hunger back home in Nigeria where everyone claims to be "born again"”.

In my reply I said to him, “On a very sincere note, do you really think that what we practice in Nigeria is a true religion? By their fruit thou shall know them. I do not want to answer the question but then your guess is as good as mine”. However on a second thought I decided to tackle the issue in detail. The following article is therefore a detailed response to that discussion.

However before proceeding, I would want to clearly state that this article does not in any way diminish my belief in God nor does it suggest any iota of doubt in the goodness of religion and the existence of God. Another reason am highly interested in writing this is because of numerous experiences both personal and circumstantial that has proved to me beyond reasonable doubt that some unscrupulous elements are hiding under the cloak of religion to commit evil. Religion, if hijacked and used this way could be turned into an evil force and effectively used as an instrument of hatred which could potentially undermine the virtues of tolerance, respect, accommodation and whatever democracy stands for.

The misinterpretation of the holy books to achieve personal gains is as old as the holy books themselves. It is never stopping and it will never stop so far the words greed, wickedness, exploitation, brainwashing and indoctrination still exist in English language. There is no end to it and the events of the recent past attest to that. Probably because of this, Karl Marx was left with no other option but to conclude probably out of anger and frustration that religion is like opium which when injected into a person makes the person to behave not according to how he would have loved to but according to the dictates of the opium which has taken control his system. Opium of the people! Religion when recklessly and callously used this way achieves exactly the same aim too. It works as opium on the unsuspecting victims by making them high like a person under the influence of drugs, making him to lose his compos mentis temporary or permanently and to begin to act in the name of the drug he is under. It could be ecstasy, opium, marijuana or cocaine.

A good friend Ndekwu Ogani while reacting recently to an unrelated Facebook status update captioned, ‘It Does Not Worth It Defending Your Blind Religious Convictions...But It Worths More Than Silver And Gold To Defend Fundamental Human Rights And The Virtues Of Tolerance, Respect And Accommodation!’, said, “The world is fucked up because religious nutters are going around with crap beliefs believing it is the gospel. What happened to critical reasoning and logic?”

And he is not far from being right. Religion is today part of the major reason we do not have peace in the world. The Muslim extremists notably the Taliban and the Al Qaeda use it as an excuse to foment troubles now and then in the name of God. It is the source of the never ending controversy in Northern Ireland. It served as a coal that invigorated the fire of hatred between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda which led to the worst genocide of the 20th century. It is one of the contributing factors to the monumental corruption in Nigeria today. In Saudi Arabia it is used as a cover to deny freedom of religion and worship to other religions except Islam. In Iran, the Ayatollah and his cohorts hid under it to rig an election. Israelis hide under it to victimise the Palestinians while it played a crucial role in the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush.

From the above, it is therefore safe to conclude conveniently that religion could be a formidable instrument of actualising evil intentions, indoctrination and brainwashing. In fact, religion is one of the easiest and quickest means of brainwashing the faithful. Religion has more to do with emotions and sentiments and playing on people’s emotions and sentiments turn them on easily. For instance, those who carried out the September 11 attack in the United States of America and that of July 7 in the United Kingdom did what they did not out of political or economic reasons but purely based on religious motivations and convictions as a result of long process of brainwashing. The September 11 group were so stupid to believe that after the attack they would be welcomed into heaven by virgins who would be their wives. Their common sense failed to tell them that heaven is not a brothel where people go on holiday of orgy! Where has reason, logic and common sense gone to?

When George W. Bush, a half Episcopalian and half Methodist, for the first term as the President of United States, one of the first things he did was to stop the funding of all agencies that promote abortion or the use of condom as a means of contraception or in the prevention of the transmission of HIV and AIDS. He did this on his first day in office in January 2001 by reinstating the so-called Mexico City Policy-known as the global gag rule to critics-that bars US family planning assistance for organizations that use funding from any other source to provide counselling and referral for abortion, lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country or perform abortions except in certain cases. Those exceptions are a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest. George W. Bush insisted that the fight must be biblical by buying and endorsing a religio-centric campaign of abstinence which he forced down the throat of millions of Africans not considering their stand on religious and faith issues. This is very akin to what the Talibans can do and it is a clear sign of bigotry, delusion and lunacy.

In Nigeria, members of a radical Islamic group called the Boko Haram were brainwashed into believing that western education is the source of all evils and corruption in Nigeria and just one morning they let loose their madness and began a campaign of slaughtering their neighbours who do not share the same stupid and idiotic convictions with them. The carnage lasted for months until the Federal Government of Nigeria intervened with a military action that brought the madness to an abrupt end. Most of the young men including their leaders lost their lives. The young members of the Boko Haram were brainwashed into believing that what they were doing was very pleasing to Allah.

This incident echoes a similar one that took place in Jonestown, Guyana where the founder of the People’s Temple, Rev. Jim Jones brainwashed his congregation into believing and drinking poison to prepare them for the life after since according to him the world was coming to an end. The massacre was horrible. About, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown, 276 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning. According to escaping Temple members, children were given the drink first and families were told to lie down together and take theirs. The reason for the death of children first is that when their parents see that their children are gone, they would have the courage to die too. It worked and they died en masse like animals because of their blind religious convictions and inability to distinguish between madness and delusion and reality and voice of God.

Also in Nigeria, the Primate and the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Anglican Communion, Peter Akinola played a very crucial role in supporting a bill that sought to criminalise same sex relationship with up to five years imprisonment. The Archbishop despite his high level of both secular and theological education threw caution to the wind and openly supported the bill out of his blind religious convictions. This is regardless of the fact that what he believes in maybe exactly what others do not believe in. He went on with that bigoted belief and ended up making it one of the official creeds of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. This in turn led to the brainwashing of millions of unsuspecting Nigerian Anglicans who today view homosexuality not only as evil but as something to be fought by all means including the use of threat and intimidation. Unfortunately, one thing they do not realise is that they are stupidly fighting their own brothers and sisters in the name of God while outsiders laugh at them.

The Archbishop did not achieve this feat alone. In fact he was strongly supported by the conservatives in the Anglican Church of the United States of America otherwise called the Episcopal Church. They gave him the financial backbone he needed to achieve his ulterior motives and evil objectives. The American conservatives financially brainwashed Akinola into fighting his own flock and people in the name of God. The same conservative group and the Pentecostal churches in America are also responsible for arming the State of Israel against the helpless Palestinians. The two groups are convinced that Jerusalem is the eternal city and the land promised to the Jewish people by God. As a result of this ridiculous belief and the stupidity of using an over 4000 years old theology to explain the 21st century democracy, the two groups have blindly, ignorantly and wickedly contributed billions in donation towards the Zionist cause that has resulted in the murdering of thousands of Palestinians. All in the name of God! When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

Similar development is also repeating itself at the moment in Uganda where the Anglican bishops instead of bringing to the awareness of President Yoweri Museveni the human rights implication of the homophobic speech he made in a church where a new Anglican bishop was being consecrated, actually issued a press statement in support of the speech. The president had earlier during the consecration service condemned the homosexual lifestyle and reminded them of the consequences of being one in Uganda. Sadly, the bishops who are supposed to shield the children of God from persecutions are now joining hands with the government to engage in this orgy of homophobia. Is that not making a mockery of the merciful and ‘vengeance is mine’ attributes of God?

And to compound the whole problem the two leading Anglican Primates, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu have refused to speak out against this evil in Uganda. Regrettably, the Archbishop of York is also a Ugandan and he should have known better. The reason for their refusal to speak out is because they are afraid of what would be the consequences on the already fragile and divided state of the Anglican Church as well as being afraid of provoking the state of Uganda. These are men of God who are called to be on the side of the poor, the vulnerable, the downtrodden and the marginalised at all times. If religion has decided to keep mute over what is evil, then I think it is high time we began to question the relevance of religion in the 21st century. If the church refuses out of fear to be on the side of the poor and the marginalised where then do we expect the common man to run to? What has happened to the Liberation Theology and ‘Be Courageous For I Am With You’?

Apparently due to the silence the State of Uganda moved a step further. In connivance with the church leaders, the State of Uganda is presently seriously surging forward with stiff sanctions including death penalty against homosexuals. The proposed legislation would impose the death penalty for gay Ugandans while their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report them to authorities. Even landlords could be imprisoned for renting to homosexuals. The measure was proposed in Uganda following a long period of meddling between some Ugandan politicians and leaders of a secretive American conservative Christian group called ‘The Family’. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

Membership of The Family includes the high and mighty of American politics of both the Republican and Democratic parties. The group which dates back to the 1930s recently came to the limelight for the tomfoolery surrounding the extramarital affair of Nevada Senator John Ensign at the Congressional boarding house on C Street. According to Jeff Sharlet, author of ‘The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power’, The Family is connected to the proposed anti-gay legislation in Uganda. Prominent members of the group include Senator John Ensign, Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Charles Grassley, Governor Mark Sanford, Representative Bart Stupak and Representative Joe Pitts among others. Interestingly Senator John Ensign, a Pentecostal conservative born-again and married father of three does not see anything wrong with extramarital affairs-he had an extramarital affair with Cynthia Hampton who was married to one of his top aides-but sees everything wrong with homosexuality! He is the only Pentecostal in the American Senate.

The Family, also known as The Fellowship, was founded in the United States in 1935. The founder Abraham Verene claimed that God came to him one night in April 1935 and told him that Christianity has been focusing on the wrong people, the poor and the suffering, "the down and out" and therefore commanded him to be a missionary to and for the powerful, the "up and in", who could then pass off the blessings to everybody else. The group has no website and does not allow its members to speak about its activities. The group which is now being led by Doug Coe also sponsors the annual National Prayer Breakfast that has been attended by all Presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower. One of the Ugandan members of parliament who introduced the bill to the parliament just returned from one of the National Prayer Breakfast meetings before introducing the bill to the Ugandan House of Assembly.

In a recent interview Sharlet who detailed the decades long connection between The Family and Ugandan politicians noted that David Bahati, the Ugandan politician who introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, is a member of The Family who "organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees an African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda."

Mr. Bahati, a parliamentarian from the ruling National Resistance Movement, has in the past said that homosexuals do not deserve human rights. Sharlet, who has spent years researching on The Family, describes the core agenda of the secretive but powerful group as one that is intent on fighting homosexuality and abortion, promoting free-market economics and dictatorship, an idea they once termed ‘totalitarianism for Christ’. The Family recruits people in positions of power and influence to promote its agenda and according to Sharlet, the group has had Uganda on her agenda for over 20 years and its recruits include Mr. Bahati, President Museveni and Ethics Minister Nsaba Buturo. President Museveni as far back as 1986 was identified as their ‘key man in Africa’ says Sharlet.

Poor Ugandans! Their leaders are being bribed by Americans to kill their own brothers who are homosexuals. The question we should ask is why American conservative Christians are only interested in killing the homosexuals in Uganda and never the ones in America? Why the interest in Uganda? I bet that by the time Ugandans realise what they are doing, it would have become too late. There is also the possibility of an anti-American sentiment in future not only in Uganda but everywhere in the sub-Saharan Africa, when Africans begin to realise the harm they have done to their own brothers as a result of American manipulations. And to think that all these is because of religion makes the whole story a painful one.

One fact worthy of note is that religious brainwashing does not respect boundary, age, class or nationality. It is a weapon that could render the mighty useless in a matter of seconds. In Jamaica, once a famous rapper, Shaba Rank was interviewed about his opinion on homosexuality and he openly expressed his hatred and condemnation of the gay people citing Jesus Christ and the bible for up to 10 times within 5 minutes to justify his stand. Shaba Rank who was living with various women at the time of the interview did not see anything sinful about his own lifestyle but he was quick to point out that of others. Probably his own version of Christianity endorses living with series of women or he must have forgotten so quickly that passage in the bible that advised us to first remove the log of wood in our eyes before looking for the speck in that of others. This behaviour is very Jamaican. Jamaica despite being a booming centre for Pentecostalism is today one of the most homophobic nations on earth with killings of homosexuals being recorded every now and then. The fact is that Shaba Rank has got a right to the freedoms of speech and opinion but those rights do not implicate the right to hatred. He was not aware of that due to his blind religious conviction that he knows better than the bible to know that Jesus Christ and the bible condemned homosexuality.

In the face of these ugly scenarios, one is left with just one option of asking if there is still anything good in religion at all. Well the answer is yes! Religion is good since it could serve as a source of solace to man. It is a medium that brings him closer to his creator. I am not an atheist. In fact I was born a Roman Catholic and still professes the faith even though I have stopped being active in its activities. I prefer being a believer in God to being associated with any religion at the moment till all this madness is over. Part of the reason for my decision is because of the negative influence religion could have on people. For instance the religion I was born into, the Roman Catholicism has on various occasions described homosexuality as being ‘intrinsically immoral’ and ‘the homosexual inclination’ as ‘objectively disordered’. Such crude remark does not conform to my belief as a Christian and I refuse to believe and accept that my brothers or sisters are ‘intrinsically immoral’ or ‘objectively disordered’ just because they are homosexuals. God has a purpose for every living creature on earth including the homosexuals. If He does not want them, He could wipe them off the face of the earth. But since He has not done that yet, it means that they are still his children, fearfully and wonderfully made in His image!

Once again, I prefer being a believer in God to being associated with any religion at the moment till all this madness is over. One does not need to belong to any religion to go to heaven. In fact religion could be an obstacle to going to heaven if the adherents become victims of indoctrination and brainwashing.

There is no doubt that what most Christian pastors teach today mostly deviates from what our Lord Jesus Christ taught them. They teach the bible to suit their needs, circumstances, whims and caprices. The bible noted that Jesus Christ was so poor that he had no place to lay down his head. Today pastors are one of the richest people on earth. They have the best cars, private jets, mansions and have surplus of ladies and concubines attending to their various needs including spiritual and temporal. They live a life of opulence that is obviously incompatible with the good news they were mandated to go and preach to the poor. Most of these pastors minister in the poorest parts of their countries and yet their life does not in any way reflect the environment they are working in. They are simply scandalously rich in the midst of poverty and that is not compatible with their call and ministry.

The life these pastors live nowadays has become an eyesore that Jesus Christ would weep uncontrollably seeing them in this type of opulence. The life is openly egoistic, egotistic, self-centred and materialistic with much emphasis being placed on material wealth and accumulation. My original parish is in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Onitsha in the South East of Nigeria and you dare not come there when they are having their monthly meetings or recollections. However if you dare to come you must be sure of being sadly confronted by the sight of newest cars in towns. Their meetings and recollections have become the greatest show in town for the poor parishioners. This is very ridiculous in the sense that these pastors serve in areas, states and a country regarded as very poor. These people are very rich and therefore cannot genuinely identify with the plight of the poor they are called to serve!

The poor whom they are called to minister to bears the highest brunt of their extravagant and opulent life. They have to pay their tithe otherwise they are accused of robbing God or owing him and therefore must end up in hell. These are people who are so poor that they cannot even afford to eat and how they are robbing God is what am yet to comprehend. That is brainwashing. The pastors simply need the tithe to keep maintaining their extravagant lifestyle and the unsuspecting poor people gullibly believe everything they are told without using their sense of logic or reasoning as my friend I mentioned earlier noted at the outset. This is not religion. It sounds more like an intimidation and extorting money from the people of God in the name of God using religion as a cover. The only justification they have is that it is God’s command and therefore justified because it is done in the name of God. It is just like a pastor sleeping with your wife and telling you that it is justified because he is a man of God and therefore should be seen as an act mandated by God. Onanism! An Opus Dei! Frankly, that has happened before.

This group of dodgy men of God are ever ready to justify their evil deeds using religion or God and that is evil. They are everywhere and they go around stepping on people’s toes in the name of God and religion. They do not have respect for others. It is just about them because they think they are messengers of God on earth. The other day in Bus 12 going from Oxford Circus to Dulwich Library, a young man was busy preaching on top of his voice the imminent end of the world around 5am despite the fact that people were going to work and needed some breathing space to relax, meditate, surf their notebooks or blackberry and read their books. To the young man, he is preaching the word of God and no matter whose Ox is gored that preaching must continue because the Bible mandated him to go to the rest of the world and preach the good news of Jesus Christ to the gentiles.

At the same time the young man was preaching, somewhere in Nigeria the Primate and the Archbishop of Nigeria, Anglican Communion is finalising one of his early morning meetings with some members of the Nigeria House of Assembly in his residence in Abuja on how to impose a very strict punishment on those who profess to be, associate, promote, advertise or have anything to do with homosexuality even as the nearby Roman Catholic pastor is already telling his parish how abominable it is in the sight of the lord to be a homosexual using carefully crafted sermon and highly selective passages from the Bible to justify his argument. He does not care about what would be the impact of his homily on his congregation. The fact that this type of hate-filled homily could lead to homophobic crimes including murder and lynching never bothered him. He is only interested in preaching blindly what he wants his bible and faith to say. His own religion is completely ignorant of the need of other people and that is one of the main issues with Islam in Nigeria.

In Nigeria, the version of Islam we have does not accommodate the needs and feelings of other people and their faith. In fact an average Nigerian Muslim would want to islamise the whole nation by force. Is that not an arrogant madness? The fact is that issues revolving around religion is a personal one and is actually one of the cardinal pillars upon which the fundamental human rights revolves. The implication is that people should be allowed to make decisions regarding belief and religion personally and privately. It is a personal and private matter and should be dealt with as such. This right to make decisions regarding religious matters should also include the right to decide to be an atheist. That should be protected constitutionally and nobody should be victimised for being an atheist. All religions, beliefs and philosophies should be allowed a level playing ground in this quest to acquire converts. They should make their creeds available to the public so that the public should have the choice and freedom to pick the one more suitable and sensible to them. Religion should not be by force, coercion or compulsion. It is therefore a pity that these unscrupulous elements have completely thwarted the meaning of religion that they now use it solely for their selfish and personal aggrandisement including forceful conversion and persecution of those who do not buy their doctrines or share same beliefs with them. Others use it as a medium to achieve their political aims and other ambitions.

For instance, about 10 hours drive from the parish of the Roman Catholic pastor mentioned earlier, another war was raging in the town of Oko in Orumba North Local Government Area of Anambra State. The Roman Catholic Chaplain of the Federal Polytechnic there is on a verbal battle with his Anglican counterpart over who will be the next Rector Magnificus of the polytechnic. The Anglican chaplain took a vow it must be an Anglican while the Roman Catholic priest vows that if his candidate, a Roman Catholic is not appointed, then there would be fire and brimstone in the polytechnic. Now the question is what has religion got to do with the appointment of a rector of a federally owned higher institution? Even employment in Nigeria is premised upon religion. A Muslim is 99 percent unlikely to hire a Christian and vice versa.

Sadly, this is the level we have reduced religion to. It has been reduced to the level of an object of mockery and caricature that people could easily invoke the name of God while committing evil. In Nigeria, a country that has prided itself as a godly nation, It is not uncommon to hear God and his various names in various languages of the world, yet this country has been described as the most corrupt country in the world and a haven for internet scam. What happened to the religion and the God we shout His name all the time?

Personally, shouting the name of God all the time is tantamount to disrespecting God. Taking the name of the Lord in vain is one of the evils that are forbidden in the bible but that evil is very Nigerian. Ask a Nigerian, how he is doing, the reply would certainly be, ‘by the grace of God am doing fine’. Ask him how old he is and you are sure of hearing ‘By God’s grace I am 30’. The name of God is today so common and frequently used even when reaching an orgasm that a times we begin to doubt if God does still exist. It is getting out of hand that most people take some very stupid decisions and justify it with faith and hope in God as if God is an iPod to be manipulated at their own whims and caprices.

For instance, just four months ago I was chatting with a friend on the Facebook. He was planning to come to the United Kingdom to pursue his graduate studies and when I asked him how he intends to fund the remaining part of his school fees, he told me that there is God and that God is alive and that by His grace, the money would be ready in four months time to conclude the payment which is actually a conditio sine qua non before he could resume the course. A week before the deadline, he is still looking for the money. Not that I do not believe in miracles but the fact is that stupidity does not bring about miracles, only sane judgements and wise decisions, after all it is said that heaven help those who help themselves.

Back to same Nigeria, a country that is still struggling 49 years after independence to have a steady power supply, good health care, quality education, motorable roads, pay workers salaries and wages, provide security of life and property for the citizens and pension for retired workers, the government still has the gut to sponsor people on religious pilgrimages. This is the greatest insult and affront on the sensibility of Nigerians. They claimed that there is no money to meet the demands of teachers and health workers, to construct motorable roads and provide Nigerians with security for their lives and properties and yet there is money to sponsor people going on pilgrimages to Mecca, Rome and Jerusalem. Is that not the greatest and stupidest thing in the world?

Religious is a personal and private affair and should be treated as such. The state should have no hand in it. There should be a very thick line between the state and religion. I suggest a line as thick as the Berlin wall! How can you as a good Christian or Muslim accept to be sponsored with money meant for our schools, roads, shelter for the homeless, water for the thirsty and good health care for the dying in the hospital to go on pilgrimage? It is only a mad 'god' that would be happy to see that happening and answer a prayer that came out of it or even bless the venture at all. No wonder things get worse as soon as they come back! These people are not worshipping God. They are satisfying their personal aggrandisement and God would eventually come to judge them all. No person, no matter how religious and spiritual you are would accept to be sponsored on a religious pilgrimage when people are dying because health workers are on strike for not being paid. That is evil and the beneficiaries are condoning it in the name of God and religion! That is not religion and it has nothing to do with God!

My dream is therefore to let people know, appreciate and fully understand the boundary between the word of God and the word of men. This is a dream so dear to my heart. I have witnessed many of my friends abandoning God and religion in thousands due to misinterpretation of the holy books. I have homosexuals friends who told me that they are leaving God and religion since their religion made it very clear to them that they are going straight to hell to burn to ashes and if they are going straight to hell to burn to ashes what then is the need of believing and going to where you will end up burning in hell. The word of God is filled with love, tolerance and accommodation while that of man is filled with hatred, bigotry, division and indoctrination and it is very vital that we all understand this. God does not encourage or support discrimination. We are all equal before him and there is no way He could love some more than others.

It is therefore quite unfortunate and a big time shame that some could be excluded from the sweet fellowship of the Holy Spirit as a result of malicious interpretation of the holy book by some ignorant unscrupulous elements. It is based on this ground that I am eagerly looking towards the possibility of endowing a professorial chair to be called 'The Chukwunwikezarramu Okumephuna Professorial Chair For The Public Debating, Questioning And Understanding Of Religion’. That is still a dream and I seriously wish that the dream could be achieved soonest. We need to let people know how important they are in the sight of God despite their circumstances in life.

Living In The Winter Wonderland: A Response To Her Majesty’s 2009 Christmas Message

2009-12-25T23:48:00.001Z

This year’s Christmas Message of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 11, by the Grace of God, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Ireland, Her other Realms and Territories and the Head of the Commonwealth is interesting in two aspects. Firstly, she used the medium to formally eulogise the courage of over 13 thousand service men and women from various nations presently serving in Afghanistan. Secondly, she called upon the young people in the member nations of the Commonwealth of Nations to pull their resources together towards making the Commonwealth a practical force for good to be reckoned with in the world of today.

Her Majesty was of the opinion that the Commonwealth with over 1 billion people under the age of 25 could be a very strong force especially in this information and technology age towards realising the dreams and aspirations of the organisation. In making that call, Her Majesty was obviously counting on the powers of the young people and her belief that the young people are the leaders and change agents for a better tomorrow. It is therefore highly commendable that in this age when young people are daily being demonised as the root cause of all evils including armed robbery and murder, the Queen still has faith and hope in them. She has my highest respect for this.

The Commonwealth of Nations often called the Commonwealth is an association of the former colonies of the then British Empire. However in the recent past, the Commonwealth have seen the admission of some countries that had no colonial link with the defunct Empire. Rwanda and Mozambique are two examples. The member states co-operate within a framework of common values and goals as outlined in the Singapore Declaration of the organisation. These values and goals include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism and world peace. The Commonwealth is not a political union, but an intergovernmental organisation through which countries with diverse social, political and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status.

The Commonwealth is made up of 54 countries including one currently suspended member. Of course that is Zimbabwe. Member nations are spread across the six continents. The members have a combined population of about 2.1 billion people, almost a third of the world population, of which 1.17 billion live in India alone while 94% live in Asia and Africa combined. After India the next largest Commonwealth countries by population are Pakistan (176 million), Bangladesh (156 million), the Republic of Nigeria (145 million), the United Kingdom (61 million) and the Republic of South Africa (49 million). Tuvalu is the smallest member with only 12,000 people. Majority of the citizens of the Commonwealth are young people under the age of 25 and these are the people Her Majesty is addressing in this year’s edition of her annual Christmas message.

According to Her Majesty, “It is 60 years since the Commonwealth was created and today, with more than a billion of its members under the age of 25, the organisation remains a strong and practical force for good. Recently, I attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago and heard how important the Commonwealth is to young people. New communication technologies allow them to reach out to the wider world and share their experiences and viewpoints. For many, the practical assistance and networks of the Commonwealth can give skills, lend advice and encourage enterprise. It is inspiring to learn of some of the work being done by these young people, who bring creativity and innovation to the challenges they face”.

As noted at the outset, Her Majesty’s speech is very interesting and part of the reason is simply because of the fact that her speech actually reflected in its entirety the veracity of the fact that she is no more living in this age with all of us and certainly never with the rest of other young people in the Commonwealth. I do not intend to offend Her Majesty but from the colour of her speech, it is apparent that she is no more in touch with what the Commonwealth stands for today and I do not have a doubt that her understanding of the Commonwealth is still at either the colonial or pre-independence level. If Her Majesty had been briefed well and actually taught what the Commonwealth means today for those under the age of 25 he cited as an example, then she should not have included that part of the message in this year’s edition of her message.

The summary of the fact is that the Commonwealth is not fit for purpose. It is no more relevant. It is very archaic in both principles and mission. It is completely out of touch with the aspirations and dreams of billions of young people under the age of 25 years in the organisation. In fact to them and even to me as a young member of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth represents an institution of oppression and elitism and for majority of the young people from the African member states, it is a club for the African leaders and their children to reap the fruit of the Commonwealth, leaving the rest of us as spectators.

Apart from the obvious sports advantage of the Commonwealth, there is no other aspect of the Commonwealth that is of benefit to the common people of the member states. Sports is a different ball game all together in the sense that here talents counts more than who you know and who you are connected to. Though there are some instances where square pegs in round holes are corruptly pushed to be participants in the game, majority of the sportsmen and women are actually selected based on performance, merit and ability. Based on this therefore one could eulogise the Queens’s Speech for eulogising the Commonwealth’s contribution to the well being and happiness of its members.

However, the Queen, as the leader of the Commonwealth maybe shocked that she is presiding over a monumental piece of corruption. This is especially true if she puts into consideration the grievances of the common people and common members of the Commonwealth, including myself. The truth is that majority of these common people do not know about the existence of the Commonwealth. They are complete strangers to the so called benefits of the Commonwealth. Since the establishment of the Commonwealth, these common people have been used by their leaders to actualise theirs and their cohort’s dreams. Member countries of the Commonwealth contribute financially to the upkeep of the organisation but majority of its members especially the common people are left out at the reaping stage of the so called benefits of the commonwealth.

One of the distinct features of the Commonwealth is the Commonwealth Scholarship Programme which affords commonwealth citizens the opportunity to study for free in any commonwealth member nation. Those interested in benefiting from this programme must apply from the Ministry of Education of their various countries and that is where the main problem lies because in the process the talented but poor and unconnected ones are left out because they do not have anybody either in the ministry or in the government to push their file. The result is that at the end of the day square pegs in round holes are fraudulently and corruptly selected and because they are not fit for the scholarship, they end up coming back home with myopic mind and contributing to the already worsened state in their various countries. I am therefore perplexed that the queen was busy in her speech eulogising the commonwealth and never made any statement on this issue.

Similar to the above is the Commonwealth Technical Exchange Programme which affords professionals from various Commonwealth countries the opportunity to use their expertise knowledge to contribute towards the development of a member nation. Just like in the scholarship method, professionals who are obviously talented, knowledgeable and fit for purpose are eventually left out of the selection process for the simple reason that there is no highly connected person to push their file for them. Against this background, one begins to ask if the queen is not in any way aware of the fact that this type of corruption is taking place in her backyard.

I am inclined to believe that the queen is being advised by her government to keep mute over these problems for the fear of offending the sensibility of the commonwealth member nations in question. The queen should begin to look at the Commonwealth from the angle of its common people and not from the angle of its corrupt leaders. She should be happy to please the common people and never their corrupt leaders. For instance, as the leader of the Commonwealth of which the State of Uganda is a member, we expect the queen by now to have made a concrete and strong statement on the ongoing homophobic bill conundrum in Uganda. She, as the leader of the Commonwealth and the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Communion should have been the first to have come out and condemn in clear terms the direction the State of Uganda is taking.

The queen cannot morally continue to praise and advocate the continued existence of the Commonwealth or even continue heading it ceremonially if she is afraid and unwilling to come out openly and condemn what is a clear violation of human rights and democracy principles. For the billions citizens of the commonwealth under the age of 25 she mentioned in her speech, their last hope is an institution like the Commonwealth and for the queen and institutions like the commonwealth therefore to continue keeping mute over human rights violations, is not only immoral but could as well mean that the relevance of the Commonwealth is frankly no more relevant in the 21st century.

The reason we joined the Commonwealth was to reap the fruits of being members of the organisation but because of the selfish interest of the member nations of the 60 year old organisation, the benefits are not being reaped. Citizens of the Commonwealth are required to visit member nations with a visa and that is very ridiculous bearing in mind that it should not have been the case due to the British bond uniting all of us. In fact for us the young members of the Commonwealth, it is absolutely ridiculous that despite this bond uniting all of us, we are still required to enter our member countries with a visa. That is very incomprehensible and politically unacceptable and it is one of the reasons why people like me would be in the forefront in the fight for the dissolution of the Commonwealth of Nations. People are members of the same family for closer ties and interactions, and if that ceases to be the case, then what is the relevance of still being part of the family?

Similar to the above scenario is the ridiculous situation where many commonwealth citizens ended up in the United Kingdom as illegal immigrants. The fact is that the Commonwealth was founded on the understanding that we are one by the virtue of our common heritage of being former colonies of the United Kingdom and subjects of Her Majesty. The understanding also is that wherever we are, we should be proud of that heritage but then the idea of coming to our root which is the United Kingdom not only to be told we are not welcomed but also to be branded as illegal immigrants is very heartbreaking and seems like another example of selfishness and subjugation by once a colonial master. The situation would never have existed if the United Kingdom citizens had ended up in other member states of the commonwealth as illegal immigrants. The United Kingdom would have started lecturing us with a learned lucubration about human rights and this and that and blahblahblah! This situation is therefore unacceptable. The commonwealth should be based on mutual understanding, gain and respect and somebody should please tell the queen this before she recites another message that glorifies injustice against the young people of the commonwealth.

Besides, citizens of the Commonwealth studying in various member nations of the Commonwealth are made to pay international fees as other foreign students and the question is why should they be paying as international students when they are members of the commonwealth? I hope the queen is aware of this? How many common people in the Commonwealth member nations could afford to pay almost 10 thousand pounds a year for graduate studies in the United Kingdom? The answer is virtually none and this lends credence to the fact that the commonwealth tactically supports corrupt leaders who loot public fund to send their children to the UK and elsewhere to study. This is absolutely ridiculous bearing in mind that commonwealth should be there for the masses and not for the elitists.

Against these backdrops, I strongly suggest that the leaders and member nations of the commonwealth should take a stock and consider seriously how much gains they make out of the Commonwealth and the relevance of continued membership and existence of the organisation.

The Glorification Of Shame: A Response To The Time Magazine Of October 5, 2009

2009-11-05T22:47:00.000Z

In reaction to your cover story of the October 5, 2009 edition of the Time Magazine titled 'Heroes of the Environment’, it is very ironical that you allowed the Royal Dutch Shell to take a half centre-spread advert in pages 70 and 71 of the issue. It is very ludicrous bearing in mind the fact that Shell is one of the greatest defaulters when it comes to environmental protection and the salvation of the climate. Shell should not have placed that advertisement there and the Time should not have allowed it. That is a good example of irresponsible journalism and misleading advertisement and it has a close resemblance of what happened sometime ago when the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola was named by the Time as one of the most influential persons of the year despite his support for a controversial bill that was designed to incarcerate the Nigerian homosexuals.

The story of the Shell and the environment is a shameful one. In Nigeria, it has resisted the protection of the Nigerian environment from day one and actually played a complicated role in the hanging of a renowned Nigerian playwright, Ken Saro-Wiwa, 13 years ago by the Junta of the late Nigeria head of state, General Sani Abacha. Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmentalist who opposed the degradation of the lands in Niger Delta of Nigeria by the Royal Dutch Shell was tried and condemned by a Military Tribunal set up by then Head of State, Sani Abacha after being denied a proper legal representation and appeal and subsequently hanged in November 1995. Shell knew one or two things about the hanging since being one of the main source of Nigerian income, they had the financial power and should have stopped the execution by threatening to walk away if the government go on with it but it remained mysteriously silent apparently because of what they stand to gain from his execution.

It was actually alleged that the Royal Dutch Shell helped in drafting the trumped up charges of murder that led to the execution of Saro-Wiwa and eight others and even helped to fund the military operation of the then Abacha junta which on many occasions brutally suppressed the peaceful protests of the local community. Shell really deserve to bury their head in shame for the level of impunity and lackadaisical attitude they have shown all these while towards the plight of their host, the Niger Delta people and their environment and should not have thought of embarrassing themselves further by placing the advert in the first place. They turned their source of water into oil and rendered their farmland useless. The people are simply poor and frustrated because agriculture and fishing which is their major source of income have been dealt a blow by the Royal Dutch Shell.

The Niger Delta is the main source of the oil and revenue for Nigeria yet majority of its people live below poverty level. The gains of millions of dollars being generated daily from the proceeds of the oil has not trickled down to the people. Their farmland is all turned into a wasteland, their water coated by oil while gas flaring which has been banned for long is still in use by the Royal Dutch Shell. It was these notorious acts that Ken Saro-Wiwa was strongly against and therefore a shame that Time could allow Shell to place the advertisement.

Getting The Facts Straight: A Response To The Nigerian Guardian Editorial

2009-11-05T13:35:00.001Z

I am surprised that you claimed in your editorial of Friday November 5, 2009 that Nigeria is not ‘exactly afflicted’ by amongst other things ‘victimisation, discrimination and other forms of oppression’ to warrant the exodus of Nigerians to the west for asylum and refuge.

The fact is that the editorial is misleading bearing in mind that there is a strong case against Nigeria of victimisation and discrimination against homosexuals. In fact, lately the Nigeria National Assembly initiated what has been described as the toughest homophobic bill in Africa. Part of the expectations of the bill is to criminalise and punish the "Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations" and "publicity, procession and public show of same-sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise", on penalty of up to 5 years of imprisonment.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults are already illegal in Nigeria. The bill's vague and dangerous prohibition on any public or private show of a "same sex amorous relationship"-which could be construed to cover having dinner with someone of the same sex-would open any known or suspected gay man or lesbian to the threat of arrest at almost any time. This is a clear breach of Nigeria’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and it is basically because of fear of being victimised by this type of bill or law that a good number of homosexual Nigerians are moving out of the country in large numbers seeking for political protection as a result of their sexuality. It is therefore preposterous, naive and a mark of irresponsible journalism for you to claim otherwise.

This is a serious issue and the fact is that Nigeria has to get one thing right and that is the fact that we have homosexuals in Nigeria and they will continue to be there till thy kingdom come. Most are very intelligent, well educated and experienced and when given asylum abroad use the intelligence to contribute to their host country and never for Nigeria and we lose. Sexual orientation has got nothing to do with culture or religion. In fact it is an issue that is more psychological and biological than religious and cultural and for one to use his religious or cultural convictions to emasculate the right of others could be akin to bigotry and tantamount to intolerance.

Homosexuality maybe deplorable but to the best of our knowledge, it is not as deplorable as corruption ravaging Nigeria today which has led to millions of deaths and thousands of Nigerians seeking refuge here in the UK, Europe and America. It is not as deplorable as stoning a human being created in the image of God to death. It is not as deplorable as murdering a person created by God in the name of God. And by the way, why should what happen between two consenting adults in the bedroom bother us at all and how can we tolerate the fact that people are being stoned, hanged, decapitated, imprisoned, ostracised and tortured only because of their sexual orientation? We cannot continue to remain silent and neutral for silence and neutrality empowers the tormentor and ridicules the victim. Therefore the Nigerian homosexuals seeking for asylum and protection which Nigeria cannot afford to them from foreign government are doing the right thing and should be sympathised with.

Once more, no one can claim to believe in God and yet in the name of same God kill his fellow human being. Any religion that advocates violence including killing in the name of God is not a religion. Most of us who are strongly against the homosexuals are heavily involved in fornication, adultery, abortion, sex before marriage, corruption, stealing, cheating and many others condemned by the same Holy Books being used to condemn homosexuals.

In as much as I commend the editorial for highlighting this problem, I would also suggest that you follow it up with another on open discussion and dialogue on this issue of homosexuality. We cannot continue treating it as no go area. It is there and that is the truth. All parties involved including the homosexuals and religious groups should be allowed to continue making intelligent contributions on this issue without being subjected to opprobrium, intimidation or violence.

Why Tony Blair Is Not Fit To Lead Europe

2009-11-02T20:26:00.002Z

The news is that the ambition of the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be the first president of Europe has been scuttled. Personally, this is not a glad tiding for me because I am one of the greatest admirers of Tony Blair. He is an intelligent and fine gentleman and possesses all the qualities that could have made him a very good first president of the European Union.

His track records while he was the prime minister is still here to prove what manner of man he is and there is no doubt that British people are not in doubt that he did a lot during his tenure to uplift the image of the Kingdom as well as its standard of living. In the area of human rights he also set a record especially in the field of race issues, gay rights, minimum wage and law and order.

Also on record is the fact that Tony Blair was behind the rebranding of the once moribund Labour Party into the new Labour, reformed the English legal system as well as the House of Lords which resulted in the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the style of the United States of America. By the time Tony Blair was forced by his own party to relinquish power suddenly, the Labour Party had reached the height of its glory. His exist orchestrated the gradual declining of the party principally because of the loss of confidence of the British voters on the party. This loss of confidence was mainly because of the role it played in the immoral invasion of Iraq. Another reason for the declining of the Labour party is that Tony Blair, born in Scotland was succeeded by another Scottish man Gordon Brown. They are from a place the English are not comfortable with.

Frankly the English are not comfortable with the idea of a Scottish man being their prime minister, hence the stiff opposition facing Gordon Brown and the steady decline of the support of the English towards the Labour Party. Also, the fact that the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martins and the Chancellor Alistair Darling are Scottish also complicated the already compounded problem.

It is interesting to note that what Gordon Brown is going through at the moment was what Tony Blair went through before his unceremonious exit from the party. In fact it is alleged that Gordon Brown and his group orchestrated the events that led to this final exit. Gordon Brown did it to fulfil his lifelong ambition of being a prime minister, unfortunately for him it backfired because the English are simply not ready to see a Scottish man prime ministering over them.

As noted earlier, Tony Blair made a good prime minister and actually made a history of giving the Labour Party three consecutive victories in three general elections. However, his greatest undoing was allowing himself to be deceived, brainwashed and used by the then president of the United States of America, George W. Bush, a bigot and a fanatic. This fatal mistake sunk his political ambition and career. In fact the last straw that broke the Carmel's back in his political career was his decision to go to war in Iraq despite numerous oppositions at home and evidences that George W. Bush was cooking up the theory of weapon of mass destruction as a front to invade Iraq to finish an unfinished business. He disobeyed the British electorates and they retaliated by capsizing his ambition. Besides, the messing up of the British Immigration system as well as his romance and eventual conversion to Roman Catholicism hastened the burial of his political ambition.

The English are very proud people and therefore saw his conversion to Roman Catholicism not only as an act of betrayal and treason but as a smack and a deliberate insult to their pride and what they stand for. The Anglican church, the former faith of Tony Blair is the official religion in the United Kingdom bearing in mind that the queen is both the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England and for Tony Blair to engage in any form of romance with the Catholic Church, the archrival of the Church of England is akin to playing with fire. The English may not ever forgive him or the Labour Party for this.

As well as taking the Blair’s conversion to Catholicism very personal and serious, the voters are also angry that Tony Blair and his administration messed up the immigration system. According to them, the Labour open door policy resulted to an influx of immigrants in this country. About 750 thousand of these immigrants ended up as failed asylum seekers, overstayers or illegal entrants and not providing a realistic and practical solution to the plight of these people-having opened the door for them in the first place-deeply infuriated the voters and in response they casted protest votes for other parties especially the minor ones. This action resulted in the election of far right parties to both the Council and European seats.

Tony Blair is aware of this and he knows that the immoral war that has resulted in thousands of deaths of both British soldiers and Iraqi civilians makes no room for reconciliation sooner. It is basically because of the Iraqi war that both the Labour Party and Tony Blair has been an object of criticism, opprobrium and opposition in the UK today. This also led to fierce domestic opposition over his ambition to become the first president of the European Union. The British voters do not see any morality or sense in proposing a man who joined the fanatical George Bush to wage an immoral war in Iraq to become the President of Europe. Not only the British share this sentiment, many Europeans do too.

It is therefore understandable the reason why his ambition to become the EU’s first president was murdered. Also interesting to note is that one of the main groups behind this campaign to destroy him and murder his ambition actually came from the home front. In fact the idea of having a Labour EU president presiding over a Conservative Prime Minister in the United Kingdom is very uncomfortable to the Tories. By the way, the Tories are convinced that they are going to win the next general election, hence the determination and zeal with which they backed the campaign to murder the ambition that would have brought honour to one of their own.

Outside the home front, another formidable opposition to Tony Blair's ambition came from Europe. Europe was strongly coordinated and furious in their opposition. They have reasons for that and they are very cogent. Majority of the British populace are Europhobia. They do not like Europe and do not want to have anything to do with the European Union. In fact they are contented with being on their own and that is the reason why parties like the British National Party and United Kingdom Independent Party are doing strong here. As a matter of fact, the latter popularly known as the UKIP was solely founded to drag the United Kingdom out of the European Union. How the United Kingdom plans to succeed without being part of the European Union is a mystery am yet to decipher. Against that backdrop then, how on earth do we expect Tony Blair to be the foundation president of the European Union when his own people are strongly Europhobia? Things do not work that way and that is the argument of the Europeans. The United Kingdom has to choose between being part of the Union and taking part in sharing the national cake of the union or taking the most honourable part which is leaving the Union and being on their own. But the idea of rejecting the Union and still wanting to head the Union does not make any sense at all. They do not go in pariparsu! It is a sign of superiority complex which is very dangerous in politics.

Moreover, the United Kingdom is not even using the common European currency which is the Euro. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with the pounds but the fact is that, if she wants to play a leading role in the European Union, she has to lead by example. I strongly doubt that any reasonable and sane mind in Europe would buy the idea of the United Kingdom leading the European Union without adopting the common currency. It is impossible and could be akin to seeking the British Citizenship and at the same refusing to pay allegiance to the Queen. That is not possible in the United Kingdom and just as that is impossible in the UK, so it is also impossible for Tony Blair to head the European Union because his home country does not identify with all the elements, beliefs and values of the European Union. He was a prime minister for 10 years and had all the opportunities to introduce Euro but he did not and this suggests that he may after all be a Europhobe too and a Europhobe is not fit to be the president of Europe.

The opposition is not solely centred on the currency issue alone. There is also the question of European visa. The United Kingdom refused vehemently to be part of the Schengen Agreement. The Schengen Agreement is a treaty signed amongst some member states of the European Union that provided for the removal of systematic border controls between the participating countries. The Amsterdam Treaty incorporated the Schengen Agreements into the mainstream of the European Union law. The United Kingdom opted out of Schengen's border control arrangements. The borderless zone created by the Schengen Agreements, currently consists of twenty-five European countries.

If the United Kingdom opted out of this agreement, how then could she morally stand to be the president of the European Union? That is not morally acceptable. It is completely unacceptable. The United Kingdom cannot eat her cake and have it. If she wants a prominent role in the European Union, then she has to play a model role and that entails living by all the rules, options and protocols of the EU without opting out to suit her own personal and national aggrandisement.

Every country in the European Union has its own national interests and pride to protect but they sacrificed it for the sake of the Union. This is what is called love and patriotism and if the United Kingdom cannot afford to show this love, patriotism and sacrifice, then she should not bother seeking to lead the European Union. It cannot morally lead it because there is no way she could lead an institution she opposes.

Therefore the decision to murder the ambition of Tony Blair to be the first president of the European Union should be welcomed as a moral and good development that is in the interest of commonsense, decency and for the betterment of the general populace of the European Union. The United Kingdom should reflect on her relationship with the European Union and decide to either join the ship or be on her own.

Archbishop Peter Akinola: Devil’s Retarded Advocate!

2009-10-26T14:15:00.002Z

With the recent election of The Rt. Rev. Nichols Okah, the Bishop of Asaba and the Archbishop of Bendel as the new Primate and Archbishop of Nigeria, the controversial years of Archbishop Peter Akinola is gradually coming to an end. He will formally step down in March, 2010.

If not for anything, Akinola would be remembered in the history of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and worldwide as a controversial figure who devoted much of his primacy dividing instead of building the church of Jesus Christ. In fact his tenure epitomised corruption, bigotry and evil in the name of the church and God as well as the use of the bible to justify these vices.

His eight years as the Primate and Archbishop of Nigeria has been an eight years of divisive ministry, divide and rule theology, wining and dining with the rich and corrupt officials of the state as well as playing a very active and complicated role in supporting the Government of Nigeria in annihilating the rights of the people in the name of defence of culture and theology.

During his tenure, Akinola collaborated and meddled with the conservative Anglican Church of the United States formally known as the Episcopal Church to hit the final nail on the coffin of human rights abuse and violation in Nigeria. Akinola’s ministry is simply very controversial hence the relief with which both the conservative and liberal Anglicans heralded his departure describing it as a good riddance to bad rubbish.

To know the manner of man Akinola is we need to look at his background. Archbishop Peter Akinola was born in 1944 to a Yoruba family in Abeokuta of Nigeria. His father died when he was four and due to financial pressures Akinola had to leave school early. He learned carpentry and at twenty he had a successful furniture business and finished high school by distance education. He studied at a Nigerian Anglican seminary and was ordained to the priesthood in the Anglican Church of Nigeria. Soon after ordination, he pursued further studies at the Virginia Theological Seminary.

Returning to Nigeria at the beginning of the 1980s, Akinola was assigned to create an Anglican presence in Abuja the new capital of Nigeria. In 1989 he was ordained bishop of Abuja and in 1997 the archbishop of Province III of the Church of Nigeria, consisting of the northern dioceses of Nigeria. In 2000 he was elected the primate of the Church of Nigeria.

Akinola was given the National Award of Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON) in December 2003 by President Olusegun Obasanjo and in 2006 he appeared on TIME magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people in the category of Leaders and Revolutionaries. However, in 2007 TIME suggested that he "has some explaining to do" in relation to his support for legislation criminalising "gay...organizations" and "publicity, procession and public show of same-sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise".

Same year, the ThisDay Newspaper of Nigeria gave him a Lifetime Achievement Award, stating in its citation: "Called a bigot by some in the Anglican Church, his attitudes nonetheless represent a deep-rooted conservative tradition in African Christianity that is flourishing and growing." But he has been criticised by other sections of the international press, including the right-leaning London, United Kingdom-based Daily Telegraph which in an editorial on 23 March 2007 characterised him as one of the "extremists" who "hijacked" conservative Anglicanism, and as "a deeply divisive figure" who has "defended new Nigerian legislation that makes "cancerous" (his word) same-sex activity punishable by up to five years imprisonment."

As a result of this and allegedly due to his increasingly collaboration and collusion with the then government of Nigeria, Akinola was voted out of his position as National President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in June 2007, and replaced by a Roman Catholic Archbishop, who polled 72 votes to his 33 votes. Other alleged reasons for losing the election was as a result of criticism of his high handed leadership style and failure to confront Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo as other Christian leaders had. Subsequently, his candidacy as Vice President was also rejected by the General Assembly of the Christian Association of Nigeria. Akinola is a married father of six.

From the above it is now possible to put into perspective the picture of the man called Archbishop Peter Akinola. Archbishop Akinola headed the Anglican Church in a country reputed to be the most corrupt in the world. Nigeria is the second largest producer of oil in Africa and the sixth largest in the world, but about 70 percent of its over 145 million population live in abject poverty. There is a massive decay of infrastructures. There is no motorable road, no potable water and the educational system is very epileptic as a result of incessant industrial actions by the Nigeria Union of Teachers due to the inability of the government to pay them. Crime and violence are rampant in the whole of the country and security of life and property is not assured.

In fact Nigeria is reputed to be one of the most violent countries not only in Africa but also in the world. Armed robbers abound everywhere while internet scam is fast becoming a religion. Healthcare eludes majority of the population while those in the Niger Delta, an area that produces the majority of the wealth of Nigeria lives in a type of poverty that is unprecedented in the history of the world. Their water is polluted and therefore fishing which is one of their main means of livelihood is now a dream. This is also the case with Agriculture in the area. The Niger Deltans cannot farm anymore because the oil drilling and refining activities in the area have polluted both the water and land to the extent that agriculture is no more feasible.

In Nigeria of Akinola, where he is heading the largest Anglican Communion worldwide with about 18 million members, corruption is enthroned and worshipped. Nothing works there except through bribery and corruption. Corruption is so rife in the nation that today those who man the government are just square pegs in round holes. Lazy and half-baked stupid students are given admission to study in the best universities in the country not because they merit it but because their rich parents know somebody they can bribe to get the admission. The end result of this is the production of half-baked graduates and idiots who eventually joins the bandwagon to continue adding to the woe of the country.

This is a nation where hardwork, handiwork, merit and the best are not eulogised and rewarded. It is simply a dog eat dog country where hardwork is overlooked while corruption and corrupt official are elevated, promoted and given both state and church honours for using stolen public wealth to fund local and church projects. In Nigeria, unemployment is a very big problem; however it is only for the poor people. Sons and daughters of the rich and well connected are automatically assured a place in the labour market upon graduation despite the fact that it is glaringly clear that they are square pegs in round holes.

In a nutshell, nothing works in Nigeria. It is a failed state waiting for a burial and the poor masses are bearing the brunt of the whole sleaze. People are dying daily because of hunger and diseases. More than 3.5 million Nigerians live with HIV and AIDS and out of this number less than 250 thousand have access to the government-funded Anti-Retroviral Therapy and most of the lucky ones are the sons and daughters of the rich, the mighty and the well connected. The poor are simply left out to die in bits and pieces. The maternal and infant mortality rate is still very high in the country despite efforts made by other nations poorer than Nigeria to reduce theirs to the barest minimum. Even at that, the healthcare is still not accessible and affordable for the poor to take advantage of. In fact the rich and the well connected have got automatic access to the health care system and do not pay farthing.

This is in a nutshell the picture of Nigeria and that is the place where Archbishop Peter Akinola was until this new election the Primate of the largest Communion in the Anglican Church and was at one time leading the Christian faith. From the above picture, one would begin to wonder and question why despite all these evils and corruption, Archbishop Peter Akinola chose to ignore them and rather focussed all his energy and attention to fighting the homosexuals in Nigeria. Without mincing words, the reason for that is because Archbishop Peter Akinola despite being an ordained Anglican Archbishop is nevertheless of the same stuff and quality with the people he made his friends and surrounded himself with during his tenure as the Primate and Archbishop of Nigeria. Ejusdem generis! These people are the rich, the mighty and the corrupt. His primacy is therefore not for the people he was called to serve, but for the rich and he did his best to be on their side and serve their interests.

These are corrupt people, very corrupt and loathed by Nigerians; but they are the people Akinola chose to surround himself with and minister to and because of this, there is no way Akinola could fight corruption in the country because fighting corruption would mean fighting his own friends, well wishers and constituency. A man does not bite a finger that feeds him. They are corrupt bunch and so is Archbishop Akinola. He is corrupt and an embodiment of corruption and exactly what Nigerians loathe in corrupt people. However, knowing that he is corrupt and being the leader of not only the Nigerian Anglican Church but also the Christian Association of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola is expected to perform; at least to make his name heard round the world as a performing Archbishop and Primate. Bearing this in mind then, it was therefore natural for him to fight something and make his name heard and the victims naturally became the homosexuals in Nigeria. The gamble gave him the popularity and the fame he wanted by all means. It is therefore because of this that he used all his power and might to fight the homosexuals in Nigeria even to the extent of allegedly conniving with the then President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo and the Nigeria Police to have some of them detained illegally.

As I noted earlier, Akinola colluded with a lot of people in the fight, harassment and unlawful detention of some Nigerian homosexuals. Two of the parties he colluded with are very crucial for me to point out here. They are important because they played a very formidable role in the atrocity. The first is the conservative Episcopal Church of the United States who financially gave Akinola the energy he needed to fight and the second is the then President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo who through the abuse of his office as the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria facilitated the persecution and detention of the homosexuals.

Through the non-stop funding from the Episcopal Church of the United States Archbishop Akinola allegedly did ground work well and came up with the notorious Nigerian Same Sex Prohibition Bill. As erroneously thought, the bill never originated from the Nigerian House of Assembly. It was allegedly the brainchild of Archbishop Peter Akinola. He allegedly took donation from the conservative Episcopal Church and therefore must act. He acted by smuggling the bill to the House of Representatives and made it appear as if it originated from the house.

Part of the expectations of the bill was to punish severely whoever is canvassing for same sex marriage, promoting it, sponsoring it or taking part in the marriage either in Nigeria or abroad and to punish severely homosexuals who exhibit their sexuality with punishment of up to five years in the prison. The bill also proposed to criminalise "Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations" and "publicity, procession and public show of same-sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise", on penalty of up to 5 years of imprisonment. The proposed legislation was formally challenged by the United States State Department as a breach of Nigeria's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In a well rehearsed drama the Anglican Church under the Primacy of the ambitious Akinola in September 2006 quickly organised a conference and issued a message after the bill was formally introduced and read in the House. Precisely the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria shamefacedly issued a Message to the Nation on the homosexual issue saying that the: "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality."

“The idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians?” Does that include mine too? Of course mine is not included because I could not have been so stupid to deny others their rights in the name of God. Nigeria is made up of about 145 million people with a huge number that does not identify with any form of religion, culture or movement. I am therefore surprised how the Anglican bishops came to that conclusion. Akinola and his bishops therefore played on the emotion, weakness and ignorance of the people and that is evil.

The speed with which the bill passed from the House of Representatives to the Upper House, the Senate was unprecedented in the history of Nigerian democracy and part of the reason for that was because of the interest President Olusegun Obasanjo had in it. President Olusegun Obasanjo and Archbishop Peter Akinola came from the same town of Abeokuta in Ogun State of the South West of Nigeria. Therefore both of them saw the bill as a personal issue and there is no way President Olusegun Obasanjo would have denied his request to pass the bill into Law. They are brothers and profess the same protestant faith and therefore that deal must be cut and it was neatly and mafiosily cut hence the quick movement of the bill which unfortunately met a sad fate due to the international pressure from the European Union and the United States who kicked against it on the premise that the passage of the bill into law would violate seriously the rights and freedoms of the homosexuals in Nigeria.

President Obasanjo would also not have said no to the deal because there was an alleged covert agreement by both to keep mute on each other’s affairs and excesses. For instance it was because of this covert agreement that Archbishop Akinola refused to speak out and challenge Obasanjo on the monumental corruption that took place during his tenure as the President of Nigeria. Archbishop Akinola was the Primate, the Archbishop of Nigeria and the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria throughout the tenure of Obasanjo. In fact, it is alleged that Obasanjo played a formidable role in these elections as well as the completion of the National Ecumenical Centre of Nigeria which was laying dormant for over sixteen years before the election of both Obasanjo and Akinola. In fact the launching to raise the money for the completion of the project was a listing of ‘Who Is Who’ in the annals of Nigerian corruption circus.

They were all invited and they all honoured the invitation because of the fear of Obasanjo who is notoriously known as a vindictive person. Those invited included heads of multinationals, embassies, media, oil companies etc and they all honoured the invitation. They have no option. Obasanjo takes things like this serious and declining the invitation means opposition to him and that could make you to be out of favour with the government and his juicy contracts.

However, the most interesting part of the whole saga is the choice of President Olusegun Obasanjo by Archbishop Akinola to execute the dirty project. Obasanjo in the first place is a notorious sinner by the Christian standard which Akinola used as a basis to justify the persecution of the Nigerian Homosexuals. Obasanjo is a serial polygamist and is a very weak man when it comes to something under the skirt. I am therefore surprised of this choice by Akinola as the person to John Baptise his evil intentions. Recently there was a widely publicised story of Obasanjo’s son seeking the nullification of his marriage on the ground that Obasanjo allegedly had a carnal knowledge of his wife. Well that is Nigeria for you and Archbishop Akinola is an honourable and holy man of God.

Akinola is known for being notoriously silent when evils are taking place and if he chooses to act, he prefers taking the side of the rich and the evil. For instance Archbishop Akinola is very well connected with the Ibru Family, the owners of both the Oceanic Bank and the Guardian Newspapers of Nigeria. The Ibrus are Anglicans too and actually left the Guardian Newspapers to the disposal of the Anglican Church of Nigeria for the use of propagation of faith and intentions of Archbishop Akinola and his cohorts. Every Sunday the ‘Guardian on Sunday’ has about 6 pullout pages called the ‘Ibru Centre’. The Ibru Centre reports about the activities of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and the actual centre located in the Delta state of Nigeria is a multimillion Ecumenical Centre under the auspices of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. The centre’s conference and retreat centres are always and often used by the Nigerian Anglican Bishops for their meetings, retreats and deliberations.

As I pointed out earlier the Ibru family owns the Guardian Newspapers of Nigeria and the Guardian is a modern slave ship of the Nigerian media. Workers are hired and fired at will. In fact they have to be in probation for up to five or six years without pay or benefit before they are either confirmed or dismissed. I was a witness to this. I worked with the Abuja Bureau of the Newspaper and was actually a witness there when two seasoned journalists who have put in over 12 years of hardwork together were just sacked like that. The Ibrus are western educated family, very prominent Anglicans and well connected to Archbishop Peter Akinola. Akinola is aware of this practice because he has an eminent place in the newspaper. In fact Akinola is a de facto member of the Editorial Board of the Guardian Newspapers. When I was covering religion for the Guardian, there is no way under the face of the earth you could write a negative story about Akinola or the Anglican church and what still baffles me today is the reason for Akinola’s silence in the face of all these evils and the reason he chose to fight the homosexuals instead of his corrupt cohorts.

Archbishop Akinola being very close to the Ibru’s family is also very close to the Oceanic Bank of Nigeria. The bank is at the moment in a very distressed position financially. In fact the Managing Director of the Bank Mrs. Cecilia Ibru was recently taken into custody by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission of Nigeria for allegedly mismanaging and swindling the public fund in the bank. I am yet to figure out why Akinola’s friends and cohorts are the corrupt and the rich and why after seeing all these evils he devoted his primacy to fighting people who are going about their business loving instead of being part of the monumental corruption taking place in Nigeria.

In fact, I gathered from a very reliable and an authoritative source that on the alleged instigation of Archbishop Akinola, one of the foremost homosexual rights activist and eight others in the country were unlawfully detained by the police and thoroughly beaten. Archbishop Akinola cannot deny this because the activist in question is a prominent Nigerian Anglican. President Olusegun Obasanjo was also aware of this. One of the victims was so lucky because after his release and on the advice of an agent of the State Security he fled the country. In fact the State Security was actually after him for the second time to deal with him thoroughly before the whistleblower saved his life.

The story of Archbishop Akinola is therefore a complicated one and his primacy of the Church of Nigeria and the Presidency of the Christian Association of Nigeria a disaster which brought humiliation to the Nigerian Christians. He was more of a politician, a dubious and divisive figure than a Christian leader. This was very apparent to other Christian leaders in the country and it was precisely because of this that he lost re-election as the President of Christian Association of Nigeria to Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan of the Catholic Archdiocese of Abuja on June 17, 2007 with a wide margin of 72-33.

Now that Archbishop Akinola is retiring, the question on everybody’s lips is the direction his successor Archbishop Nicholas Okah would follow. In actual fact, the new Archbishop is not going to be different. For the money to keep coming in from the conservative Episcopal Church, he has to take the same stand as Akinola or even a stronger one than him. The stronger the stand that he takes, the more the money that will flow in for him. However the bad news is that he may not be able to bark and shout like Akinola. He lacks what Akinola took for granted; at least he has no kinsman as the President of the nation at the moment and that could be a serious minus on his side. The Muslim president is not interested in what happens in within the Nigerian Christendom. Also the fact that the international community is seriously watching Nigeria is the more reason he may not make no new impact.

But for sure he is definitely taking over from where Archbishop Peter Akinola dropped the baton because Akinola while in office took his time to groom his cohorts not excluding the new Primate. Though the new Archbishop is not of the same ethnic group with Akinola, Akinola who is a notorious tribalist appointed more bishops from his ethnic Yoruba group than from elsewhere. He also created new more dioceses in his ethnic south west than elsewhere. The record is there for consultation and confirmation.

The best part for new primate to follow would be to toe the part of peace, reconciliation, cohesion, tolerance, accommodation and respect and gather all God’s children together so that nobody is left behind because of his sexual orientation.

The BBC Question Time, The BNP And The Rest Of Us

2009-10-23T19:39:00.002+01:00

The decision of the British Broadcasting Corporation to give the British National Party the opportunity to appear in its Question Time programme is not a welcomed one. It is deplorable, an act of irresponsible journalism and lack of good editorial judgement and direction. The decision is not in the interest of the public and therefore should be a subject of criticism.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is a public-funded media house in sharp contrast to other media in the United Kingdom and with what is obtained elsewhere in the world. The meaning of this is that the British public are taxed through what is called the Television Licence in order to keep the BBC up and running. Because of this, it is not allowed to carry commercials to avoid a situation that could jeopardise its integrity.

In the United Kingdom, it is an offence to own a television or any other medium of watching a television programme without first applying and having a TV Licence which is often paid for yearly. Any person who flouts this law is liable to prosecution and the implication is that virtually about 60 million British population who owns or watch the television pays for it personally or through the main income earner in their household. Every household must have one to watch the television.

Bearing this in mind then, one could understand the enormity of the crime committed by the BBC in giving the right to opinion and speech to the BNP through the medium. Majority of the British population do not support the BNP as a result of what they stand for. Until a recent court ruling that forced the BNP to accept non-whites, the BNP is an only white party that does not give membership to other minority ethnic British people.

The BNP is of the view that the United Kingdom should be for the original white British people alone. The meaning is that those who do not have ‘white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes’ and other attributes of the original British race and blood should not be welcomed both into the party and the union. It is a racist and an anti-immigration party and according to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948”.

Recently the leader of the party Nick Griffin suggested that boats carrying illegal immigrants from Africa into Europe should be sunk with open fire to stop them from arriving into Europe and as a deterrent to others. Apart from this, the BNP is historically an anti-Semite, anti-homosexuals and anti-blacks party and of recent has become very pronounced in its opposition to Islam and everything not British.

It is basically because of these types of ideologies and outbursts that the BNP is the public enemy number one in the United Kingdom and a party that is highly loathed from every angle. The hatred for the party is evident in the fact that despite its foundation about three decades ago, it won its first seat not even in the UK Parliament but in London Assembly and European Parliament just this year, thanks to the expenses scandal and recession that swayed the vote to them. However, prior to that, it was holding many Metropolitan Borough Council seats.

Against this backdrop then, one begins to question the sanity and sagacity behind the decision of the public-funded BBC to allow the BNP with this type of obnoxious, detestable and loathsome ideologies to appear in the Question Time. That is tantamount to insulting the public. I do not have anything against giving the media right to speech and opinion to the BNP, but the fact is that even as the BNP has the right to opinion and speech; it has no right to hatred and incitement of racial hatred, insinuation of racial inferiority of other races and their exclusion from the democratic process of this nation.

The right to speech and opinion is a constitutionally protected right but then that right is also limited in the sense that even as you are given the right to air your opinion, you do not enjoy the right to promote hatred. BNP is clearly anti-immigrants and anti-Semite using various forms of evil machinations and hatred and what the BBC just did was to give them the platform to promote that hatred under the full public gaze. That is not journalism. It is being naive, idiotic, stupid and out of touch with the feelings of the tax payers that fund it.

The BBC is supposed to be the fourth estate of the realm and the purveyor of the public opinion. The public opinion at the moment is that the BNP is not in touch with the feelings of the people. It is entirely the opposite of what the majority of the British population want at the moment. They are not one of us. They chose to be isolated with their firebrand archaic views. They do not want dialogue.

The modern British are very comfortable with the presence of immigrants from diverse nationalities and professional backgrounds who work hard to keep this nation alive. The modern British are happy and proud of the level of integration of the immigrants as well as the freedom and love and dedication with which they carry out their civic and day-to-day activities. That is the pulse of the people and the heartbeat of the nation. That is the feeling of the people. That is the voice of the people as well as the voice of God. Vox populi vox dei. It is therefore disgusting that the BBC chose in the name of political correctness and arrogance of an empty barrel to ignore these sentiments.

The BNP does not identify with any of these sentiments and if it does not identify with these sentiments why bordering to address the people they loath and ignore their contributions in this country since 1940s.

It is now over 60 years, since we came out of the worst racial crime of the century, the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazi Germany. Over 6 million Jews were exterminated using various forms of killing including the use of gas chambers by the Nazis. Also victims of this heinous crimes were the gypsies, the homosexuals, the disabled and in fact those that do not belong to the Aryan race. The Nazi began with similar sentiments being espoused by the BNP and won elections under same circumstances like the BNP. The effect of that crime as well as the after-effect of the Second World War is still here with us and it is purely this that agitates the mind on the reason the BBC could be so naive and careless to allow a party like the BNP to appear in that Question Time.

As I have already pointed out, the defence of the right of the speech does not apply here. BNP is a party that promotes racism and hatred and that is against the law, decency, commonsense and peaceful coexistence. The BBC is aware of this and should not have given them the platform to promote their contemptuous political jingoism, tarnish the image of the corporation and make the public an object of opprobrium. The BBC is wrong in allowing this to happen and can never justify their action and if nothing is done, we shall soon see the neo-fascist and neo-Nazis appearing in the public-funded programmes of the BBC in the name of freedom of speech and opinion.

Part of the blame should also go to other panellists who appeared in the same programme with the BNP leader especially the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw who should have taken the lead to distance himself from the BNP and its ideologies. Appearing in the same programme with the BNP leader is not in any way a mark of respect for the viewers but rather a great disrespect as well as tacit and indirect endorsement of what the BNP stands for. He and his other colleagues from the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties should have completely boycotted the programme.

Similarly, ‘The Times’ Newspaper of London should also be reprimanded for its irresponsible article on page 2 of October 22, 2008 edition of the newspaper titled ‘The Right Question’ which tactically justified the appearance of Griffin on the grounds that it afforded us the opportunity to debate with them. The BNP is not a party to debate with at the moment since by its manifesto; it is never open to debate with any other people except white British. How then, can ‘The Times’ justify this atrocity in the name of debate? That is a mark of irresponsible and ‘out-of-touch-with-the-people’ journalism and ‘The Times’, should get the fact straight. We can only debate with the BNP when they refine their manifesto to have a semblance of what is written by humans and not like what appears like ranting of those high in skunk and new wine.

The government is also to be blamed for the calamity especially for not passing an urgent legislation to stop the appearance of a party that by its very nature and modus operandi poses risk and danger to the public peace and to the security of the state.

House Of Thieves And House Of Illegals: The Odd Case Of A Pot Calling Kettle Black

2009-10-13T17:41:00.002+01:00

I have been campaigning in conjunction with others for the legalisation of the illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. I have been doing this for quite a long time now out of principle and conviction. This campaign began after being confronted with the ugly fact that people still live in an excruciating squalid condition worse than that of animals in the United Kingdom just because they are illegal immigrants. The reason I took up this passionate campaign very dear to my heart is because of my conviction that there is something like common brotherhood of man and universal fatherhood of God. I believe strongly in both. They are not just another phrase.

My belief is borne out of the fact that none of us is happy until all of us are happy. We are interconnected to each other that no matter how far we run away from each other we are still very close to each other. We are so close that things like Swine Flu, HIV and AIDS, Ebola and Polio, even though they are not good for humans, are reminders of how close we are to each other. It can pass from one person to another in a matter of seconds. Consequently, it becomes very imperative that whatever happen to others including their conditions and welfare should be our major concern too. It is because of this reason that am seriously in support of this campaign and would shortly initiate a Facebook campaign on that to be tagged, ‘The 750 Thousand Campaign: An Appeal of Conscience’.

The reason for this campaign is not because I am in support of illegal immigration. No! I have pointed out on numerous occasions that every country has got the right to secure its borders from illegal immigrants so as not to create a problem that would be very difficult for them to manage. Whoever wants to live in any country should follow the due process to do that and the host countries should also not make things very difficult for those who genuinely want to live in their country and contribute to its growths and development. They must have to work out ways for these people to tap the fruit legally and easily.

However looking at it from a very sensible and pragmatic point of view and putting into consideration the present scenario in the United Kingdom, they are things we cannot realistically do when it comes to dealing with the illegal immigrants and one of them is mass deportation of the illegal immigrants back home. Mass deportation could be a very thorny issue and could backfire. Am thinking of what would happen, if we succeed in deporting all of them back home. Their arrival may lead to formulation of policies and sentiments that could jeopardise the interest of the United Kingdom overseas. The possibility of these people picking up arms against those who deported them is also not remote. Though we are not praying for this scenario, it is still a possibility and that is why we are in support of any decision that would not leave them and their children out in the cold.

According to the London School of Economics, there are an estimated 750 thousand illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom with the highest concentration in the London area and going by the policy of the three main parties in the United Kingdom today, all of them would have to be deported back to where they came from. That could be ludicrous and practically impossible and even if it is possible and going by the rate by which illegal immigrants are being removed in this country presently which is about 60,000 a year, it will take about 34 years at the cost of about £11,000 each to remove all of them. At the end of the 34 years it would have cost the nation about £9bn to remove them all. If they are allowed to stay, they could contribute that to the national purse in form of taxes and National Insurance.

In a nutshell, it is impossible and laughable to pursue this line of solution since it is never going to work out and whoever advocates for it should have his sanity questioned. The only solution therefore becomes doing the plausible, reasonable and moral thing and that is legalising those already here while securing the borders from those yet to arrive. This is the simplest thing to do and common sense bears testimony to this.

But the main obstacle to this line of solution is that the leaders of the three main parties in conjunction with the Nazi British National Party are in agreement in rejecting this line of solution and the reason they gave is that if that is done it would tantamount to legalising illegality and encouraging others to come in. I have also on many occasions rubbished this line of argument as simply idiotic and myopic. The fact is that these people made a mistake and that is it and having made that mistake the next line should be a solution and that is why legalising them makes more sense so that they could begin a new life even as the Boarder and Immigration Agency should work towards securing the boarders against those yet to enter illegally.

Morally this is very okay because we are dealing with human beings and not animals. Even pets here in the UK including dogs and cats are treated better than these illegal immigrants and to the sane minds, it becomes completely ironic, cynical and unacceptable that animals are treated better than fellow human beings. I have seen people who left millions of pounds in their will for their cats while others take their dogs to the gym and sauna and treat them like kings. Is it difficult then for us to do same to these people? Even stray dogs are given a sanctuary by the RSPCA, why not these people?

Unfortunately the three party leaders do not see it from this angle. They are persistent in their rejection of the proposal. Gordon Brown of the Labour Party said a capital NO. David Cameron of the Conservative Party said over his dead body while Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats said that if that happens there shall be fire and brimstone in the United Kingdom. They are in one accord and unrepentant about their decisions and according to them, these illegal immigrants did not make any mistake. They wanted to come and stay and therefore should not be encouraged.

Putting into consideration their line of argument, one is not left in limbo that Gordon, David and Nick are all perfect and honourable men who do not make mistakes. To them, things must be done the way they ought to be done. Due process must be followed. But that is not true as three of them are heavily implicated in the findings of Sir Thomas Legg on the MPs expenses claims. They were found to have corruptly inflated their expenses. They crookedly made money out of the taxpayers. I think that is called fraud. They stole from the commonwealth.

Gordon Brown, the leader of the Labour Party and the Prime Minister was found to have defaulted to the tune of £12,415 while David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition Conservative Party must supply paper work relating to a £218 mortgage and Nick Clegg the leader of the Liberal Democrats must repay £910, which he has already agreed to pay back. And these are all honourable and perfect men!

It is ironic that these three leaders who have been on the neck and major obstacle to giving a new life and second chance to over 750 thousand people are still allowed to carry on as the leaders of their various parties. Party leaders are like a tree with many branches, branches being the MPs in the same party with him. If anything goes wrong with the tree then the whole branches are in a very big problem and that is exactly what is wrong with the three major political parties at the moment. The party leaders have eaten a sour grape and the now the teeth of the MPs have been set on edge.

The party leaders are sick and corrupt and therefore the MPs they are leading are also corrupt. Their corruption is unprecedented and lacks any modicum of decency. The Nigeria parliament sounds like a heaven now compared to the UK parliament. This country has been in recession for quite some time now. People are losing their jobs, industries and factories are closing almost on daily basis, private schools are finding it difficult to be on their feet while the purse of the nation is being drained as a result of increasing number of unemployment.

In the face of these scenarios, the three honourable party leaders, threw caution to the wind and had the audacity to corruptly claim more than what they were required to claim. Some sins are bearable but the idea of bearing the ugly fact that despite the hard time we are all going through, these leaders had the gut to rape the purse of the nation is unbearable. This is disgusting and completely unacceptable and the only option, left with them now is to resign honourably and bury their heads in shame.

This is not a mistake. The rules are there and they flagrantly broke the rule and the fact that they made and broke the rule, make the whole matter unforgiving. These leaders do not believe in making mistakes after all they do not believe that the illegal immigrants made mistakes in taking the wrong decision that made them to either overstay their visa here, enter here illegally or failed in their quest for asylum.

Bearing in mind the stand of the three leaders on this issue, they have to resign and handover the mantle of leadership to others in their parties deserving the post. Nick Clegg has got a lot of people to hand over his position to amongst the Liberal Democrats. David Cameroun could hand over to Boris Johnson while Gordon Brown should think of Alan Johnson or David Milliband.

The reason why it is very imperative and urgent that they do this is because they abused the office entrusted into their hands by the people. They have the mandate of the people to lead and that mandate was seriously abused leading the people to lose hope and trust in them. And because the people have lost faith, trust and hope in them, it would be ridiculous for them to stay put and continue carrying on with the business of looting as usual.

The sympathy they failed to show in giving a second chance to these illegals is also the same sympathy they lacked in looting the national purse in the name of expenses claims otherwise how would one justify this type of looting and the amount of money in question.

It is for this reason and for the sake of decency in politics that they should have to go and make way for others more decent and clean-who would capture once again the trust of the people-to come and take over the leadership of the nation. The idea of facing corrupt looters as leaders is heartbreaking and unbearable.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: A Victory For Civilisation, Dialogue And Respect

2009-10-09T23:34:00.002+01:00

The decision of the Nobel Committee to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama is a very welcomed decision and a development that could only be described as giving an honour to whom honour is due. I therefore wish to state that I am proud of the decision and it could not have come at any other time than this.

In less than one year in the office, Barack Obama has surely infected and transformed the world as well as added a new meaning to politics in particular and democracy in general. His popularity in every part of the world attests to the fact that if the whole world were to decide on who clinches this peace prize, he will still win it.

He came with the message of peace, change and hope and right from the time he took the world by surprise at the Democratic National Convention up till the announcement of this prize, every actions of President Obama has borne testimony to the fact that he is a man of peace, a lover of peace and person who is eager to have that peace disseminated to every part of the world.

His style of politics is an inclusive one and he derives joy in carrying everybody along with him despite fierce oppositions from here and there and yonder. His, is not a politics of vengeance or that of smear campaign and tarnishing of images. Even when he was called ‘that one’ by his Republican opponent John McCain during a televised debate, he remained unruffled and still maintained same decorum even when Sarah Pallin accused him of ‘palling with the terrorists’. Or have we quickly forgotten what he went through in the hands of the Clintons in the name of politics, but instead of vengeance and smear campaigns which are the normal thing in today’s politics, he made her his Secretary of State.

What else do we need to look at before giving him this prize? Obama believes in peace and he preached and practised it to the highest level. His concept of peace is intertwined with egalitarianism hence his decision to give all Americans equal access to health care. He does not believe that people should die if they do not have money for healthcare or go bankrupt simply because they want to access the health care. He is a passionate believer in the concept of health not only as particle of peace but a fundamental human right that must be made available to the entire populace for their enjoyment irrespective of status and income.

Despite all these goodwill, he has been a subject of series of attacks and smear campaigns even to the extent of being called a liar openly by a Republican senator. Interestingly, out of all these opportunities that offered him the prospect to go on revenge politics, he exhibited the highest form of maturity by preferring to carry on with the business of governance and taking us out of this financial mess instead of wasting time on his detractors, because to him peace must be allowed to reign supreme.

Obama is a passionate believer in peace and has said time without number that we cannot have peace unless everybody in the world is assured of one. It has been American foreign policy to protect itself from the outside world by all means in the name of security thinking that it is the way to be secured and in peace amongst themselves. Obama reversed it opining that no matter how high America build a wall around itself, it will never have peace till that peace is taken for granted in all parts of the world. Though this seems a feat impossible to achieve, he has been working towards that with all vigour and passion and we are already seeing the impact.

On many occasions, he extended a hand of fellowship to North Korea and Iran, both rebuffed that hand and to the Muslim world, he promised a new beginning and to carry them along if they denounce terrorism and join the train of civilisation and dialogue. He made his administration very open to all and runs an open door policy to the extent that he has taken the initiative to extend hands of fellowship to countries and groups America as a country would not have thought of doing business with including North Korea and Iran. Even his home country of Kenya was not spared. He threatened to place a travel ban and restrictions on top government officials including the government in power and the opposition if the peace accord is falls apart.

On the perennial issue of Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he demonstrated openness to resolve the problem during his term in the office and to have a Palestinian state realised during his tenure too. In a very strong voice, he condemned as completely unacceptable the expanding of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories and diplomatically threatened Israel with ‘you-would-have-to-be-on-your-own’ warning, if they delay or derail the peace process. He sent same message to all the parties in the Middle East that have the intention of being a cog in the wheel of the peace process.

In less than one year in the office, he promised to conclude the US unfinished business in Iraq as soon as possible even as he set security as his top priority in Afghanistan by committing more troops to stabilise the fragile country and ensure that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are kept at bay.

It is against this background that he sent an olive palm to the state of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and actually commenced his first foreign trip In Egypt, a muslin country as a sign of his willingness to bring all the Muslims on board in the attempt to forge a new partnership and beginning built on mutual respect, tolerance and accommodation even as he charged the Muslim world to ensure that the unscrupulous elements amongst them are not allowed to tarnish the image of Islam.

On the Nuclear ambition of the world superpowers, Barack Obama who is not only a lawyer but also a professor of law noted that nuclear power would never bring that peace we are anxious to get but would only contribute immensely to the status quo ante. He promised to reduce the stockpile of the United States nuclear war heads and invited Russia with a visit to the country to do same even as he cancelled the decision of the United States to build and install Missile Shield System in Eastern Europe which had the potential of drawing us back to another cold war. This was a decision any other American president would not have reversed out of ego. To Obama, peace must reign and must reign by all means no matter whose Ox is gored hence the scrapping of the system.

President Barack Obama was able to achieve these entire feats in less than one year in the office and that leads me to question his critics who insinuate that the award is too early or that he did not merit it. The fact is that Obama does not need to procrastinate like his predecessors before he could lay a solid foundation for peace especially in the Middle East. The earlier the better because his predecessors were trickishly fond of commending the whole process at the end of their tenure thereby achieving nothing at the end of the day. He reversed the trend by taking a bold step to step into the territory his predecessors were afraid of stepping into as early as possible. A sign of deep-hearted quest and commitment for peace.

What other presidents were not even able to achieve within their whole tenure, he was able to create impact on in less than one year in the office. That should be the more reason he should be given the prize. He closed the Guantanamo bay detention camp, pushed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change which successive American presidents vehemently refused to negotiate, contributed immensely with his stimulus plans to avoid the worst recession in the history of the world, brought peace between the police man and the Harvard professor and many others too numerous to mention here.

The fact is that no other newly elected US president would have been able to achieve so much in so little a time like Obama due to American ego but Obama shattered that ego opining that international peace is more important than American selfishness.

Barack Obama therefore is highly qualified to be the recipient of this year’s edition of the award and the decision of the Nobel Committee to award it to Obama is something to write home about for he changed the meaning of politics and steered the world out of doom in just less than one year in the office.

Lily-livered Murdoch And Pusillanimous Sun Newspaper: The Tale Of Two Visionless Birds Of A Feather!

2009-10-02T14:09:00.003+01:00

I am still trying to figure out why reasonable and educated people read the Sun Newspaper. In a very simple parlance, it still baffles my imagination that people read the Sun Newspaper at all. I have taken my time to analyse in detail both the editorial policy and the house policy of the Sun Newspaper and it still flummoxes and eludes my imagination why a person would waste his reasonable money to buy a trash called the Sun Newspaper. Whatever is the reason, I am not going to be moved because a reasonable newspaper does not sale for 20p. Am better off spending it on chicken and chips!

A newspaper must have an editorial policy and must stand by it at all times because it is sacrosanct. It is like a bible to the medium. A newspaper that worth its name is judged by its ability to stand by a decision and hold tenaciously to a principle no matter whose ox is gored. A newspaper loses its credibility by saying one thing today and doing another thing tomorrow. It has to be rigid to a reasonable extent but at the same time must be flexible to an extent to reflect the changing and dynamic world.

I am not here to attack the Sun Newspaper and I will never do that. In fact I am one of the strongest believers in the freedom of the press and access to information. I have said it time without number that I am ready to use the last drop of my blood to defend the right of the people and the press to hold and express opinion without fear of intimidation. It is because of this reason that it is pertinent that I point out as soon as possible that my tirade is not against the Sun Newspaper per se but brainless people behind the editorial policies of the paper. This group of people is headed by the owner of the medium Rupert Murdoch.

In journalism two principal pillars guide every media and these pillars are the editorial policy and the house style. Through the former a newspaper is guided to make a definitive stand on issues, toe a particular line of argument, support a political party or even to denounce one. It is this right that the Sun Newspaper exercised few days ago when it publicly shifted its support from the Labour Party to the Conservative Party. I do not have any problem or issue with that. However my problem is that a newspaper just like a political party must be able to stand firmly at all time on what it stands for and must desist from being like a chameleon; always changing colour with events or a water Lilly floating aimlessly and endlessly.

I have taken my time too to look at the history of the brains behind the Sun Newspaper and from my investigation I am not amazed with the result. As a result of this I am therefore not baffled with the decision of the Sun Newspaper to switch allegiance from the Labour to the Conservative Party just like a prostitute switching from one man to another. Rupert Murdoch owns the News International which owns the Sun newspaper and has a notorious history of switching allegiance to a party he thinks is winning or going to win an election.

To be precise, early last year during the climax of the Presidential campaign in the United States of America, Rupert Murdoch in his myopic sense and calculation thought that Barack Obama is going to lose the election and shamelessly appeared on the television to publicly pledge his support for John McCain. The major reason for doing that is because Murdoch did his home work clumsily and came up with that stupid decision. It backfired because Barack did not only win the election, but won it with an overwhelming majority that is unprecedented in the history of American democracy.

It is the same thing that Murdoch has done again by publicly pledging support for the Conservative Party. From his own thinking, Murdoch has already concluded that Labour is going to be a failure and therefore instructed the Sun Newspaper to go public with allegiance and support for the Conservative Party.

Rupert Murdoch is not a gentleman. He is a lily-livered person who floats aimlessly like a water lily. He has been very close to the Labour Party especially during the era of Tony Blair. He wined and dined with them and for him to come at this eleventh hour to denounce them is akin to St. Peter the Apostle denying Jesus Christ, not just once but three times. Why did he suddenly forget the good times with the Labour? I am therefore sick with the attitude of Rupert Murdoch and that makes me want to vomit. Murdoch has never been identified with a particular political party since he arrived in the United Kingdom from his native Australia. His, has been a history of switching allegiance depending on the party he thinks will win the election or the one in power. That is dangerous and a sign of irresponsible and dirty politics. His, is a politics of the end justifies the means and this is one thing we do not want near the modern politics. The era of politics as a dirty game and evil machinery is gone.

During the Margaret Thatcher era, Murdoch and his publications were generally supportive of her and the Conservative Party. He formed a very close alliance with Thatcher and the Sun Newspaper actually credited itself with helping John Major to win an unexpected election victory in the 1992 general election. When Thatcher and later John Major lost the election to the Labour, Murdoch switched his support to the Labour Party and formed a close bond with Tony Blair. The closeness of his relationship with Blair and their secret meetings to discuss national policies became a political issue in Britain.

Against this backdrop, there is no more doubt that Murdoch has a bad habit of dubiously supporting an incumbent party or the one most likely to win an upcoming election in the hope of influencing government decisions that may affect his businesses. I am therefore not flabbergasted with this latest decision to switch to the Conservative side. In fact Murdoch has been planning this for long. In June 2006, the BBC reported that Murdoch and News International, the parent company of the Sun Newspaper were flirting with the idea of backing Conservative leader David Cameron at the next General Election. He would later deny this the following month.

Rupert Murdoch is therefore not a person to trust when it comes to politics. He is neither focused nor principled and cannot say exactly what his dream or focus is all about. This is a legacy he unfortunately and shamelessly passed on to the Sun Newspaper. He switches from here to there and at the end of the day is nowhere. It is a shame that the British parties allowed people like him to tarnish the image of the British politics with his dubious and unsteady attitude.

I think it is high time we told people like him where they belong to. They do not deserve to be anywhere near the corridors of power because they are like virus that could infect and leave untold damage to the fabric of any polity.

Gordon Brown is going through a very difficult time as a result of a global problem he never caused and because of the fact that he is a Scottish man. He is never wanted by the English and therefore those reasonable and sane enough should know better that this is not the right time to abandon him. In fact this is the right time to tell the nation that solving the problems and challenges facing the nation is more important than where a person comes from. It is therefore a sign of political immaturity for the media and the English to want to slaughter Gordon Brown because he is not one of them.

The British Duplicity In Illegal Immigration: A Scar On The Conscience Of This Nation

2009-09-24T20:57:00.002+01:00

In her defence of inadvertently employing an ‘illegal immigrant’ as a housekeeper, Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom complicated the whole situation by confessing that she also paid the National Insurance and tax on the wages of the 27 year old Loloahi Tapui, a Tonga national.

It seems that the British media did not see the duplicity in that statement. If they did not see the duplicity, it then means that the British media is also to be blamed for their part in the saga. In a nutshell, if the media cannot pick anything wrong with that revelation, the implication is that the British Media and not just the government and the general populace, have also an interest to protect and there is no doubt that they have, hence their mysterious silence over this revelation.

This confession and revelation by Scotland should have been the last nail on the coffin to seal her political and legal career. I am therefore amazed that despite that ridiculous revealing defence, she is still allowed to carry on with her job. Why? The answer is very simple! As the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, Baroness Scotland also oversees the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor acts on her behalf in the court. She has supervisory powers over prosecutions including the Serious Fraud Office and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. As a result of this, she must therefore be aware of what happens in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or at least have an idea of how things are run there. She must know something and cannot as the Attorney General plead ignorance. It is a crime in law to plead ignorance as a defence and a scandal for a legal luminary of an Attorney General rank to plead that.

In the United Kingdom, before an employee begins a new job or shortly after, he is expected to provide a National Insurance Number. It is with this number that his National Insurance contribution is credited to him as well as his taxation. The National Insurance pays for most of the essential services he enjoys including free medical care under the National Health Services fondly called the NHS. The National Insurance contributions would also him to receive job seekers allowance in the case of losing his job and to draw pension upon retirement as well as other benefits. The tax he pays just like the National Insurance contribution is also automatically deducted from his wages. Just like in every other country, this is an Income Tax and the tax is usually used to fund social amenities and other ancillary services provided by the government.

Before one is issued with a National Insurance Number in the United Kingdom, he has to apply and be invited for an interview where he is expected to prove who he is and his circumstances. This check is very akin to immigration check because that way, the National Insurance Number would not be assigned to a person not entitled to live and work in the United Kingdom. The interview is a face-to-face interview and the applicant is expected to bring along with him all necessary documents including Home Office documents and travel documents like passport to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is the person he claims to be.

If at the end of the interview the interviewer is satisfied, he issues the applicant with a National Insurance Number and afterwards sends the plastic card to him by post. Everybody is expected to have this National Number before working in the UK including those on temporary residence like Working Holiday Makers, Students, Missionaries, Artists and others in similar circumstances. No one is exempted. It is mandatory and against the law to work without having one.

In the case of Loloahi Tapui, it is understandable. She came to the United Kingdom as a student, finished her course and decided to stay back in violation of the immigration law. As a student, she has already been issued with a National Insurance number when she arrived in the United Kingdom for the first time and therefore could have had one and used it to secure the housekeeping job from Baroness Scotland. However there is another problem here. If Loloahi, gave her National Insurance Number to Baroness Scotland upon the commencement of her housekeeping job, how come did she not notice that she has an expired Student Visa in her passport, because the name in the National Insurance Number must correspond with the one in her passport. Moreover, why is Scotland, an Attorney General-an initiator of a law that demands a thorough scrutiny of an employee background before working-not able to identify the anomaly for good six months?

I therefore conclude that Baroness Scotland is not just lying but a part of well organised government syndicate making money out of the ‘illegal immigrants’ and at the same time refusing vehemently to grant them amnesty. As I noted in my earlier article on the Baroness Scotland saga, I was able to point out that a conservative estimate noted that there are about 700 thousand ‘illegal immigrants’ living and working illegally in the United Kingdom. I was also able to point out that out of this number, well over 600 thousand of them work and pay their taxes and National Insurance contributions. The remaining are either in private employment and do not pay or are not working at all.

Now, the question is who issued these 600 thousand ‘illegal immigrants’ the National Insurance Number to work with? How did they get the number in the first place and where are their contributions going to? To answer the last question, the contributions go into the coffer of the United Kingdom government! How then can the United Kingdom Government morally claim in all truthfulness, that it is not aware that these ‘illegal immigrants’ pay their taxes and National Insurance contributions into their coffer. They have a system and should have known that. It is very simple to identify them and that is the simplest truth in the world. Bearing this in mind then, why then has the UK Government continued to refuse to regularise their stay in this country despite years of immorally taking their contributions. You want their money but not them?

This is evil and an abomination in the sight of the Lord upon which the British democracy and monarchy is built. It is a scar, a dent and guilt upon the conscience of this nation that despite the contributions of these ‘illegal immigrants’, the government and people they are maintaining their lifestyle have vehemently refused to regularise them. It is therefore not a Baroness Scotland issue alone. It is a matter of national concern and the whole nation should answer to this immoral anomaly. The slave trade was abolished some 200 years ago and yet it still exists in the United Kingdom the citadel of modern democracy and Magna Carta and when I think of the fact that the United Kingdom democracy is a theocratic-parliamentary democracy, it baffles me how people could have the gut to commit such an alarming impunity and evil under the face of the earth and before the God they professed as, ‘Dieu et mon droit’.

These people have been maintaining our lifestyle and they are the reason why the United Kingdom is still alive and kicking especially at this time of global financial quagmire and yet not even one person, not even the bishops in the House of Lords, deemed it necessary to go on hunger strike on their behalf for the evil that is being perpetrated against them. These ‘illegal immigrants’ are adherents of various faiths in this nation and yet none of their leaders has come out openly to canvass on their behalf. Where is the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury? Where is the Anglican Archbishop of York? Where is the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom? Where are other religious leaders in this country and how can they claim to believe in God and serve in the name of God and their flocks are going through hell?

If the United Government cannot do anything to regularise the status of this poor souls, then the religions should take it upon themselves to do something. They have to unite and put pressure on government to act. Any religion without a social agenda and liberation theology is not worthy to be and no one can claim to believe and serve God while his brothers and flocks are going through hell. Religion is all about fraternity and communion and the fact that these Members of the Parliament including the Prime Minister who have been opposing this amnesty share the same cup and bread of communion in Jesus Christ with them makes mockery of Christianity and belief in God.

I therefore call on the Government to look into this anomaly. These people cannot continue supporting and maintaining our lifestyle with their contributions and yet we refuse to regularise them. This is evil and completely unacceptable and no religion, common sense and philosophy can ever condone such an evil. Even pagans would have done something, if they are faced with this type of dilemma. Why is it difficult then for Christians to do something, if not for anything but for the God they profess.

We cannot continue to block this amnesty for these poor souls. No! We cannot! No more! They are human beings who breathe, talk, walk and have their existences and beings in the Lord like the rest of us. There is no difference between them and us. We are all equal in the sight of the Lord. How can we justify spending thousands yearly on our pets, unnecessary travels, opulence and food wastage while fellow human beings are suffering, dying in poverty and living underground because of us. This has to stop. They are like a needle in our conscience and we should have learnt by now the nothingness of human life especially after the September 11 and July 7 debacles in New York and London respectively and even the ongoing recession.

Human life is insatiable and no matter how long we continue to deny these people a human existence, it would never make our own life better. We cannot continue to keep quiet and pretend as if nothing is happening. Something appallingly and awfully bad is happening and that bad thing is that millions are suffering and dying by instalments because we have refused to give them a second chance. Everyman man deserves a second chance and that is why we have continued courageously, rightly and wisely to campaign against torture and capital punishment in every part of the world. The fact that criminals are given parole and murderers are later released is a testimony that second chance is part and parcel of human nature.

Against this backdrop, these people deserve a second chance now. If we do not do anything, the nightmare may come back to haunt us eternally like the slave trade and the Jewish Holocaust. I do not by this article imply the endorsement of illegal immigration by any means. My argument is that the mistake has simply been made by these people and what we should focus on now is how to correct it. And any correction of the anomaly that would not seek to normalise those already here would be a disaster, a big failure, a shame on this nation and a scar we would have to live with forever.

Those already here should be normalised and carefully dispersed to various parts of the nation to avoid congesting London. Their normalisation document should also stipulate clearly that they are supposed to live and work in a particular part of the country. The government may also consider imposing fine on them to be paid at once or to be spread over few years or double their National Insurance contribution and taxation for few years or to certain amount as punitive measure as well as barring them from accessing the state benefit for some years. For the UK Border and Immigration Agency, it should also in the light of the exercise work towards securing tightly the borders of the country as well as sending educative and informative messages to countries where most of the ‘illegal immigrants’ are coming from to dissuade them from coming here illegally or face the consequences.

Above all the United Kingdom government should also work towards tackling this problem from the source. Deporting these poor souls would surely not solve any problem or make a difference. In fact it would be a drain on the coffer of the nation. The problem lies with their corrupt country leaders and using Nigeria as a good example one would understand my side of the argument. Nigeria, from her abundant human and natural resources should be one of the richest nations in the world but the ugly fact is that the opposite is the case. Despite having the most arable land on earth, the second biggest producer of oil in Africa and the sixth in the world with a very rich amount of gas reserve, the country still languishes in poverty, moral decadence and other social malaises. The leaders are very corrupt to the extent that masses think it is a way of life after all. It is a custom for an individual to steal public money and no eye brow is raised.

The most pathetic part of the whole story is that these thieves and looters steal from the national coffer and deposit the ill-gotten wealth in western banks including the United Kingdom banks. They also use the money to purchase properties including houses and cars here in the United Kingdom, give their children a befitting foreign education and foreign medical care whereas in their home country the teachers have been in industrial action for months while the health professionals are made to work with no medical equipment at all. When they ask for foreign aids and it is given to them, it simply ends up in their private pocket leaving the masses with nothing but more suffering and agony. They are simply helpless and therefore illegal immigration becomes an alluring option.

Despite these the west and the United Kingdom have refused to arrive at a way of sanctioning these corrupt leaders. The west must as a matter of urgency and a question and appeal of conscience go after these leaders in a very heavy way. I proposed investigating their foreign accounts and the source of their opulent life in the west with the view of sanctioning them as a deterrent for others like them as well as denying medical care and education to them and their children with a proviso that they should go back home to their country with the money to develop their own health care and educational sector.

This type of stupid behaviour on the part of the leaders of the third world countries is the major pull factor for illegal immigration in the west and the United Kingdom in particular. If this source is not tackled and seriously tackled too, the hydra-headed monster would never be killed.

Baroness Scotland Broke The Law And Should Resign: All Animals Are Equal!

2009-09-23T22:01:00.004+01:00

In 2006, Baroness Scotland of Asthal in the County of Oxfordshire initiated in the United Kingdom Parliament a very controversial, cynical and Nazi-like bill aimed at making it compulsory for the employers to carry out detailed and thorough scrutiny and check before giving a job to any prospective employee.

The expectation of the bill was to make it very difficult for the ‘illegal immigrants’ to get a job of any type and to discourage employers from giving them jobs and punish severely those who flout this rule by imposition of a heavy fine. The bill was as controversial as it was unpopular but due to the fact that it emanated from the Labour-controlled and dominated government, it was swiftly passed into law within a very short time despite numerous oppositions to its passage from the opposition parties, human rights groups and other stake holders in the nation.

Some of the reasons for the fierce opposition to the bill were because of its semblance to the Nazi Anti-Semite laws during the Jewish holocaust. During the holocaust by the Nazi Germany under Hitler, the Jews were mandated to carry identification cards and documents while employers in Germany and occupied territories were mandated to carry out detailed checks and scrutiny to ensure that no job is given to a Jew. Besides, the Jews were also mandated to wear a special uniform and yellow badge to distinguish them from the rest of the population. The yellow badge (or yellow patch), also referred to as a Jewish badge, was a cloth patch that Jews were ordered to sew on their outer garments in order to mark them as Jews in public. It is intended to be a badge of shame associated with anti-Semitism.

It is because of the fear of repeating this ugly situation that the bill received a very fierce opposition unprecedented in the history of the United Kingdom Parliament. Also the opponents of the bill were very afraid that it could pave a smooth way towards making the United Kingdom a police state were people’s privacy and details would be subjected to unwarranted intrusion by the agents of the state.

Interestingly, since the passage of the controversial bill into law, the Labour Government has gone an extra mile to authorise the police to store the DNA of innocent citizens in their databank, carry out stop and search at random-that so far the blacks and other minorities have been the greatest victims. In fact majority of those that have been stopped and searched since the power was given to the police were blacks.

Similarly, the same Labour Government also empowered the Border and Immigration Agency of the United Kingdom to go from house to house, bus to bus, undergrounds and in fact everywhere to stop and ask any person for their identification and the business they are doing in the United Kingdom. The end result is that the United Kingdom under the Labour Government has become that police state prophesised in ‘1984’ by George Orwell.

Against this backdrop and bearing in mind that whatever goes up must surely come down, Baroness Scotland was last week fined Five Thousand Pounds for flouting the same law she initiated by employing an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper in her home without carrying out the necessary checks and scrutiny as well as keeping the photocopies of the housekeeper as she proposed in the controversial law.

As usual and in line with the tradition of the blind Labour Party of Gordon Brown, she denied any wrong doing and claimed that she inadvertently employed her even as she foolishly stressed that the mistake of not making and keeping photocopies of her documents was just a technical breach and that she highly regretted the incident. She has since paid a Five Thousand Pounds fine but vehemently refused to resign despite the enormity of the case against her. In fact Gordon Brown-the proverbial one eyed man leading a group of blind people-before flying out to New York defended Scotland and claimed that it was an error in judgement that would not warrant dropping her from the cabinet.

However the fact here is that from the stories of what transpired, Baroness Scotland told quantum of lies and has never stopped lying. Moreover, instead of accepting that she knowingly and deceptively made the ‘mistake’, she chose to continue lying and playing with the intelligence of the British people. She is the brain child of this law. She invented it. She nurtured it. She incubated it. She mothered it. She mentored it. She wrote it and knows every single alphabet and word in it and therefore could not plead ignorance when she employed the ‘illegal immigrant’. Ignorantia legis non excusiat!

When Baroness Scotland was nurturing the law, she stipulated that employers must check the documents very well, scrutinise it with every attention and if in doubt check with the appropriate authorities before employing. She also mandated the employers to make and keep photocopies of the documents tendered by the employee. According to Scotland, she made all the necessary checks but forgot to make the copies of the documents. The question now is what are the documents Baroness Scotland checked and how can a seasoned legal practitioner and a Queen Counsel not have noticed a fake document from the original or even have that legal evidential inkling that something is wrong somewhere.

Baroness Scotland is the Attorney General of the United Kingdom meaning that she is the number one legal practitioner of the nation. She is the Alpha and Omega of law in this country as well as the custodian of the law of the land. She is the guardian of public interest, legal adviser to the government and the criminal justice minister. As the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, she oversees the Treasury Solicitor's Department (and the Treasury Solicitor acts on behalf of the Attorney General when representation in court is required). She has supervisory powers over prosecutions, including the Crown Prosecution Service (headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions), the Serious Fraud Office and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office.

The Attorney General has also the public interest functions. For instance, as the Attorney General, Scotland is the trustee of default where a sole trustee has died, and can also take cases to the Law Lords where points of general legal importance need to be settled. In fact from the website of the UK Attorney General’s Office, “The Attorney General and Solicitor General-who is actually the deputy of the former and can carry out her full functions in her absence-have overall responsibility for the Treasury Solicitor and supervise the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the DPP for Northern Ireland”.

I am therefore very flabbergasted that a nation’s Attorney General was not able to differentiate between a fake document and an original one. This raises many questions on the veracity of what Scotland is telling us and if the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, who has a degree in Law and has practiced law for many years could not identify a fake document from an original one, how then do we expect ordinary citizens in the street and elsewhere to make these checks and come up with an accurate result. Something is wrong somewhere and that something is that Baroness Scotland is a liar and a shameless liar and should resign from that office.

Baroness Scotland from her actions has proved that she is no more worthy and morally suitable to be in that office and it would be an honourable decision for her to resign from that office. The Attorney General of a nation is an embodiment of truth and more so as a lawyer she is expected to say and uphold nothing but the truth at all time. If Scotland is lacking this quality why on earth should she still be in that office? She told lies and she has to resign and even if she did not tell lies, the fact that the Attorney General could not tell a fake document from an original one should be an urgent reason for her to resign and that will be on the interest of the nation. It simply means that she lacks the mental ability and agility to tender evidence in the court. And claiming that it was just a technical error should be the more reason why she should bury her head in shame and quickly resign from that post.

Her actions has gone a long way to prove that her appointment to that position is putting a square peg in a round hole and since she has by her actions proved herself very incompetent to handle the job, she has no other better option but to resign. The whole saga is funny and utterly ridiculous that instead of resigning, she is still shamelessly going about even in the media defending her stupidity and ignorance. It is quite a shame that a woman like Baroness Scotland could stoop so low to do such a thing she did and tell lies upon lies upon it and instead of resigning, she chose to continue telling more lies. The fact that she is a black like me makes me sick.

What Baroness Scotland did was to simply use the young lady to achieve her aim and she achieved it. She needed a housekeeper by all means and she got one by all means without bothering to check the background and employability of the employee as she outlined in the law she made herself. When two elephants fight the grass bears the brunt and that is exactly what is happening to the 27 year old young lady in question. Scotland has used and dumped her and instead of defending and saving the head of the poor young girl in her time of trials, she has chosen to deny her and to defend herself and her job instead. This is despite the services rendered by the lady. Is that not disgusting?

As I pointed out earlier, it is very disgusting that this type of behaviour should come from a black woman. The history of the black race all over the world has been a history of oppression, slavery, domination, injustice, poverty, disease, famine and war; all either orchestrated, perpetrated, endorsed, supported or masterminded by the whites. Am not being a racist but just being very honest and truthful; the facts are there to be checked after all slavery, apartheid, racism, illegal immigrants and white supremacism are all inventions of the Whiteman.

Bearing all these in mind then, one would understand very easily the reason for my canvassing that Baroness Scotland should resign and bury her head in shame. She is a black woman and instead of taking the time she took to defend herself and her job to defend the young poor lady who is so young to be her daughter, she kept telling lies. Any politics, religion or humanism that is not on the side of the masses is destined to fail and that is why Scotland’s action automatically qualifies her for a very big failure. When Jacqui Smith authorised the deportation of Ama Sumani dying of Cancer in a hospital in Wales to Ghana, I wrote a poem predicting her downfall and she indeed failed and it was a big failure. She was disgracefully booted out of the Home Office. I am therefore not in doubt that Baroness Scotland is going to end the same way. That young lady needed her help and she not only betrayed her, she also failed her. Scotland is a coward!

As a background, Baroness Scotland is a product of slavery and oppression. Just as this poor lady is branded an ‘illegal immigrant’ today, his forebears were branded as niggers, Negro and black monkeys. She is a descendant of slaves. Born Patricia Scotland in Dominica in 1956, she arrived in Britain at the age of 2 along with 10 other siblings. She later attended university and distinguished herself as a lawyer before entering the political arena in 1977, where she was called to the bar and served two terms of government for Labour firstly in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as Foreign Office Minister working for the home department at the Lord Chancellor's Office. There she was effectively number two to Lord Irvine of Largs and the lead minister on immigration and asylum matters, legal aid, legal services and the development of civil law in the UK

In 1991 she made legal history when she became the first black female QC (Queens Counsel) at the age of 35. She was made a bencher of the Middle Temple in 1997, becoming a judge in 1999, and raised to the Privy Council in 2001. She is also a member of the bar in Antigua and Dominica. In 1997, she was created a peer as Baroness Scotland of Asthal, in the County of Oxfordshire.

Scotland is also a member of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and it is simply because of this that her actions and lies are inexcusable and a resignation becomes the best and honourable option. She obviously did not manifest her Christianity here or even manifest that courage of a black woman who should have learnt a lesson from her own background and history. My argument here is that allowing the young lady to go it all alone with the Border and Immigration Agency is unbecoming of a Christian and a black person. Black people have a very strong sense of communalism and brotherhood and that is seriously absent in the curriculum vitae of Baroness Scotland. To say that am disappointed would be an understatement. As a Christian and putting into consideration her level of seniority in the government, she should have used her office to help the young lady; yes to legalise her after all she is a human like you and me and not a killer. And even if she is a killer, she should also be given a second chance on compassionate ground; after all terrorists have been released in Scotland, United Kingdom on compassionate ground.

Baroness Scotland therefore got the plot of the whole drama wrong and further attempts on her side to use complicated legal terms and Shakespearean English to defend herself is tantamount to playing with the intelligence of the British people. As a result, it is imperative that Scotland as a matter of urgency, matter of urgent national importance and matter of black pride and face, resign with immediate effect from her position as the Attorney General of the United Kingdom.

As for Gordon Brown, who did not see anything wrong in the actions of Baroness Scotland, his days are also numbered. Gordon Brown, was brought up in a very good Christian family as a son of a Christian Minister and ever since he joined the Labour, he has taken part in blocking all the efforts made so far to legalise about Seven Hundred Thousand ‘illegal immigrants’ living in the United Kingdom on the pretext that the exercise would add to the burden of the UK economy. How foolish an argument! The fact is that almost all of these illegal immigrants are working here and very hard working indeed with mansions, cars, fat bank accounts and beautiful families back home. To legalise them would obviously make no difference. In fact legalising them would surely see a shift in the UK population since most of them would like to go elsewhere or even go back home for good and come here once in a while as tourists.

Despite these, the Labour Party has continued relenting in carrying out this exercise just for the foolish and stupid pleasure of saying no. The most painful part of the whole saga is that these people, who say no to the amnesty, spend thousands of pounds yearly in buying foods that end up going to the waste bin or even spend more than that to buy foods for their cats and dogs. Their cats and dogs are more valuable to them than their fellow humans and if they do not value the life of these people, how on earth would they expect the terrorists to value our own life. And reflecting on the fact that the nation doing this is a Christian nation makes one to seriously long for atheism and question strongly the existence of God.

Besides as we can see from the case of Baroness Scotland, the question of illegal immigration is a human issue and should be tackled humanely and humanly. People make mistakes that could land them in place or condition they never bargained for. Most of these ‘illegal immigrants’ made this type of mistake. A good number of them are also victims of trafficking and oppression in their home country and therefore ran to this place for protection. According to a rough estimate they are well over 700 thousand ‘illegal immigrants’ living here in the UK and everybody benefits from them and their presence. They do menial jobs the British people refused to do like sweeping the streets, cleaning public toilets and even serving some of this people who refused to legalise them. A good example is the Baroness Scotland’s housekeeper and the maid to the then girl friend of David Blunkett the former Home Office Secretary.

David Blunkett during his time as Home Secretary was in a relationship with Kimberly Fortier the publisher of The Spectator magazine. The three-year relationship ended bitterly in August 2004. Blair deemed it proper for Blunkett to remain Home Secretary while pursuing his pregnant former lover in the courts to ascertain paternity of her unborn child as it appeared of no relevance to his ministerial position. However, at the end of November 2004, it was alleged that Blunkett abused his position to assist his ex-lover's Filipina nanny, Leoncia "Luz" Casalme, by speeding up her residence visa application and later using his influence to ensure that she successfully obtained an Austrian tourist visa. An investigation into these allegations was headed by Sir Alan Budd. Shortly before Sir Alan was due to report his findings, an email emerged headed "no special favours...but a bit quicker". Though there was no evidence Blunkett was responsible for the email or its title, he resigned as Home Secretary on 15 December 2004, saying that questions about his honesty were damaging the government.

The lesson here therefore is that even if we loath, ignore or dislike them, they are still going to be part of the life in the United Kingdom until something is done; and what has to be done would be to legalise those already here while effort should be made to stop those yet to arrive and then face the corruption in their countries which is the major pull factor bring them here. It is also a shame that despite the fact that there are over 20 Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of the Lords, their conscience does not prick them that these people who form part of their congregation and who are living like slaves in their backyard need compassion and amnesty. Pondering all these questions makes me to begin to reflect if there is really God; because if there is, people cannot be as wicked and naive as this over the plight and anguish of other people. Incidentally the UK Parliament is just by the West Minster Abbey and how people could pray in the face of this abomination and atrocity is a another mystery, am yet to understand.

And what would be the consequence if they are legalised, would the United Kingdom disintegrate? Certainly, not! The presence of these people, their toils day and night to make our own life comfortable is a scar on the conscience of this nation and would continue to be till that day when God comes in glory to render judgement amongst people so that there will no more be Jews or gentiles, whites or blacks, legal or illegal immigrants among the lovely children of God.

By the way, lest you have forgotten, Baroness Scotland must still resign!