148
Burkina Faso bans homosexuality as a crime punishable with prison, fines (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/news@hexbear.net
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Extremely disappointing to see this, this is not a Sankara thing to do at all.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Actions like these don't make much sense to me, especially as calculated moves. Why would they want to give ammo to NATO's propaganda machine?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    it is probably something that exists as the norm in the region - a search on wikipedia on neighbouring country ghana shows that lgbtq stuff has been outlawed since colonial times

    their society is still an echo from previous iterations of society at the end of the day, and focusing intensely on the shortcomings on a country which is not aligned with western interests is a propaganda tactic - this rhetoric/sentiment is most likely common among the populace in neighbouring countries

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    it is probably something that exists as the norm in the region - a search on wikipedia on neighbouring country ghana shows that lgbtq stuff has been outlawed since colonial times

    The leadership of a state doesn't exactly have to follow such nonsense, so this explanation is not sufficient.
    Furthermore, such views are not something that I understand, either.

    their society is still an echo from previous iterations of society at the end of the day, and focusing intensely on the shortcomings on a country which is not aligned with western interests is a propaganda tactic - this rhetoric/sentiment is most likely common among the populace in neighbouring countries

    That just means that antagonising LGBT people makes it easier for NATO to engage in this propaganda warfare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The leadership of a state doesn't exactly have to follow such nonsense, so this explanation is not sufficient.

    The leadership of the country doesn't come out of nowhere. Many of the popular prejudices will be adopted by them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't think that that's a good explanation. A country's leadership is going to first consider their economic reasons, and, if some relevant superstructural stuff contradicts it, they can just ignore those, as they have always done.
    I highly doubt that state leadership groups in general care about upholding minor individual prejudices when there is no evident benefit for a strong enough part of said leadership groups.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Banning homosexuality doesn't have an obvious answer as to how it could be such a problem for the economy.

    Furthermore, base-superstructure relations are only pressures that nudge things on a large scale. On shorter scales things can happen contrary to what base-superstructure would predict.

    Although... because of Burkina faso's relative lack of capitalist development, traditional family norms haven't broken down there fully. Meaning that the base-superstructure relationship actually predicts such laws to be passed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Banning homosexuality doesn't have an obvious answer as to how it could be such a problem for the economy.

    It doesn't seem to help the economy while antagonising a part of the population, which will help NATO's activities against Burkina Faso. So, I'd say there is a very obvious con and no apparent pros for the economy.

    Furthermore, base-superstructure relations are only pressures that nudge things on a large scale. On shorter scales things can happen contrary to what base-superstructure would predict.

    I find it hard to believe that a state's leadership would not be class conscious, and would not understand their individual interests and the interests of other members of the ruling class. Relevant interests seem to be very good predictors of behaviour in such cases.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    The leadership of a state doesn't exactly have to follow such nonsense, so this explanation is not sufficient. Furthermore, such views are not something that I understand, either.

    i don't really understand it fully tbh, the history of africa is foreign to me - that said i don't think all things leadership do is always based in extensive theory and calculation - they see visibly the exploitation that has deprived the country of it's own wealth (causing them to revolt and throw out the french), but may still harbour backwards views on certain topics (which is the product of their environment not thorough analysis)

    the outlawing of the lgbtq is bad obviously. i am not trying to justify it - this is just analysis

    i have met those in my life who are in leadership positions in local regions, that struggles for issues such as Palestine harbour stances that are backwards/ US talking points - it is often a reflection of these points being pushed on them very early and them taking it as gospel (as if there were not as existing ecosystem that has ulterior motives). it is just a product of being human and not always analyzing/poor analyses (of) their actions.

    That just means that antagonising LGBT people makes it easier for NATO to engage in this propaganda warfare.

    i don't disagree, this is a more common perspective adopted. my wording is more me thinking in terms of systems and paying mind to how the liberal world order works to push forward it's interests

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Religious and already homophobic population, plus they're allied with Russia more than NATO so I suppose they're not bothered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    plus they're allied with Russia more than NATO so I suppose they're not bothered.

    Why would that make them not be bothered about NATO's aggression?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Well, they've taken a side, and NATO are preoccupied with Ukraine for now. At the end of the day though, a gay rights NGO is a drop in the ocean when you weigh it up against the amount of money they can throw to cause all sorts of problems in the region. Stir up ISIS, pay off mining contractors, other various soft power measures.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It sucks but unfortunately the average western gay rights NGO in Africa is part of that apparatus. No matter how well-intentioned its founders/staffers are, despite all their hypothetical best intentions, they'll likely be operating entirely atop Western-HQ'd IT systems and their work in the region will functionally serve as a source of blackmail against locals and become in practice a vehicle to create pretexts for ISIS and destabilization that NATO will arm and finance in the area.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent