April 14, the fateful day when nearly 300 girls
were abducted in Chibok town, Borno State, became something that
divided the lives of Nigerians into “before” and “after”.
It will not be an exaggeration to say that this tragedy has changed
all of us. And this process continues as more than 7 months after the
incident, our daughters are still missing.
The unprecedented Chibok abduction changed Nigerians in many ways…
1. We have become more distrustful
When the Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Alex
Badeh, announced that the military found the girls’ whereabouts,
weeks after the abduction, we believed that God heard our prayers. What
we expected was the victims’ soon return. However it never happened and
the army tops, backed by the government, continued providing the excuses
for not rescuing the children. They said they would restrain from using
force in order not to harm the girls.
With the time passing by and Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, mocking the rescue
campaigns in the videos, we started doubting that anyone knows
anything about their location. Although the authorities insisted that
they were working on the military operation aimed at releasing the
victims, we could not understand why they had failed to come up with the
solution for so long.
We did not and still do not know who to believe. The loud statements
cause only irritation. When words are followed by zero result, these
words mean nothing.
2. We have learnt the desparate truth: international
intervention is not a remedy
While the response of the Nigerian government and military was
characterized by many as slow and untimely, the most powerful countries
in the world responded actively when authorized to do so by the Federal
Government.
The breaking point was the US sending troops to Nigeria for finding and
rescuing the girls. Many countries, including the UK and China, also
showed commitment to helping out Nigerians…
What we though might come as the miraculous answer to the long-time
question, brought same results, same nothing. At this point we stopped
believing that someone would solve our problems.
3. We have started seeing political games everywhere
After the Chibok girls abduction the reports about Boko Haram
sponsors began circulating in the media more often.
There came revelations by the Australian negotiator Stephen Davis who
named the politicians allegedly responsible for supporting insurgency
in the country.
The rival party politicians started shooting arrows at each other
saying who sponsors Boko Haram and blaming each other for the mass
kidnap of school girls.
Some went even further saying that the whole Chibok
saga was a “scam” used for internal political games. This claim did
not remain unnoticed and was followed by the protests during
which the confused people demanded truth.
Ahead of the 2015 general elections, the tension is growing with
every single day and everything looks and seems politicized.
4. We have lost faith in the eloquent words like
“negotiations”, “talks” and “ceasefire”
While we do try to cherish the hope, the meaning of these words has
altered in our minds.
For months we had been hearing from various sources that the
government was holding talks with Boko Haram commanders regarding the
girls’ release. Several times it was provided that the Nigerian
authorities and the insurgents allegedly agreed on the conditions of
the “swap deal”.
But every time the deal for some reason failed and every such failure
was traced by mutual allegations and accusations.
The October 17 so-called ceasefire agreement, which also
stipulated for Chibok girls release, was followed by several ghastly
attacks and Shekau’s video, in which he dismissed holding any talks with
the Nigerian government.
5. As sad as it can be… we have become united by the common
grief
Looking in the eyes of the girls’ parents, who wake up and go to
sleep with one and the same thought every single day, we feel helpless,
vulnerable and unprotected.
The whole country is grieving with Chibok community and the
children’s families. We got united by pain and fear. And by the national
prayer, which is …
Dear Lord, Bring Back Our Girls.
Singapore’s highest court on Wednesday dismissed a constitutional
challenge against an archaic law criminalising sex between men, striking
a fresh blow to the city-state’s growing gay-rights movement.
The Court of Appeal upheld rulings by lower courts that it was up to Parliament to repeal the provision in the penal code, known as Section 377A.
“Whilst we understand the deeply held personal feelings of the appellants, there is nothing that this court can do to assist them,” judges Andrew Phang, Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li said in a written verdict.
“Their remedy lies, if at all, in the legislative sphere,” the judges said.
The ruling addressed two separate challenges to the law.
One was by Tan Eng Hong, who was arrested after being caught with a male partner in a public toilet cubicle in 2010, while the other was filed by a gay couple.
The judges said they only considered “legal arguments” and not “extra-legal considerations and matters of social policy which were outside the remit of the court”.
According to the judges, examples of extra-legal arguments put forward by the appellants’ lawyers included that Section 377A represented “the tyranny of the majority” and that the sexual conduct of their clients caused no harm to others.
However judges said such arguments were not for the courts to consider
In a statement, Tan’s lawyer M. Ravi said the judgment was a “huge step backwards for human rights in Singapore”.
Ravi added that it was “disturbing” that “the Supreme Court has now thrown this issue back to Parliament, when other Commonwealth countries have struck down this legislation as discriminatory and (an) absurd relic of the colonial past”.
Section 377A, first introduced in 1938 by British colonial administrators, carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail for homosexual acts.
The law states: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”
Alhough Section 377A is not actively enforced, the government has said it should stay on the books because most Singaporeans are conservative and do not accept homosexuality.
A scientific survey conducted by researchers at the Nanyang Technological University in 2010 and published last year found Singaporeans’ views towards homosexuality gradually becoming more positive compared to attitudes in 2005.
The study found religion a major factor determining attitudes towards homosexuals, with Muslims and Christians being the most negative.
But the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights movement is growing steadily in Singapore, one of the world’s wealthiest and most modern cities.
Over 20,000 people gathered in a peaceful rally supporting gay rights last June despite a fierce online campaign against the event by conservative Muslims and Christians.
Please share your thoughts in the comment box below
The Court of Appeal upheld rulings by lower courts that it was up to Parliament to repeal the provision in the penal code, known as Section 377A.
“Whilst we understand the deeply held personal feelings of the appellants, there is nothing that this court can do to assist them,” judges Andrew Phang, Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li said in a written verdict.
“Their remedy lies, if at all, in the legislative sphere,” the judges said.
The ruling addressed two separate challenges to the law.
One was by Tan Eng Hong, who was arrested after being caught with a male partner in a public toilet cubicle in 2010, while the other was filed by a gay couple.
The judges said they only considered “legal arguments” and not “extra-legal considerations and matters of social policy which were outside the remit of the court”.
According to the judges, examples of extra-legal arguments put forward by the appellants’ lawyers included that Section 377A represented “the tyranny of the majority” and that the sexual conduct of their clients caused no harm to others.
However judges said such arguments were not for the courts to consider
In a statement, Tan’s lawyer M. Ravi said the judgment was a “huge step backwards for human rights in Singapore”.
Ravi added that it was “disturbing” that “the Supreme Court has now thrown this issue back to Parliament, when other Commonwealth countries have struck down this legislation as discriminatory and (an) absurd relic of the colonial past”.
Section 377A, first introduced in 1938 by British colonial administrators, carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail for homosexual acts.
The law states: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”
Alhough Section 377A is not actively enforced, the government has said it should stay on the books because most Singaporeans are conservative and do not accept homosexuality.
A scientific survey conducted by researchers at the Nanyang Technological University in 2010 and published last year found Singaporeans’ views towards homosexuality gradually becoming more positive compared to attitudes in 2005.
The study found religion a major factor determining attitudes towards homosexuals, with Muslims and Christians being the most negative.
But the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights movement is growing steadily in Singapore, one of the world’s wealthiest and most modern cities.
Over 20,000 people gathered in a peaceful rally supporting gay rights last June despite a fierce online campaign against the event by conservative Muslims and Christians.