Who Is Interested in the Rights of Nigerien Homosexuals?

According to a recent news report, Niger, located in West Africa, has criminalized same-sex relationships. As a result, people who engage in homosexual activity can be sentenced to up to ten years in prison and fined.

In addition, the law states that attempting to engage in "LGBTQ acts" may be punished in the same way. And that is not all: participating in the activities of organizations representing sexual and gender minorities can also result in an equally severe punishment.

* * *

The reason given for the new law is that same-sex relationships are not in line with the country's social and cultural values. It remains to be seen, therefore, how various European organizations and civil society activists will react to Niger's values and culture.

Will we see rainbow activists demonstrating in the streets of Helsinki, Stockholm, Berlin, or Paris in support of homosexual people in Niger? Will European politicians condemn the actions of Niger's government? Or will Nigeriens themselves rise up against the country's military regime as a result of the decision?

* * *

Personally, I believe that the plight of homosexual people in Niger is of little real interest to Europeans. Neither politicians nor rainbow activists are likely to be motivated to protest over the issue.

For my part, I maintain that a person's sexuality is a private matter and should concern no one other than the individuals involved, provided that it does not involve violence, coercion, or exploitation. This principle applies equally in the European Union and in Niger, and for that reason I wish to express my disapproval of the actions of the country's military government.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Library Scrubs Queer Creator’s Character from Moomin Exhibit

Is Female Genital Mutilation a Lesser Crime Than Rape?

The Finnish police have launched the first preliminary investigations into the genital mutilation of girls taking place within well-known immigrant communities. Hopefully, the cases will be clarified and those responsible will be punished.

According to a news report on the matter, a person guilty of mutilating girls’ genitals — that is, so-called circumcision — may be sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one to ten years. In other words, the scale is quite broad.

For my part, I would hope that the courts eventually handling the first cases will be up to their task and refrain from applying the lowest penalties on the scale. I justify this by noting that, according to the law, even basic-form rape must result in a custodial sentence of at least one year — and surely no reasonable person can consider the permanent damage of a woman’s genitals to be a lesser act than their forced use?

It is therefore also necessary to question the reasoning of lawmakers — that is, ministers and members of parliament — who have implicitly written into law the view that causing permanent bodily harm would be equivalent to causing temporary harm. This despite the fact that rape also has lasting and serious psychological consequences — but does not mutilation, which is considered particularly brutal violence, have many times more such consequences? And does the fact that it is typically inflicted on girls of growing age not make circumcision even more condemnable?

If I were a lawmaker myself, I would have started the penalty scale for mutilation from where it ends for ordinary rapes. I would also have added to the law the deportation of the parent or parents who decided on the mutilation, if they are not native Finns. After all, the intentional damage of genital organs is an act that demonstrates complete disregard for the values and legislation of Finnish society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women