Sandy Banks on Gang Rape and Violence

"The rape -- and the troubling indifference by student witnesses -- are the product of long-simmering immorality, indulgence and insensitivity."








Dear friends,

The issue of violence against women continues with no mention of the pandemic level of both physical and mental health ills, in both our society and the world at large, that allow this form of violence, the world's most serious problem, to proliferate.

Meanwhile, with all of the talk about violence, it is not uncommon to hear a young girl say, "I like my man with a little thug in him." Is that mentality not a violent one? Of course, that type of nonsense comes from the so-called "hip-hop" music genre (which should not be confused with "rap").

About what is all of this really? For example, one person was quoted as saying, ""We live in a world where too many people try to do whatever they can get away with". But there's something much more pernicious going on here. It is: Because the "market" controls what and how people get whatever it is that they either need or want, then all economic/social relations are based upon power and greed, especially sexual. Greed, of course, is "short-sighted", in as much as greedy people are only concerned with "now" - not the future.

Moreover, there is no sense of "community" anywhere in this country. And so, "economic" violence can be seen when we have a government that spends most of its assets on "bailouts" for big banks and big companies, while millions of citizens go without opportinoties for work, housing, or health care.

In any case, on the link below, one of North America's premier journalists, Sandy Banks of the Los Angeles Times, helps us keep things in perspective, regarding how we analyze horrific incidents like gang rape.

Cheers!.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks7-2009nov07,0,427613.column
Read full post

Dr. Ndibe on Anamdra and Andy Uba

"If Uba believes in anything, he’s demonstrated that it’s in the rule of cash. As I have written elsewhere, the man simply doesn’t accept that a man with his stash of cash should take no for an answer."




"The Andy Uba threat"
By Okey Ndibe

All enlightened Nigerians, not just those from Anambra State, ought to be disturbed by Andy Uba’s effort to reduce the Nigerian judiciary to a laughing stock.

In a mere three days, the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal will give its ruling on Uba’s application to be declared Anambra’s “governor-in-waiting.” There’s no question that most Nigerians wish that the court would do the right thing: send Uba away with his absurd fantasies.

Mr. Uba’s hired hands and political apologists argue that the man’s serial expeditions to law courts in pursuit of his illicit governorship dreams prove that he is a staunch believer in the rule of law. Nothing is further from the truth. If Uba believes in anything, he’s demonstrated that it’s in the rule of cash. As I have written elsewhere, the man simply doesn’t accept that a man with his stash of cash should take no for an answer.

A man who respects the rule of law would have recognized that the Supreme Court has the last say as far as legal disputes go in Nigeria. It was the nation’s highest court that dethroned Uba from the Anambra gubernatorial stool. Uba had usurped the office in May 2007, after an election that international observers singled out to illustrate the widespread fraud and perfidy that a shameless electoral commission passed off as an election.

In a report focusing on Uba’s campaign of terror, Human Rights Watch provided gruesome details of the young casualties of Uba’s desperate, do-and-die quest for the governorship.

In ordering Uba’s immediate removal from Government House, the Supreme Court justly chastised Maurice Iwu’s electoral commission for going ahead with an ostensible election in Anambra when the commission knew that incumbent Governor Peter Obi had not served out his tenure.

As judicial verdicts go, the one that banished Uba from office was handed down in plain, clear language. Yet, Uba was either too impervious to get it – or allowed his arrogant disdain for principled people to blind him to the finality of the judgment.

Who’s to blame him? Uba is, after all, one of the most adept graduates of former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s brand of statecraft, marked by duplicity, hypocrisy and unseemly wheeling and dealing. So he told himself, poor fellow with more questionable cash than sense, that the justices must be amenable to changing their minds. Twice, he made the trip back to the Supreme Court to persuade its justices to rethink their decision. Twice, they sent him away empty handed.

For any sensible person, the first ruling would have been enough. For most people, a second rejection would have sufficed as a loud and clear message. Even for most of Nigeria’s money-miss-roaders, a third no would have been more than enough.

Not, alas, for Mr. Uba! After the Supreme Court’s last drubbing – complete with a sharp rebuke directed at his lawyers – Uba issued a statement to the effect that he wasn’t prepared to let the apex court have the last say in the matter. Many people laughed off his statement as the hollow boasts of a defeated man.

Lo and behold, this man was not joking after all. His next stop was at the Court of Appeal, armed with a bizarre petition to be declared a governor in hibernation.

Nigerians watched, amazed, as the court agreed to entertain a case they should have tossed away. Last week, as speculations spread that the court was on the verge of obliging Uba, I called several Nigerian lawyers. I asked whether they knew of any sound legal doctrine that could sustain a case to put Uba into an office he knows he didn’t win in 2007, and can’t win in any credible election? Not one of the five lawyers I asked could come up with anything. One of them assured me that Uba’s was a mission impossible, “unless the justices of the Court of Appeal have chosen to play magicians.”

What would it take for Uba to convince the justices to become conjurers of legal magic? What would it take to goad five justices into a ruling that, in the words of another lawyer, would amount to “declaring war on the Supreme Court”?

Governor-in-waiting? The term itself sounds absurd. What manner of legal somersaulting would it take to stretch the Nigerian constitution in order to accommodate an idea so facile, pathetic and comical?

It’s bad enough that Uba is seeking to put the Court of Appeal on a collision course with the Supreme Court. Far more dangerous is the fact that his game – financed with the incredible wealth he reportedly amassed while serving Obasanjo’s domestic needs – is an attempt to trick the judiciary into pursuing a war against Nigerians.

Think about it for a moment. Nigerians – not just the people of Anambra – erupted in a spontaneous spree of celebration when the Supreme Court sacked Uba on June 14, 2007. I recall a telephone call from a man in Kaduna who told me that Uba’s dethronement was a victory for all Nigerians. Why was that event seen in that light? For one, because Uba epitomizes the worst excesses of Obasanjo’s morally decrepit administration.

Uba’s profile is a study in fraud. Though without a first degree, Uba has been parading himself in Nigeria as the holder of a doctorate. He was a struggling businessman in California before Obasanjo invited him to join his administration on a lowly capacity. Yet, after eight years with Obasanjo, Uba is now widely believed to be one of the wealthiest Nigerians. How did he make all that money?

That’s one question Nigerians, including judges, ought to be asking. The failure to probe the source of Uba’s legendary wealth remains a huge question mark in Nuhu Ribadu’s record as chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. If there’s any Nigerian who still doesn’t understand why the culture of mindless corrupt enrichment threatens the body politic, that person should take a hard look at Uba’s career.

Specifically, Nigerians who understand that a principled and fearless judiciary is essential to the germination of a democratic culture ought to worry that one man’s inordinate ambition threatens to put wrinkles on the image of the judiciary. For as far as Uba and his coterie are concerned, his wish (to become Anambra governor) must be the command of the judiciary.

Andy Uba knows – he’s no fool, really – that he’s widely unpopular in Anambra, which explains why he’s scared as hell to present himself as a candidate in a credible election. It’s easier to wheel and deal and have himself smuggled into office.

Uba’s hirelings went on a blitz when former Biafran leader, Mr. Emeka Ojukwu, warned that Uba’s imposition on Anambra could precipitate war. The political prostitutes who censured Ojukwu are so contemptible they deserve no direct response. Whether Ojukwu will lead a war or not is hardly the issue.

On Friday, the justices of the Court of Appeal have a simple choice to make. One hopes that they decide to be faithful to the Nigerian constitution and people, and rebuff any temptation to invite ridicule on the institution they represent.

Those who hover around Uba like vultures ought to advise him that, if he wants to become a governor, he should peel off his mask, explain his pedigree (including the source of his certificates as well as wealth), and stand in an election that counts.


Read full post