₦airaland Forum

it is okay for a gay to call a straight person an idiot and a fool but it's not okay if a straight person uses the word gay to no one in particular,
if only i was a well known celebrity, i will be so homophobic it will become fashionable,

Aussie swimmer Rice ripped for tweet Stephanie Rice's tweet supporting Australia's rugby union team wasn't very ladylike.

Fox SportsThe Daily Telegraph, NewsCore
PRINT RSS   Updated Sep 6, 2010 12:18 AM ET
Top Australian swimmer Stephanie Rice was slammed after a posting a homophobic slur on her Twitter page, The (Sydney) Daily Telegraph reported Monday.

Rice, one of the sport's glamor girls, posted a message after Australia's rugby union team, the Wallabies, defeated South Africa's side the Springboks in Bloemfontein Saturday.

The Olympic gold medal winner tweeted: "Suck on that f**gots," adding; "Probs the best game I've ever seen!! Well done boys".

The comment, which Rice later removed, triggered a furious reaction from openly gay former Australian rugby league player, Ian Roberts.

"She is an idiot and anyone who continues to endorse her as an athlete is an idiot as well," Roberts said.

"And I say that with a very sad tone in my voice. What a fool."

Acknowledging the comment, Rice told the Telegraph in an email: "I made a comment on Twitter last night in the excitement of the moment.

"I did not mean to cause offence and I apologise. I have deleted it from the site."

Roberts, one of a handful of openly gay athletes and a devoted gay-rights advocate, said it was "inexcusable."

"It's never acceptable to belittle gay people."

Last month Rice was linked with one of the players in the Wallabies team, flyhalf Quade Cooper.

It was reported the couple were regularly in contact as he provided comfort from South Africa following her announcement that she would miss the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in October because a chronic shoulder injury requires surgery.

[b]WHERE ARE THE PICTURES?[/b]

Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear
Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out “gay marriages” in church, leading figures have warned.

By Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake
Published: 10:00PM GMT 03 Mar 2010

Traditionalist bishops and peers fear that vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they turn down requests to hold civil partnerships on religious premises.

Their concerns have been raised following a landmark vote by peers that will allow the ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in places of worship for the first time.

It is also feared that the changes would blur the line further between marriage - which churches say must be between a man and a woman - and civil partnerships.

It comes after a Government drive to outlaw bias against minority groups such as homosexuals in the Equality Bill.

Until now civil partnerships, which entitle same-sex couples to the same legal rights of married spouses, have been restricted to register offices and secular venues such as hotels and stately homes.

But under an amendment to the Equality Bill tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Alli, a homosexual Labour peer, the ban on the events taking place on religious premises will be lifted.

The amendment states that national faith groups will not be forced to carry out civil partnerships.

But it is feared that same-sex couples would be able to use the protection from discrimination guaranteed - under the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act - to take legal action against individual clergy in their parish if they refuse to “marry” them in a local church.

The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, said: “I believe that it will open, not the Church of England, but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnise marriages as they all do, but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches. Unless the Government does something explicit about this, I believe that is the next step.”

The Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Rev David James, warned during the debate of the “unintended consequences” of the move.

He said that although it was being presented to “simply be an available option” to some religious groups, he was “not so confident” that it would remain that way.

Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, said: “If this amendment were carried, it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.”

In an argument backed by Lord Tebbit, he said that a clergyman “prepared to register marriages but not to register civil partnerships would be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services and pressure would be brought to bear on him to pocket his principles and do what he believed to be wrong”.

Lord Waddington said “without doubt there would be the risk of costly litigation” under the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act.

Last night Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, which represents thousands of churches across Britain, said: “We understand the Lords’ desire to allow a few liberal religious groups to have freedom to follow their consciences. But neither must other religious groups be forced to betray their consciences by facing lawsuits if they fail to allow a civil ceremony.”

Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, homosexual couples are allowed to hold civil partnership ceremonies in register offices and approved venues such as stately homes and hotels, but they were banned from doing so in churches while the events were not allowed to be religious in character.

In the amendment to Harriet Harman’s controversial Equality Bill tabled by Lord Alli late on Monday night, the ban on religious premises was lifted. It was passed on a free vote by 95 to 21, with only two of the bishops – the Lords Spiritual – taking part.

The amendment stated: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”

But the fear is that the protection from discrimination in the 'provision of goods or services' guaranteed in the Equality Bill will mean that homosexuals could take legal action against clergy who refused to hold the ceremonies in their church.

Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We have seen countless cases where, as a result of similar sorts of legislation, religious adoption agencies have been forced to close and Christians have been forced out of their jobs for acting according to their beliefs.

“This amendment was brought in by a few peers literally at the 11th hour – at 10.59pm – with no proper debate, and yet it fundamentally changes the very nature of civil partnerships.

“There is no doubt that the homosexual lobby will now test it: they will apply for ceremonies in churches and when the minister refuses they will challenge him under the law.

"This is a further blurring of the definition of civil partnerships, which are becoming equivalent to marriage and churches are being forced to treat them as such."

Mike Judge of the Christian Institute echoed fears that the amendment could leave clergy facing costly law suits.

"We are very concerned about this and it’s a very alarming proposal," he said. "Even if this amendment says on the face of it that it only applies to those who choose to perform civil partnerships, that will not end up being the case and clergy will end up facing very costly legal bills in order to defend themselves against law suits.

"The Government has failed to understand the nature of religious liberty and has treated faith as nothing more than a matter of personal devotion. Now Christians feel let down and ignored. This is another step in the process of trying to force religions groups to abandon their core beliefs."

The amendment has yet to be approved in the Commons and Baroness Royall, the leader of the Lords, warned it would "not work in practice", by blurring the line between marriage and civil partnerships.

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: "Baroness Royall made the Government's position clear during the debate; we're now considering our position and deciding what steps to take next."

The move has been welcomed by equality campaigners, however.

Liberal Jews said they hoped to hold the first-ever civil partnership in a synagogue, while Quakers and Unitarians also want to hold the ceremonies on their premises.

Rabbi Aaron Goldstein, Joint Chair of the Rabbinic Conference of Liberal Judaism, said: “We are delighted that our synagogues are now able to host civil partnerships at the same time as same-sex commitment blessings. It is another step towards full equality for gay men and lesbians. My community is looking forward to being able to celebrate its first ever Jewish spiritual blessing together with the English legal ceremony, and to enjoying the whole simcha onsite.”

Peter Tatchell, the veteran campaigner for gay rights, said: “"Our next goal is to secure marriage equality, to end the prohibition on lesbian and gay couples having a civil marriage in a registry office.”

The National Secular Society claimed that bishops opposed the move because of their fears that it will worsen the divide within the Church of England over homosexuality. Blessings of civil partnerships are not allowed in Anglican churches but liberal clergy want this to change.

The NSS’s executive director, Keith Porteous Wood, said: “Could [the bishops’] concern be a selfish one, that when this becomes law many of its own vicars and congregations will carry out these ceremonies regardless of episcopal strictures, leading to schism on yet another front?”

Neil Addison, a barrister specialising in religious discrimination cases, said: "As the Law now stands Churches and Synangogues that are registered to conduct Marriages could easily find themselves being sued for discrimination if they do not register to conduct Civil Partnerships.

"Local Authorities could also refuse to grant or renew marriage authorisation to Churches and Synangogues that do not also apply for Civil Partnership authorisation. The Government should add a new amendment to the Equality Act to make it crystal clear that there is no legal requirement for religious organisations or officials who perform mariages to perform civil partnerships also."

Shoot2Kill:
Nope , just a gun lover

certainly not based in Naija,
we don't have gun lovers here.
we have gun users,
what purpose would the civil defense serve?[b][/b]

they should kuku give federal road safety guns too so they can act as highway patrols and customs.
they should also give traffic wardens guns to gun down traffic offenders.[color=#006600][/color]

SOME RESPONSES BY THE PUBLIC, [color=#006600][/color]

Fred
03.02.2010 10:26
I honestly don\'t get it. These people who call themselves law makers are out to make sure the looting continues. How can a group of scouts be allowed to carry guns we can hardly survive the police and the JTF and more illiterates are added to the list of internal terrorist. Someone should do something or we won\'t have a say in this country anymore

sylvester nomji
03.02.2010 10:24
This is unnecessary waste of resources. is it not enough that armed policemen and soldiers kill innocent Nigerians at will on a daily basis? Must we add the Civil defence to list of available killers? This is nonsense.

Ezeamama Anthony
03.02.2010 10:05
This is absolute madness.I see no reason why these men should bear arms.They should rather work hand in hand with the Police vigilante groups do. I can assure you that if you leave these men with arms.They will defintely abuse it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

‘Civil Defence Corps Now to Carry Arms’
From Kingsley Nwezeh in Abuja, 03.02.2010

Baring any further hitches, the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) would this year begin to carry arms in line with its mandate to complement the activities of other security agencies.
NSCDC, a para-military agency of the Federal Government was established to provide measures against threat and any form of attack or disaster on the nation and its citizenry. It is statutorily empowered by Act No. 2 of 2003 and amended by Act 6 of June, 2007.

Speaking on the occasion of the World Civil Defence Day held in Abuja yesterday, Minister of Interior, Alhaji Shettima Mustapha, said the internal security of the nation was of utmost importance and as such all measures would be put in place to ensure internal security.
This is coming on a day the House of Representatives said with the inclusion of the provision for the procurement of arms in the 2010 Appropriation Act, the organisation would be in a position to carry arms this year.

Mustapha, who spoke through the new Permanent Secretary in the Ministry, Mrs Dara Awosika, said ensuring the internal security of the nation was imperative if the external security of the nation would be guaranteed.
“If you do not protect the internal security of the country, you cannot talk about the external”, she said, noting that the preparedness of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps to collaborate with other security agencies depicted its readiness to assume its statutory functions including to carry arms in a safe manner.

Speaking in the same vein, a member of the House of Representatives Committee on Interior, Honourable Austin Nwachukwu, said the issue of arms for the NSCDC was already captured in the 2010 Budget and would soon be made available to the corps.

“In the 2010 Budget, arms for the agency was captured and is already provided for and you will soon have it”, he said, noting that other demands of organisation were being considered and would be adequately addressed.

In his remarks, Commandant-General of the Corps, Ade Abolurin, who showcased anti-vandalism, counter-terrorism equipment and other activities of the organisation, also noted that as soon as arms were made available to the organisation, it would be in a better position to discharge its responsibilities.

HORROR ON LAGOS - BENIN EXPRESSWAY!!

Man's inhumanity to man. A bus was ambushed by armed robbers, the passengers were robbed and raped, those that had nothing to give were asked to lie down on the road face down and the driver on gun point was commanded by the robbers to drive the bus over them!!!!

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A 2004 model.
more like 2002 or 2003
read below to view the difference btw the 04' and earlier models

"The 2004 model features dual tail pipes instead of the single pipe in earlier models, side curtain airbags, new head lights and tail lights, and new wheels. Some chrome trimmings on the 2004 model use matte finish to distinguish from the polished shiny finish on earlier models."