Sagamite:


[s]You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Product of a failed education system.[/s]

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

[s]What kind of fuukard is this?

And your moronic arsse would say "I am a graduate"? [/s]

Fuuktard, I am smarter than the cretins that drafted that stewpid law and your entire generation put together.

You think I think in the realms of moronic fuuktards like you?

Didn't I say that this boy has serious complex issues?
You're smarter than them all put together, and yet no one sees your name and face plastered on newspapers and TV.
Why haven't you started your own country on that account? Wait let me guess, your 18hrs a day job doesn't pay enough...yes?

If you think being smart means travelling via the Sahara and then stuffed in a canoe with 100s of your sagamu brothers to cross into Europe, then you surely need a reboot...

Mutaino7:
as usual slaying retarded and half wit opinions nah ur forte....hence they avoid you like epilepsy.

it's baffling that a lot of people cannot actually interpret the law. take for instance....bestiality is completely legal in the following american states.......alabama, arkansas, hawaii, kentucky, montana, nevada, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexico, ohio, texas, vermont, virginia, west virginia, one of the washington states and wyoming.

now, does this necessarily mean the constitution of these states said humans should go out there and start shägging animals? hell no. however, their constitution forgot or deliberately ignored to make provisions for anyone caught fücking animals and therefore there's no law/punishment provided to prosecute anyone caught committing the act of bestiality.

in other words, bestiality is legal in these states!

Onegai:


While I freely admit that Nigeria has a lot of archaic and discriminatory laws against women, your case above is actually... very common to a lot of countries.

I hate myself for giving a point to Nairaland Association of Small Boy Misogynists but...

Most countries require the consent from both parents in issuing a passport to a child. It serves to protect each party from the other parent getting a passport and taking the child out of the country without consent aka Abduction.

I'm a US citizen, Baby E is a US citizen but she needed a letter of consent from her Nigerian father to apply for a US passport. As long as he wasn't present when I was applying, he needed to swear an affidavit that I had his permission that she could get a US passport. She needed both our signatures to apply for a Nigerian visa.

My dear, I agree with you. The problem with the NIS law is that only women require permission. Men don't require the same permission from the mother.

Sagamite:


No, my views are not from a "modern or so-called 21st Century lens".

I am not funky. I will never be funky. Neither am I medieval. I will never be medieval.

This is coming from the realms of Intellectual and Logical Thinking. The glorious Thinking where gender equality is supported and it actually means equality, not women getting advantage.

If there are laws based on the premise of any burden or expectations on a man, solely because of his gender, then that law is sexist.

For example, I know in the UK, it is the law that the burden to get consent is solely placed on the shoulder of the man. I find that as sexist.

I am sure I have even read somewhere that a wife sued a man in Nigeria for not providing for her and the court took the case. That is sexist.

In my philosophy, both parents should provide for their child, not just the man, based on REASONABLE needs and divided based on proportion of earnings. Furthermore, there should be a mechanism to ensure the money is actually being spent on the child by the parent acting as custodian of the child.

We are not deliberating your beliefs, just what this particular portion ot the Nigerian constitutions says - in context. It was sexist to both men and women - if you are viewing things from that perspective. It was peculiar to that era and the antecedents of the constitution.

Sagamite:

I rail against divorce laws because, in the UK, the laws are sexist against men. In Nigeria, the laws are sexist against women.

But the plaintive cry of this thread is how women are institutionallly/legally discriminated against in Nigeria and the world over

Sagamite:

I repeat, laws should not be formulated based on premises that disadvantages, directly or indirectly, ANY GENDER. That is my stance on gender equality.

Again, that is your position, not necessarily the focus here, but needless to say, promulgating laws through a "gendered" lens, sounds somewhat "funky" to me. I would personally opt for a more holistic, what better serves all round" approach.

Sagamite:

We can't continue practicing stupidity based on the excuse "It was given to us under colonial times". (not saying that is your own stance)

As much as I call black people monkeys, I still believe we have a little bit of brain. Lets use it!

With hindsight, the whole world practices stupidity - laws are being enacted and repealed everywhere and all the time. Hence my noting that we are all "evolving", for "better or worse". IN 50 years time what is considered right now, may well be considered dated then.

Sagamite:

All forms of discrimination, in ANY part of the world has to be reversed.

Equality should be the premise the law is based on.

Discrimination is what humans live and die by every minute of every day. And some forms of discrimination are perfectly and legally appropriate. In marrying my wife, I discriminated against all the other candidates - ok, there was just one and we were too closely related !

If you buy a Benz, you discriminate against Jaguar, BMW and all the others, if you choose to live in Chelsea, you are hating on Dagenham.

When, and by whom was "Equality" decided to be the underpinning of the law. And even if you don't mean in the new-age sense of the word, equality means to treat things similarly situated or all aspect alike the same under the law. It doesn't mean the use of the law to "equalise" things that are in purpose, design, function or outcome quantitavely different.

Sagamite:

If 2 people then get together and decide, to create "harmony", they want to practice some form of non-equality, then fine.

I, for one, would never practice equality in my relationship. I am the BOSS, if any girl does not like it, she is free to take a hike!

https://www.nairaland.com/1020560/relative-spouse-beaten-brother-in-law-story/9#11937820

I should not be able to force her to take it and the law should not back me to force her to take it. But we should both have the choice to decide if that is what we individually want or not.

"Choice is one of the great ingredients of happiness" - Sagamite 2015.

The law does not intrude on relationships - unless you willingly place yourself under a relationship defined by law.


TV

crackhaus:

Didn't I say that this boy has serious complex issues?
You're smarter than them all put together, and yet no one sees your name and face plastered on newspapers and TV.
Why haven't you started your own country on that account? Wait let me guess, your 18hrs a day job doesn't pay enough...yes?

If you think being smart means travelling via the Sahara and then stuffed in a canoe with 100s of your sagamu brothers to cross into Europe, then you surely need a reboot...

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Fuuktard, do cretins like you even read newspapers?

To demonstrate how moronic you are, do you even know my real name to know whether it is not plastered on newspapers and TV?

Does people with high intellect necessarily have their names plastered on newspapers and TV?

Or you just want to tell us that geniuses to you are the Kardashians?

Fuuktard, so confirmation of intelligence is "starting your own country"?

Cretinous fuuktard, I repeat:

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

Fuuktard, do you know the meaning of naturally?

You scared now? YOU FCKING SCARED?


Mutaino7, can you see how easy it is for me to destroy this your moronic hero?

Sagamite:


[s]You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Product of a failed education system.

I repeat:

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

Fuuktard, do you know the meaning of naturally?

Was this another work of Sheppopotamus Patience?[/s]

Sheppopotamus Patience with all her lack of finese reached and achieved what you, your family, ancestors, and generations combined have/will never achieve.

Don't hate on your betters b1tch, use that sh1t of a brain and become the next Albert Einstein if he were a FOB immigrant sagamu boy.

Do you know the meaning of fvcktard? Is it even a word?

coogar:


i fail to see any sort of discrimination myself. the OP said.... The Constitution provides in Section 26(2) that a woman who is or has been married to a citizen of Nigeria may be registered as a citizen of Nigeria, but silent as to whether a woman married to a foreign national can confer Nigerian nationality on her foreign husband.

the silence is actually an advantage to the nigerian women cos when there's no law, there's no crime. if the constitution remains silent over an issue it then means if any woman were to marry a foreign national, nothing can stop her from conferring the nigerian citizenship on her foreign husband since the law does not expressively say she has committed a crime if she were to do so.

where's the discrimination in that? since when did the nigerian passport even bear any relevance in the grand scheme of things. 3 of my oyibo friends got the nigerian passport the same day in lagos. there was no rigorous check done or anything. they rubbed palms, they were made to wait for few hours & their passports were issued to them.

mcchewwww!

I actually thought the same thing. I thought the law being silence meant women could confer citizenship to their foreign husband but obviously from things happening around us and the the fact that that law has actually been tested in court made me believe otherwise.

The validity of this section in the light of section 42 of the constitution, the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, [CEDAW] have been tested in the Nigerian case of Vayola Sears and Another V. Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and Another [suit no. FHC/L/CS/547/2003]

In that case a couple, Mrs. Vayola Sears[a Nigerian] and her American, husband Mr. Kenneth Sears sued the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice together with the Minister for Internal Affairs, praying court for a declaration, among others that section 26 of the constitution which denied Mrs.Sears right to confer citizenship by marriage on her husband, was violative of her right to freedom from discrimination.

However, in a judgment delivered on July 25 2004, Justice Mustapha Abdullahi of the Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, refused the prayer, the court held that the provision of the section 26 of the constitution was superior to the provision of the African Charter and the CEDAW and therefore would stand

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/usaafricadialogue/Ua8I-ZSZKJ0

Onegai:


While I freely admit that Nigeria has a lot of archaic and discriminatory laws against women, your case above is actually... very common to a lot of countries.

I hate myself for giving a point to Nairaland Association of Small Boy Misogynists but...

Most countries require the consent from both parents in issuing a passport to a child. It serves to protect each party from the other parent getting a passport and taking the child out of the country without consent aka Abduction.

I'm a US citizen, Baby E is a US citizen but she needed a letter of consent from her Nigerian father to apply for a US passport. As long as he wasn't present when I was applying, he needed to swear an affidavit that I had his permission that she could get a US passport. She needed both our signatures to apply for a Nigerian visa.

Sorry dear, they didn't require my consent before giving my children their passports. They only need to know that at least one of the parents Is from that country which they are applying.in as much as we had all the birth certificate et all, there is no " I consent my baby having this nationality". It's their birth right to have it.
If they were travelling out that might count but not acquiring the passport . The passport is their identity . Traveling out of the country under the age of 18 is another thing that BOTH parents need to approve .

TV01:

We are not deliberating your beliefs, just what this particular portion ot the Nigerian constitutions says - in context. It was sexist to both men and women - if you are viewing things from that perspective. It was peculiar to that era and the antecedents of the constitution.

Well we are suppose to be delibrating sense, correctness, progress and improvements.

Things my beliefs always stand for. Hence we ARE indirectly deliberating my beliefs.

The constitution's aim was to see women as an inferior human with inferior rights, so it was aimed to be sexist against WOMEN.

It being perculiar to the era does not make it right.

It does not make it sensible, correct, progressive and apt. It is against my beliefs, hence it is OBVIOUSLY completely wrong.

Why? Because I am always right!

TV01:

But the plaintive cry of this thread is how women are institutionallly/legally discriminated against in Nigeria and the world over

Yes, they are.

Unfortunately, many mooorons that want to change this think the solution is to reverse the discrimination.

TV01:

Again, that is your position, not necessarily the focus here, but needless to say, promulgating laws through a "gendered" lens, sounds somewhat "funky" to me. I would personally opt for a more holistic, what better serves all round" approach.

That is the right, sensible, progressive and most appropriate position.

A position of equality and giving each individual the right to control and decide their destiny.

TV01:

With hindsight, the whole world practices stupidity - laws are being enacted and repealed everywhere and all the time. Hence my noting that we are all "evolving", for "better or worse". IN 50 years time what is considered right now, may well be considered dated then.

That is why the world needs people like me with foresight, so hindsight becomes largely redundant.

TV01:

Discrimination is what humans live and die by every minute of every day. And some forms of discrimination are perfectly and legally appropriate. In marrying my wife, I discriminated against all the other candidates - ok, there was just one and we were too closely related !

If you buy a Benz, you discriminate against Jags and all the others, if you choose to live in Chelsea, you are hating on Dagenham.

Don't confuse "choice" with "discrimination".

TV01:

When, and by whom was "Equality" decided to be the underpinning of the law. And even if you don't mean in the new-age sense of the word, equality means to treat things similarly situated or all aspect alike the same under the law. It doesn;t mean the use of the law to "equalise" things that are in purpose, design, function or outcome quantitavely different.



The law does not intrude on relationships - unless you willingly place yourself under a relationship defined by law.


TV

It is the fair and most objective way to underpin a law. So 'when it was decided' is irrelevant.

It is sensible, correct, progressive and apt.

Sagamite:


[s]
You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Fuuktard, do cretins like you even read newspapers?

To demonstrate how moronic you are, do you even know my real name to know whether it is not plastered on newspapers and TV?

Does people with high intellect necessarily have their names plastered on newspapers and TV?

Or you just want to tell us that geniuses to you are the Kardashians?

Fuuktard, so confirmation of intelligence is "starting your own country"?

Cretinous fuuktard, I repeat:

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

Fuuktard, do you know the meaning of naturally?

You scared now? YOU FCKING SCARED?


Mutaino7, can you see how easy it is for me to destroy this your moronic hero?[/s]

Nigga, if you're smarter than those who drafted the constitution of a country, then you should be able to start your own country complete with your own Constitution, dvmbfvck...

Not that I expected you to understand that though...what an infant.

babygirlfl:

I actually thought the same thing. I thought the law being silence meant women could confer citizenship to their foreign husband but obviously from things happening around us and the the fact that that law has actually been tested in court made me believe otherwise.

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/usaafricadialogue/Ua8I-ZSZKJ0

i would have liked to read the entire details of this case before assuming a nigerian woman cannot confer her citizenship on a foreign husband. it sounds bizarre to me!

crackhaus:

Sheppopotamus Patience with all her lack of finese reached and achieved what you, your family, ancestors, and generations combined have/will never achieve.

Don't hate on your betters b1tch, use that sh1t of a brain and become the next Albert Einstein if he were a FOB immigrant sagamu boy.

Do you know the meaning of fvcktard? Is it even a word?

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

I knew a cretin like Patience would be an iconic hero to a cretinous fuuktard like you?

So Patience is an achiever in your reasoning?

Can you see why I said if you added your entire lineage's intelligence, you can never be as smart as I am?

Are you fcking shyting yourself right now?



Mutaino7, this cretin is your hero?

Watch how I will destroy this fuuktard!

babygirlfl:


Sorry madam chilli, my intentions were not to cause you a depressing Friday. I just wanted to create awareness on some ways women are discriminated. If my friend did not experience the same citizenship thing as you experienced, I would not even know about that law. My cousin who married a foreigner visits Nigeria with his wife and kids with their Nigerian passport. My friend has to apply for a visa for the husband. How is that fair?

Not fair but then again what do you expect from such society that even the law makers don't read the laws not to talk of amending them
Silly old illiterates parading themselves as honourable members of ...

crackhaus:

Nigga, if you're smarter than those who drafted the constitution of a country, then you should be able to start your own country complete with your own Constitution, dvmbfvck...

Not that I expected you to understand that though...what an infant.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Is that the "logical" progression Patience taught you?

Can you see that the failed education has destroyed your daft life?

Sagamite:



You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Fuuktard, do cretins like you even read newspapers?

To demonstrate how moronic you are, do you even know my real name to know whether it is not plastered on newspapers and TV?

Does people with high intellect necessarily have their names plastered on newspapers and TV?

Or you just want to tell us that geniuses to you are the Kardashians?

Fuuktard, so confirmation of intelligence is "starting your own country"?

Cretinous fuuktard, I repeat:

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

Fuuktard, do you know the meaning of naturally?

You scared now? YOU FCKING SCARED?


Mutaino7, can you see how easy it is for me to destroy this your moronic hero?

Ehn you landed a punch but this is 12 round bout bro....dont slack off coz a hook is on.................. the way... ELEMI LO MA LAST.

coogar:


i would have liked to read the entire details of this case before assuming a nigerian woman cannot confer her citizenship on a foreign husband. it sounds bizarre to me!

Please do you know how to get the details? I would like to read it too. Let me know how I can get my hands on it. Thanks.

Mutaino7:
Ehn you landed a punch but this is 12 round bout bro....dont slack off coz a hook is on.................. the way... ELEMI LO MA LAST.

There is no round in this, is is pure public flogging.

The only activity and outcome here is that I will pound this fuuktard's daft brain and he would be running from my flogging.

He is already running from defending his moronic statements. He knows that he is not up to it.

You would soon know you are daft for ever thinking such a cretin can step to me.

Sit the fck up and WATCH!

crackhaus:

Nigga, if you're smarter than those who drafted the constitution of a country, then you should be able to start your own country complete with your own Constitution, dvmbfvck...

Not that I expected you to understand that though...what an infant.

ahn ahn!!! its not fair

Sagamite:


No, my views are not from a "modern or so-called 21st Century lens".

I am not funky. I will never be funky. Neither am I medieval. I will never be medieval.

This is coming from the realms of Intellectual and Logical Thinking. The glorious Thinking where gender equality is supported and it actually means equality, not women getting advantage.

If there are laws based on the premise of any burden or expectations on a man, solely because of his gender, then that law is sexist.

For example, I know in the UK, it is the law that the burden to get consent for sex is solely placed on the shoulder of the man. I find that as sexist.

I am sure I have even read somewhere that a wife sued a man in Nigeria for not providing for her and the court took the case. That is sexist.

In my philosophy, both parents should provide for their child, not just the man, based on REASONABLE needs and divided based on proportion of earnings. Furthermore, there should be a mechanism to ensure the money is actually being spent on the child by the parent acting as custodian of the child.

I rail against divorce laws because, in the UK, the laws are sexist against men. In Nigeria, the laws are sexist against women.



I repeat, laws should not be formulated based on premises that disadvantages, directly or indirectly, ANY GENDER. That is my stance on gender equality.

When the opposite is done, sexism has taken place.



We can't continue practicing stupidity based on the excuse "It was given to us under colonial times". (not saying that is your own stance)

As much as I call black people monkeys, I still believe we have a little bit of brain. Lets use it!




All forms of discrimination, in ANY part of the world has to be reversed.

Equality should be the premise the law is based on.

If 2 people then get together and decide, to create "harmony", they want to practice some form of non-equality, then fine.

I, for one, would never practice equality in my relationship. I am the BOSS, if any girl does not like it, she is free to take a hike!

https://www.nairaland.com/1020560/relative-spouse-beaten-brother-in-law-story/9#11937820

I should not be able to force her to take it and the law should not back me to force her to take it. But we should both have the choice to decide if that is what we individually want or not.

"Choice is one of the great ingredients of happiness" - Sagamite 2015.

Choice and Worth is what I stand for too.

babygirlfl:


Please do you know how to get the details? I would like to read it too. Let me know how I can get my hands on it. Thanks.

vayola sears doesn't even sound nigerian to me - there has to be a reason she was prevented from conferring her nigerian citizenship on her foreign hubby.

i will give you a call later today when i get the details of the case.

Sagamite:


There is no round in this, is is pure public flogging.

The only outcome here is that I will pound this fuuktard and he would be running from me.

He is already running from defending his moronic statements. He knows that he is not up to it.

You would soon know you are daft for ever thinking such a cretin can step to me.

Sit the fck up and WATCH!

''SALUTES"" shan sir!!! rubs palm(rick ross mode activated)..waiting patiently at the backstage

coogar:


vayola sears doesn't even sound nigerian to me - there has to be a reason she was prevented from conferring her nigerian citizenship on her foreign hubby.

i will give you a call later today when i get the details of the case.

Honestly, her name does not sound Nigerian to me too. I am expecting your call . Coogar ask around and you will hear from women who are affected. Ask Nigerian women married to foreign men. I was surprised too. I did not know about this law. I believe women are discriminated on in Nigeria but would have sworn that we were long passed this stage.

FrancisTony:

Except for this; No reasonable human would want to be a Nigerian by choice in this our present stage save for years to come.

we are still better than some countries o.
What if I marry someone from any of those 'lesser' African countries and he wants to become Nigerian?

coogar:


i would have liked to read the entire details of this case before assuming a nigerian woman cannot confer her citizenship on a foreign husband. it sounds bizarre to me!

You're right it's bizarre.

Chillisauce:


Sorry dear, they didn't require my consent before giving my children their passports. They only need to know that at least one of the parents Is from that country which they are applying.in as much as we had all the birth certificate et all, there is no " I consent my baby having this nationality". It's their birth right to have it.
If they were travelling out that might count but not acquiring the passport . The passport is their identity . Traveling out of the country under the age of 18 is another thing that BOTH parents need to approve .

They didn't require your consent because parental responsibility is automatically granted if you were married to the children’s father at the time of birth or if you jointly registered the birth.If you were separated or divorced,either parent can give permission for a child to have a passport, unless there is a court order about PR or preventing the child from having a passport.

You don't need to consent your baby to have a nationality because the birth certificate alone is his nationality,it is automatic.You need your nationality(birth certificate or certificate of citizenship) to apply for a passport;However Passports are a form of identification accepted internationally to prove not only identity, but citizenship.

Sagamite:
The constitution's aim was to see women as an inferior human with inferior rights, so it was aimed to be sexist against WOMEN.

I would dispute that assertion - it was an attempt to codify the prevailing morés of the time - with of course some external influence.

No one sat down with the rubric "how can we institutionalise discrimination against women" and set to work. Just like no one thought "lets look at where we are now and where we will be in 50 years and promulgate future proof laws. The law evolves.

Sagamite:
It being perculiar to the era does not make it right.

I did not say it was right - only that the constitutional provisions were sexist against both men and female, if one uses that lens - and that in Nigeria, as everywhere else, things were evolving for better or worse.

Sagamite:
It does not make it sensible, correct, progressive and apt. It is against my beliefs, hence it is OBVIOUSLY completely wrong.

Why? Because I am always right!

If laws are to be ever "progressive", then you can never be right can you? Or at best, you can only be right, right now - which brings us back to evolving .

Sagamite:
A position of equality and giving each individuals the right to control and decide their destiny.

Only to a degree and to ensure it is fairly done. Society cannot just give leave to everyones unfettered desires, Hence why we have laws, traditions, customs and morés in the first place.

Sagamite:
That is why the world needs people like me with foresight, so hindsight becomes largely redundant.

You can't go into the world Saga - well at least not until you've sorted out NL first !

Sagamite:
Don't confuse "choice" with "discrimination".

Fair point, but I'm not not in a sense. And there is not always a marked difference.

Sagamite:
It is the fair and most objective way to underpin a law. So when it was decided is irrelevant.
It is sensible, correct, progressive and apt.

As log as it is applied sensibly and not as some over-arching and universal principal.


TV

Sagamite:


You are a cretinous fuuktard!

I knew a cretin like Patience would be an iconic hero to a cretinous fuuktard like you?

So Patience is an achiever in your reasoning?

Can you see why I said if you added your entire lineage's intelligence, you can never be as smart as I am?

Are you fcking shyting yourself right now?



Mutaino7, this cretin is your hero?

Watch how I will destroy this fuuktard!

When saga-numbskull-mite starts to wriggle, twist, and turn in one spot, it becomes clear he's got nothing else to hold on to.

Is Patience now the cause of your mental imbalance as well?
Where was sagamite when sheppppotamus was rolling with the big wigs at the highest level despite her lack of finese and good education?

Your smarts hasn't made you famous, neither has it gotten you a meeting with your ward councillor at your local government in sagamu.

Is it just on NL your own starts and end?

edwife:


They didn't require your consent because parental responsibility is automatically granted if you were married to the children’s father at the time of birth or if you jointly registered the birth.If you were separated or divorced,either parent can give permission for a child to have a passport, unless there is a court order about PR or preventing the child from having a passport.

You don't need to consent your baby to have a nationality because the birth certificate alone is his nationality,it is automatic.You need your nationality(birth certificate or certificate of citizenship) to apply for a passport;However Passports are a form of identification accepted internationally to prove not only identity, but citizenship.

So let me get this straight..
Mr C can walk into the prefecture to get their passport with their birth cert without a consent letter from me but I can't walk into my embassy to get their own passport from my end by displaying My Nigerian passport or proving my nationality with other documents.
I thought citizenship is given by parents nationality and not where they were born( not speaking of US here).

TV01:
I would dispute that assertion - it was an attempt to codify the prevailing morés of the time - with of course some external influence.

No one sat down with the rubric "how can we institutionalise discrimination against women" and set to work. Just like no one thought "lets look at where we are now and where we will be in 50 years and promulgate future proof laws. The law evolves.

The prevailing morelu of the time was that "women are inferior human with inferior rights".

Codifying the prevailing morelu of the time was treating "women as inferior human with inferior rights".

Furthermore, some of these laws were made in 1990. So lets stop saying it was colonialism. It was the backward mentality of the cretins that composed it. And we still have such cretins here like crackhaus thinking he is right, educated and intelligent.

TV01:

If laws are to be ever "progressive", then you can never be right can you? Or at best, you can only be right, right now - which brings us back to evolving .

No!

It can be right. It is quite easy. We only need to have someone with superior logical brains to formulate it and then educate people to understand it.

Unfortunately, majority of people are fuuktards that just think something is right because "they have heard it" and "that is the way it is done". That is why a cretinous fuuktard like crackhaus can stand like the fuuktard he is and dig his heels in that a "woman marries into a man's family".

The fuuktard even claimed it was a "natural phenomenon"!

Educate such fuuktards on the RIGHT things and soon they would have heard it enough and seen the way it is done then it would be their new axiom.

What the world needs is good leaders. That is one of the main things that has been holding Africa backwards. Useless leaders.

Especially considering it appears the black race is quite inferior in indepedent reasoning.

TV01:

Only to a degree and to ensure it is fairly done. Society cannot just give leave to everyones unfettered desires, Hence why we have laws, traditions, customs and morés in the first place.

Equality and freedom is not everyone's unfettered desires. It is everyone's reasonable desire.

The desire for equality only changes when one person sees that their incapability/incompetence can mean equality would result in them being at a disadvantage, then they start looking for how they can instil legalised superiority.

Freedom should only be curtailed when it can be used to harm others or cause [REASONABLY] trouble that can lead to harming others. It is more subjective than equality.

TV01:

You can't go into the wordl Saga - well at least not until you've sorted out NL first !

All progress starts from somewhere.

Sagamite:


You are a cretinous fuuktard!

Is that the "logical" progression Patience taught you?

Can you see that the failed education has destroyed your daft life?

Is this your reply to why you haven't drafted your own Constitution for your own county?

Logical progression is both beyond and totally out of your depth at the exact same time...

You're like a floater, one which drifts in tandem with the waves I create. You're my b1tch, b1tch!

crackhaus:

Is this your reply to why you haven't drafted your own Constitution for your own county?

Logical progression is both beyond and totally out of your depth at the exact same time...

You're like a floater, one which drifts in tandem with the waves I create. You're my b1tch, b1tch!

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

You are scared?

You are still running?


Cretinous fuuktard, I repeat:

Which moronic schools taught your daft arsse that a woman (or a man) have to marry into a family?

Fuuktard, do you know the meaning of naturally?

edwife:


They didn't require your consent because parental responsibility is automatically granted if you were married to the children’s father at the time of birth or if you jointly registered the birth.If you were separated or divorced,either parent can give permission for a child to have a passport, unless there is a court order about PR or preventing the child from having a passport.

You don't need to consent your baby to have a nationality because the birth certificate alone is his nationality,it is automatic.You need your nationality(birth certificate or certificate of citizenship) to apply for a passport;However Passports are a form of identification accepted internationally to prove not only identity, but citizenship.

I was going to type this but you beat me to it A passport is not a birth certificate or a certificate of Naturalization, it is just an ID card to prove identity and citizenship.