cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/lgbtq_plus/p/1184160/why-niger-explicitly-criminalising-asexuality-is-significant-to-everyone-regardless-of-ident
To understand Nigers asexuality criminalisation, we should see this law as part of a bigger – and growing – global trend among conservatives about ‘traditional families’
You either make kids or suffer.
In uk: if you have kids you have access to a council house, if you’re single and down and under you’re only given help as a room within a house share, which is unacceptable to give an working age homeless man such an hostile environment where he would get his room lock picked and his few valuables lifted by the other cohabitants you have to share a bathroom with. (Meanwhile asylum seekers are granted paid for hotels, that’s a discussion for another time)
Also in uk some politicians have been discussing taxing childless people more, as they have more… money. With enough taxing a man might be better off financially by having a child
Besides having nothing to do with Niger, which is a totally different situation, the first bit is understandable. A kid needs a house and stability much more than an adult does. Here, there’s not really council houses for kids, either.
And no, it’s not migrant’s fault. Stop reading the Sun or the Daily Mail or whatever.
Nobody mentioned migrants.
OP did, then edited it out.
And now edited the rest out, too.
But that’s not how you treat criminals. You’re describing a mix of positive and negative incentives, which are just policy effects. Criminalization means a particular action or belief has been made criminal, for which a person may be criminally suspect of having committed. There are consequences to be satisfied, such as prison time or community service, not passive burdens for not conforming. Is that not correct or am I overreading the word “criminalizing” here?