Somewhere in Rhyme

HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

it would be so awesome

Typically asexuals don’t have protection to begin with (we are recognised partially in two countries as of 2025, may have updated since then but doubt it) so we aren’t included.

This is the first case of “asexual acts” being criminalised.

It’s illegal not to have sex?

Is it illegal not to have sex for religious reasons now? Such as a nun or priest?

Not only that; but the laws (if there are any) around consent have just been demolished. A man could now accuse a woman who won’t sleep with him of “asexual acts”, resulting in prison time. They might have a strict “not before marriage” faith/law, but don’t tell me someone won’t do this.

The wording creates such logical absurdity when applied to asexuality because, what constitutes an "asexual act"? If asexuality is characterised by an absence of sexual attraction and activity, then the concept of "practicing asexuality" as a criminal act becomes incoherent. The only "act" associated with asexuality is often the lack of sexual engagement.

Criminalising non-action?? A literal interpretation of the law could imply that simply not having sex or not experiencing sexual attraction is a criminal offense. (And THERE ARE LAWYERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO INTERPRET THE LAW QUITE LITERALLY, the theory is where people interpret legislation literally and is known as Textualism in the United States)

How will the law affect religious practices like celibacy? (Celibacy is the state of voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for religious reasons.) Well, Niger is approximately 99% Muslim, with a small Christian minority (around 0.3% to 0.5%), and the Catholic Church has a presence in Niger, with dioceses in Niamey and Maradi. Priests and religious sisters are highly visible symbols of celibacy. While the law's intent is to target LGBTQIA+ individuals, its letter provides a tool for those who might wish to harass or persecute religious minorities by labeling their celibacy as a "prohibited practice."

They've left their MAIN religion open to persecution. And it'd be LEGAL.

They also didn't define asexuality in the act, which means, legally, any interpretation of asexuality could be argued in a court there, and WIN (should it be argued well enough that is). That's why acts have definitions or "this word or act is defined as..." at the start of them.

Duo-dle