MERYL STREEP SHOULDN`T HAVE PORTRAYED MARGARET THATCHER IN A FILM

Meryl Streep


The film is not only entertainment but also generates a lot of money for the industry, especially when the film is good. Many films are based on true events, and some of the stories are very inspiring. 


Regarding Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister`s film `The Iron Lady` role played by which Meryl Streep, in my point of view, I see nothing special about Margaret Thatcher that her story has to be acted upon as a film.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the biggest racists who supported Apartheid in her era. As prime minister, she opposes immigrants, and even though it was wrong for immigrants to get council houses ahead of `white citizens.' 

Yet she forgets that Jamaican immigrants were those who built the British railway connection with blood, sweat, and tears.

During her rule as Britain`s prime minister, South Africa suffered naked repression of terrorist acts, at the hands' successive Apartheid governments, without emotion, and when the victims and anti-apartheid activists and the ANC tried to fight for justice, she branded them as  `terrorists.' 

It isn`t amazing when David Cameron, the present prime minister, tries to disassociate himself from Margaret Thatcher due to her bad policies during the Apartheid era.

I quote `Mr. Mandela was one of the greatest men alive. The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with ANC and sanctions on South Africa make it more important to listen now, said Mr. David Cameron. 

What makes Margaret Thatcher's governance so special to earn her the name `Iron Lady'? I don't even think South Africa would welcome this film when released.

According to Saturday's edition, December 3, 2011, of ``, Baroness Thatcher will not see a film of her life, because she does not watch films or programs about her. How could she watch when her bad conscience and wrongdoings haunt her while watching programs of herself?

I am really surprised that a great actress like Meryl Streep could accept a role, portraying Margaret Thatcher in a film, knowing very well the crimes this woman committed against humanity during her era in South Africa. 

Film lovers may enjoy this film, but victims of racism, discrimination, and apartheid will put this film in the trash even when distributed free of charge.

DAVID CAMERON CAN KEEP HIS AID, GHANA SAYS 'NO' TO HOMOSEXUALITY

Is that what Europe and America want Africa to legalize when they are still dealing with the Aids and Ebola crisis?


In a recent interview with the BBC, British Premier David Cameron threatened to cut aid to anti-gay countries and declared that “countries receiving British aid should adhere to proper human rights.”


Can David Cameron define what it means by proper human rights? If a country doesn’t want to embrace a culture that they are familiar with or accept homosexuality on its soil, is that an abuse of human rights? 

Can David Cameron accept when the Ghanaian government tells him to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants because it is an abuse of human rights?

David Cameron has forgotten that he has a big task on his shoulders to deal with the problems of alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, and crime in his country, rather than interfering in the Ghanaian government’s policy on gay issues. 

His request to legitimize homosexuality in Ghana is meaningless. The Ghanaian government can take that.

The West and many advanced countries think that they can tell Africa what to do. If Cameron wants Ghana to legitimize homosexuality, he must first leave his wife and begin to enjoy the 'back' of men, then the whole of Ghana will follow him and take his advice. 

Africa has suffered enough. The continent is still fighting against AIDS, malaria, and other deadly diseases; it is, therefore, clear that there is no room for homosexuality.

Ghanaian and religious leaders should fight against homosexuality in Ghana and let Cameron keep his aid. Ghanaians will not die from famine. Yesterday was slavery and Apartheid. 

They are dead and gone. Today, they are enforcing homosexuality in a country that is totally foreign to such acts. Cameron should begin to respect Ghana and understand the country’s cultural values. 

Above all, homosexuality has nothing to do with human rights; it is a human's choice.