What do do then? Anything?

Pray! Not just anything, the only thing, as Oswald Chambers liked to say.

18. Nullification of inconsistent international treaties, protocols, declarations and conventions.
(1) Any International legal instrument whose provisions are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act, are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.
.
(2) Definitions of “sexual orientation”, “sexual rights”, “sexual minorities”, “gender identity” shall not be used in anyway to legitimize homosexuality, gender identity disorders and related practices in Uganda.
.
19. Regulations.
The Minister may, by statutory instrument. make regulations generally for better carrying out the provisions of this Act.

Americans have often stated that Iran by breaking international conventions has become a rogue nation? Shall we then say the same concerning Uganda when the nullify the UN charter of rights? Will their ‘Minister’ consider that the application of no-knock warrents as concerns homosexuality is fair and constitutional, despite what their courts have said in the past. There is much to fear here, when a country makes a scapegoat of a class of citizens.
…

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex

But also these offenses:

9. Procuring homosexuality by threats, etc.
(1) A person who–
.
(a) by threats or intimidation procures or attempts to procure any woman or man to have any unlawful carnal knowledge with any person of the same sex, either in Uganda or elsewhere;
.
(b) by false pretences or false representations procures any woman or man to have any unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex, either in Uganda or elsewhere; or
.
(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section upon the evidence of one witness only, unless that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.
.
10. Detention with intent to commit homosexuality.
A person who detains another person with the intention to commit acts of homosexuality with him or herself or with any other person commits an offence and is liable on conviction for seven years.

Now that section of itself is not a problem, however, in conjuction with how “victims” are defined (“victim” includes a person who is involved in homosexual activities against his or her will) and how even adult victims are treated under the law:

5. Protection, assistance and payment of compensation to victims of homosexuality.
(1 ) A victim of homosexuality shall not be penalized for any crime commuted as a direct result of his or her involvement in homosexuality.
.
(2) A victim of homosexuality shall be assisted to enable his or her views and concerns to be presented and considered at the appropriate stages of the criminal proceedings.
.
(3) Where a person is convicted of homosexuality or aggravated homosexuality under sections 2 and 3 of this Act, the court may, in addition to any sentence imposed on the offender, order that the victim of the offence be paid compensation by the offender for any physical, sexual or psychological harm caused to the victim by the offence.
.
(4) The amount of compensation shall be determined by the court and the court shall take into account the extent of harm suffered by the victim of the offence. the degree of force used by the offender and medical and other expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the offence.
.
6. Confidentiality.
(1) At any stage of the Investigation or trial of an offence under this Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judicial officers and medical practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall recognize the right to privacy of the victim.
.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (I), in cases involving children and other cases where the court considers it appropriate. proceedings of the court shall be conducted in camera, outside the presence of the media.
.
(3) Any editor or publisher, reporter or columnist in case of printed materials. announcer or producer in case of television and radio, producer or director of a film to case of the movie industry. or any person utilizing trimedia facilities or information technology who publishes or causes the publicity of the names and personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish the victim’s identity without authority of court commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty currency points.

Note first, the law is not talking about victims of aggravated homosexuality, but simply victims of homosexuality. Why?
.
I believe because there will come times when people like Ssempa and Langa through their ministries will claim those who come to them to be ‘victims of homosexuality.’ They weil likely invoke the idea that their budding ex-gays were drugged or given liquor to make them pliable. Or may even manufacture evidence to back up a claim of threats, intimidation and/or detention. They will then shield these people in their ministries and via this law then aggitate for the death penalty for what was likely only one of what was two willling participants. I have no doubt as to the dishonorable way that such people would use this bill and its 1984esque provisions of turning on a lover, when it could mean imprisonment for both.
.
Beyond that there is of course the most foul part of the bill which does not respect the freedom of speech and thought, that being: 13. Promotion of homosexuality & 14. Failure to disclose the offence. Certainly as Americans we understand that free speech and thought no matter how we may disagree with it is still a right we cherish for ourselves as well as others with whom we would disagree.
…

My personal belief is that those who participated in this conference should speak their objections to the severity of the penalties to those they have established relationships with in Uganda. In those dialogues, they should try to ascertain to what extent their involvement contributed to the proposed bill. If and when they discover how they contributed, they should follow that channel (i.e. who in the government had an ear to those who put on the conference) and state clearly the compassionate side of their personal viewpoint.

Ths sounds consistent with what Warren is calling for — and I agree with you on this, Eddy. I believe they need to make public that they are doing this — and soon. As Warren urged,

“American Christians need to step up and speak up now.”

American Christians have some culpability for this situation by going to Uganda and failing to speak against this error. American Christians need to step up and speak now. — Warren Throckmorton, 10/21/09

Can you think of a way to make such an apology without saying ‘we came here with a good intention but you exploited our viewpoints to your own ends’?

No. That about says it. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The “American Christians” erred big time, seemed oblivious to what was happening (even though they were warned) and thereby contributed to the mess. Now, I fear, there is little they can do to clean it up. Doesn’t seem that they want to anyway.

The apology — if it ever comes — will not change the minds or the will of the Ugandan government. Sadly, Warren thinks there will be little opposition to the Bill. The apology is for the Ugandans who will suffer, in part, because of the “American Christians’” mistake. They deserve it.

Apologizing for their participation in the conference is something we Americans cry for…it’s right up our politically correct alleyway. But, to my mind, it would only be seen as a confusion in Uganda. How was Uganda ‘offended’ by their participation? That would need to be at the heart of the apology. Can you think of a way to make such an apology without saying ‘we came here with a good intention but you exploited our viewpoints to your own ends’? I believe there are historical precedents for somewhat backhanded apologies that actually take a slap at the recipients of the apology…but most of us could only dream of becoming such a capable wordsmith or diplomat.
————–
So, we have two different things going on. We have our American scene where just about everything we’ve discussed related to this topic fits. The blame, the outrage, the calls for apologies…that’s all part of OUR cultural war. But I don’t see how any of that would have one ounce of impact on Ugandan policy, do you? So I’m thinking that we need to start thinking beyond our typical American ways. I don’t think it’s going to come down to how loud we scream or how many scream; this one’s going to take something more. This isn’t a person who offended us; it’s not an organization whose views we disagree with; this is a country…a country…a country with it’s own history, it’s own agenda, it’s own way of doing things…I don’t think we can ‘pressure‘ them; I think we need to find a way to reason with them. And before we can do that, we’ve first got to get ourselves invited to the table. This isn’t our table.

Whatever the case, we have been granted, by this delay, several months to formulate articulate arguments to reduce the penalties for ‘aggravated’ offenses and to reduce or eliminate the judgements against homosexuality per se.

Is it you feeling that we should focus on this — reducing the penalties for all “aggravated offenses” — hetero and homo – (the death penalty) and reducing or eliminating the judgements that focus strictly on homosexuality? I am confused. Not sure what you think would be the best way to go here.

I am also getting the impression that you believe it is pointless to pressure for the American Christians who went there to denounce this legislation or apologize for their participation. Am I getting that right? Please spell out the steps you think we should take.

We can use it to motivate American Christians to speak but it seems that bringing it into any discussions or statements to the Ugandan government would actually work against efforts to alter their bill.

What, then, is the purpose in “motivating American Christians to speak up”? Just to be on the record? Why not just stay silent if it will do no good or even worsen the situation? What do you suggest, Eddy? I am open to ideas.