This morning (afternoon there) a coalition of organizations in Uganda released this statement of opposition to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009.
Anti-Homosexuality or Anti-Human Rights Bill?
Statement from the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Hon. Bahati’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill which was tabled in Parliament on October 14, 2009, and is currently before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament covers much more than the title alone proclaims. A much better title for this bill would have been the ‘Anti Civil Society Bill, the ‘Anti Public Health Bill,’ or the ‘Anti-Constitution Bill.’ Perhaps more simply it should be called the Anti Human Rights Bill. As a matter of fact, this bill represents one of the most serious attacks to date on the 1995 Constitution and on the key human rights protections enshrined in the Constitution including:
• Article 20: Fundamental rights and freedoms are inherent and not granted by the State
• Article 21: Right to Equality and Freedom from discrimination
• Article 22: The Right to Life (the death penalty provisions)
• Article 27: The Right to Privacy
• Article 29: Right to freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association (this includes freedom of speech, Academic freedom and media freedom)
• Article 30: Right to Education
• Article 32: Affirmative Action in favour of marginalised groups and
• Article 36 on the Rights of MinoritiesLet us think for a moment of who—quite apart from the homosexuals it claims as its target—this bill puts at risk:
- any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to the authorities: Failure to do so s/he will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= or put away for three years;
- any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the authorities within 24 hours: Failure to do so s/he will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= or put away for three years in prison;
- any landlord or landlady who happens to give housing to a suspected homosexual risks seven years of imprisonment;
- any Local Council I – V Chairperson or Executive member who does not denounce somebody accused of same-sex attraction or activity risks imprisonment or a heavy fine;
- any medical doctor who seeks to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS through working with what are known as most at risk populations, risks her or his career;
- all civil society leaders, whether in a Community Based Organisation, NGO, or academic institution; if their organisations seek to have a comprehensive position on sexual and reproductive health, they risk seeing their organisations closed down;
- any human rights activist who seeks to promote an understanding of the indivisibility and inalienability of human rights would be judged to be promoting homosexuals and homosexuality, and be punished accordingly;
- any religious leader who seeks to provide guidance and counselling to people who are unsure of their sexuality, would be regarded as promoting homosexuality and punished accordingly;
- any Member of Parliament or other public figure who is sent a pornographic article, picture or video will become vulnerable to blackmail and witch-hunts;
- any media house that publishes ‘pornographic’ materials risks losing its certificate of registration and the editor will be liable to seven years in jail;
- any internet café operator who fails to prevent a customer from accessing a pornographic website, or a dating site, could be accused of ‘participating in the production, procuring, marketing, broadcasting, disseminating and publishing of pornographic materials for purposes of promoting homosexuality’; their business licence could be revoked and they themselves could land in prison.
- any Person alleged to be a homosexual is at risk of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and, in some circumstances, the DEATH PENALTY.
In short, this bill targets everybody, and involves everybody: it cannot be implemented without making every citizen spy on his or her neighbours. The last time this was done was in the Amin era, where everyone very quickly became an ‘enemy of the state’. It amounts to a direct invasion of our homes, and will promote blackmail, false accusations and outright intimidation of certain members of the population. Do Ugandans really want to mimic the practices of the Khartoum regime? Have we already forgotten the sex police of Apartheid South Africa, who smashed their way into people’s bedrooms in an attempt to prevent inter-racial sex?
As Civil Society organisations we condemn all predatory sexual acts (hetero or homosexual) that violate the rights of vulnerable sections of our society such as minors and people with disabilities. However, the Bill lumps “aggravated homosexuality” together with sexual acts between consenting adults in order to whip up sentiments of fear and hatred aimed at isolating sexual minorities. By so doing, the state fails in its duty to protect all its citizens without discrimination.
The bill also asserts Extra Territorial jurisdiction. In other words, all of the offences covered by the bill can be applied to a Ugandan citizen or permanent resident who allegedly commits them outside the country. Thus homosexuality and/or its ‘promotion’ are added to the very short list of offences which fall in the ‘political offences’ category. It joins treason, misprision of treason, and terrorism as offences subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction. Clearly, this is out of all proportion in relation to the gravity of the act.
On top of these day-to-day considerations about everybody’s safety and security, let us consider what this bill will do for civil society organisations in Uganda which seek to have a critical voice and to engage in issues of global concern. One of the objectives of the bill is to prohibit the licensing of organizations which allegedly ‘promote homosexuality.’ Thus, for example, any organisation which talked about anal sex as part of a campaign of HIV prevention can be affected. Had this bill been in place earlier this year, no Ugandan could have participated in the World AIDS meeting held in Mexico to discuss HIV prevention.
And what about our standing in the eyes of the world? The Bill calls for Uganda to nullify any international treaties, protocols, declarations and conventions which are believed to be ‘contradictory to the spirit and provisions’ of the bill. In reality, this would involve Uganda withdrawing from:
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its protocols;
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
• The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ RightsWe note that Uganda is current Chair of the UN Security Council which operates with the UN Charter and UDHR as guiding principles. It is also current Chair of the Commonwealth and a signatory to the African Union’s Constitutive Act which has as its premise the promotion and respect of human rights. In 2009 and 2010 it is hosting AU Summits. What will happen to Uganda’s hard-won role on the global stage if it nullifies its international and regional humanrights commitments? Uganda cannot wish away core human rights principles of dignity, equality and non-discrimination, and all Ugandans will pay a heavy price if this bill is enacted.
We will have bargained away our hard-earned rights and freedoms as well as our right to challenge the State and hold it accountable for the protection of these rights. In sum, the Bahati Bill is profoundly unconstitutional. It is a major stumbling block to the development of a vibrant human rights movement in Uganda, and a serious threat to Uganda’s developing democratic status. If passed, this law would not only prove difficult to implement, it would also consume resources and attention which would be better directed at more pressing issues of human rights abuse, corruption, electoral reform, domestic relations and freedom of the press.
Regardless of our personal moral beliefs and values, we the undersigned organisations are standing up in defence of Democracy, our Constitution and its enshrined principles of human dignity, equality, freedom and justice for all.
Kampala, 23 October 2009
• African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF)
• Akina Mama wa Afrika (AMwA)
• Advocates for Public International Law in Uganda (APILU)
• Center for Land Economy and Rights of Women (CLEAR-Uganda)
• Centre for Women in Governance (CEWIGO)
• Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary Associations (DENIVA)
• East & Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project
• Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA-U)
• Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE)
• Human Rights Awareness & Promotion Forum
• Human Rights & Peace Centre (HURIPEC), Faculty of Law, Makerere University
• Integrity Uganda
• International Refugee Rights Initiative
• Mentoring and Empowerment Programme for Young Women (MEMPROW)
• MIFUMI Project
• National Association of Women’s Organisations in Uganda (NAWOU)
• National Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (NACWOLA)
• Refugee Law Project (RLP), Faculty of Law, Makerere University
• National Guidance & Empowerment Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NGEN+)
• Spectrum Uganda
• Uganda Feminist Forum
• Women’s Organisation & Network for Human Rights Advocacy (WONETHA)For further information please contact the coalition at kalendenator@gmail.com
For the facebook group, stop boasting about numbers, the comments come from Americans and Europeans, if you could get 600 Ugandans in Uganda speaking against the bill, probably you will be making sense.
Hey, Debbie and Ann, would you just stop making an argument about God, lest you become blasphemous and ruin your own souls.
What copy of the anti-homosexuality bill are you guys reading? One edited by the gay community or one straight from parliament of Uganda.
And Please also before you think for us and push for this bill to be withdrawn, do you know that over 97% of people in Uganda are opposed to homosexuality and are in favor of the bill. We are tired of having this evil in our country and just like every evil, it has it’s punishments, so the consequences of sin is death, I do not know what you guys mean by sympathizing with sin, does God sympathize with sin? Well you will say he has mercy on the sinner. Yes he does have mercy for the sinner, but do you know that even with this bill there is opportunity for people to turn out and be safe? And no body will stop them.
Why don’t you make a big deal about the many other issues in Uganda that have death penalty on them? like murder or others…
He sympathizes with SINNERS — and that includes YOU.
Would you want your sin to be treated in this way? Would you want your neighbors, family and friends to be arrested if they did not turn YOU in?
If you had a enemy who really wanted to hurt you, they could accuse you of being a homosexual. How would you defend yourself against that? How would you prove that you are not?
If you had a friend or family member who was struggling with homosexuality and committed homosexual sin, would you really turn them in? Is this what Jesus would do?
Would Jesus have told the Pharisees, “Go ahead. Kill this woman caught in adultery and go to jail if you don’t turn in others like her”? Never. Never. At least not the Jesus I know and love.
Many in Uganda ARE speaking out against the Bill.
Many others may be too frightened to speak out. Under this law, they could go to jail for it.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/15/14708
Is this not the text of at least one of the latest drafts of the bill?
I’ve searched through the Ugandan parliament and found no such bill:
http://www.parliament.go.ug/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=118
But then that site only seems to track existing bills which have been passed…. either that or your parliament/president doesn’t seem to do much.
kaaront
1. I am going off the bill supplied to me by Martin Ssempa. Would you consider him a gay activist?
2. You never addressed your misreading of the passage in John where Jesus prevented the adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus against her will by the Jewish religious leaders. You did not answer my question: Why was Jesus wrong to prevent a stoning of this woman? There is no indication that she repented, she was brought to Jesus by the authorities against her will.
No, Michael, He doesn’t. Christ bore our sins and we identify with him in his death and resurrection. Big difference. No sympathy in the godhead.
Kaaront, I don’t know what kind of blasphemy you think me approaching. Serious charge. To know God is my chief aim. Not to please men in any country on earth.
Debbie, I beg to differ. Scripture says that Jesus does indeed sympathize with us:
“Sympathize” comes from the Greek word, “sympaschein”. It is a composite word, from syn [=with] and paschein [=suffering] — to have the capacity to be touched or moved by another’s suffering.
Being fully God and fully man, it seems to me that Jesus demonstrated that capacity in everything He did.
That’s Hebrews 4:15
Michael, I know you and most others may feel this is hair-splitting, but what most have translated to mean sympathy is more correctly, I believe, empathy. The two words are presumed to be synonyms, but they are not completely.
Jesus, having been both God and man was, indeed, tempted here on earth, but never sinned. It was only through his bearing all our sins on the cross supernaturally that he could be the one who was and is (as the KJV translates it) “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.” He can have compassion and mercy on us, realizing our human (flesh) weakness, while also empowering us with the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit that gives us divine insight (i.e., allows us to have “the mind of Christ”).
In a counseling session, is your client better served by your empathy or your sympathy? You are not there to commiserate with him/her or feel their feelings, but to do your best to understand their feelings. Two people commiserating with each other are like the blind leading the blind. If one of them is in authority, that is the person who needs to do the leading or encouraging.
To offer someone sympathy is to give them permission to wallow in self-pity. To encourage them with empathy is to come alongside for the purpose of helping them. (The Holy Spirit is the parakletos (“one who comes alongside,” by the way).
The distinction matters most to nerds like me who cringe at the way we mangle the King’s English, beyond the theological points. FWIW, here’s what Oswald Chambers had to say on the subject:
I get where you are coming from, but I do think it’s a bit of hair-splitting. By sympathy, I only meant that, being both fully God and fully man, He feels what we feel, is compassionate towards sinners and has mercy on us. To say, “there is no sympathy in the Godhead” is something I do not believe. I think it’s in HIs very nature.
We’ll just make it a non-issue, Michael.
Cool.
Debbie and Saul,
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. Dr. Throckmorton’s example of confronting this Ugandan KristallNacht in the making will do more to convince gays that there is virtue in Evangelical Christianity than all your pietistic blather ever will.
Just in case anyone is counting, today the group that Warren started 10 days ago to express opposition to this Bill just topped 1,000 members. Join the group. Step up and speak out now: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=198541255168&ref=mf
Oh, I’m sure either of us could be. But you are entitled to your opinion. No sweat.
I think the Jab was against Debbie and Saul was unnecessary, but I agree, Frank, that “Dr. Throckmorton’s example of confronting this Ugandan KristallNacht in the making” will do much to “convince gays that there is virtue in Evangelical Christianity”. On matters like these — matters of human rights — you have to risk appearing “pro-gay” to really show the love of God. Thanks, Dr.T.
Andrew Marin is now on board. Good.
It is good. Thanks to everyone who has spoken out.
Would be even “gooder” if Don Schmierer, Caleb Brundidge and Scott Lively joined.
Have any of them responded at all? I mean as to their position on this bill?
Debbie,
As a cradle Catholic, I can assure you that the Catholic hierarchy is, indeed, blowing smoke. Gay men are no more likely to be selfish than straight ones. They are over represented in professions that provide service to others (e.g. teaching, nursing, etc.) To extrapolate hedonistic behavior from some to all is dishonest. Moreover, those seeking domestic partnership are seeking legal responsibility for another person. That is inherently unselfish.
I didn’t go that route because I have been celibate since 1984 because i will not be responsible for getting or transmitting HIV. I still find that I have a parenting instinct that won’t be denied so I assumed responsibility for a young couple whose fathers are absent and whose mothers are dead. Although gays are denied the right to marry in my state, I paid for the couple’s wedding, taking out a second mortgage on my home. I let the bride’s father, who is a rich gay-hating SOB claim that he paid for the wedding even though he contributed less than 5% of what I did. I considered it a great honor to be able to do this for them.
I have known other gays who have done much more. I knew a queeny little black oncology nurse, Bernard, who worked at the finest cancer hospital in the world (MD Andersion in Houston). He worked mostly with young men who had testicular cancer. The patients were dealing with masculinity issues that come with having a testicle amputated. Bernard’s effiminacy probably made the patients feel that at least they weren’t as bad off as he was.
However, when a life threatening emergency arose, Bernard’s voice depeened at least two octaves and he took on the air of a combat medic and did everything possible to save his patients. Bernard’s life was his work. The families who brought in their sons to be cured made a few jibes about him, but he was the one every family wanted taking care of their son.
I do wish Bernard had someone to look after him. He died of cancer a few years ago. Perhaps, he was too absorbed in helping others to see to is own well being. Doubtless, he had something to prove, a deficit of humanity given him by people like you, Debbie, that he had to spend the all of his short life paying back.
Frank, I am baffled as to what I have said or done that has so deeply offended you. You’ve left me in the dark here.
Debbie, you judge gays for the effect of promiscuity (a high HIV infection rate) but attack the efforts of some gays toake monogamy normative to them. you go on to praise the words of a Catholic Archbishop who says that recognizing gay partnerships makes the U S. morally inferiotlr to Islamic extremists who not only commit suicide bombiings, which the Anp cites as selfless, but also, rape, ritually miser, and torture gay by supergluing their abuses shut, force feeding them laxatives, and sexually mutilating them as tey die.
Yet you are surprised I am upset? is there something I am missing here? are you, perhaps, autistic?
Sorry about the last post, which was made from a cell phone. Here’s the correction
Debbie, you judge gays for the effect of promiscuity (a high HIV infection rate) but attack the efforts of some gays to mmake monogamy normative to them. you go on to praise the words of a Catholic Archbishop who says that recognizing gay partnerships makes the U S. morally inferior to Islamic extremists who not only commit suicide bombings, which the Abp cites as selfless, but also, rape, ritually miser, and torture gay by super-gluing their anuses shut, force feeding them laxatives, and sexually mutilating them as they die.
Yet you are surprised I am upset? is there something I am missing here? Are you, perhaps, autistic?
Frank, it’s quite a stretch for you to infer I am praising a statement or position from my saying simply that “some valid points are made” in said statement. You seem to forget I also said this:
Remember, we are discussing basic human rights and dignity in Uganda here, not the sociological merits, or lack thereof, of gay marriage or Islamic atrocities toward gays. That you would dare think I could ever approve, tacitly or otherwise, of such abuse is beyond the pale and utterly inconsistent with everything I have said in this and the many other threads on the matter here.
Your last statement above speaks for itself in condemning your attitude.
Debbie,
There are decent Evangelical Christians, but Evangelical Christendom has yet to demonstrate that they are the rule rather than the exception. In fact the largest Evangelical Christian group in the U.S. is the Southern Baptist Convention which was founded to support a “Christian” right to brutal chattel slavery.
Decent people see that brutality, in and of itself, is immoral and profoundly selfish. Traditional Christians, Catholic, Evangelical, Reformed, etc, see torture and extorted assent as a means of soul winning.
Your attitude both as a Christian and a woman is a disgrace. Most gay men make their decision to come out in order to save some poor woman from an unhappy life. Even though my generation of gay men had no conception of ever having a right to marry, they refused to ruin that privilege for some woman. Those men agreed to be ostracized because they knew that a lifetime of lies to someone who loved them would be selfish and cruel.
You, otoh, and this particular nest of Evangelical vipers, insist that every pathetic Stepford Christian female needs a vibrator with a wallet. And you have the effrontery to call anyone else selfish.
You seem to think that Christians and heterosexuals have a monopoly on virtue. How disgustingly arrogant!
And Dr. Throckmorton, you may be right in condemning what’s going on in Uganda, but you and every other “therapist” who put “faith” before science set the stage for it.
Debbie, I don’t think this is fair. Why single out gays for such a charge? Consider the divorce rate, religious intolerance, racism, selfishness, greed, conflict, poverty, injustice, violence, war…
You could say that the human community has not really demonstrated it — and you would be right.
Duh. I am well aware, as are we all, that marriages across the board are flailing. Few folks speak out against marital and/or church hypocrisy more than I. But the title of this blog allows for focusing in on gay issues, in particular. In that context, my comment was fair, I believe.
A group in support of the bill on facebook has started http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=172162037889
Hi Kaaront,
First, I apologize for misspelling your name earlier…sorry! I went with two o’s rather than two a’s.
Second, I don’t recall seeing a response from you to questions that both Warren and I posed…about the woman caught in adultery. From the Bible record, she did not come to Jesus with a heart of repentance. She was brought to him after having been caught in adultery and thrown at His feet. And Jesus rejected the death penalty that they wanted to inflict. Do you have any response to this?
Kaaront: I echo Eddy’s question. Jesus was the only one in the crowd who had no sin and thus could have cast a stone. He did not. Others did not because they were prevented by their awareness of their own sin.
Why are you willing to consider Jesus’ example to be incorrect?
The bill in Uganda stands to deal with these issues. This bill is also an issue of separation, showing who is for God and who is not. The issue of homosexuality has no middle ground, you are either for it or against it. The bill is a government issue as it is mandated to do so. The bill stands for;
1. The bill is about equal protection of the boys as currently accorded to girls against rapists and defilers and generally abuse. The law on defilement, especially aggravated defilement is punishable by death. So this bill is seeking to put a balance when a boy is defiled, that is a boy below 18, handicapped, or whose defiler is HIV Positive. Are we giving sodomy special status, It is unfair and unjust as well as unchristian. Most people speaking against this bill are unaware of the laws in the country and are speaking from ignorance.
2. The bill is also intended to protect Uganda from homosexual conventions. It is a law that is consistent with our cultures and beliefs. Let America make their laws and let us make our own laws. Laws like the UN proposed law on homosexuality is trying to homosexualise us. It is to protect us against these decisions.
3. Protecting us from homosexual Propaganda and Bribery from European laws and conventions.
4. Protecting the territorial Integrity of people in Uganda. We are concerned about people who make laws from wherever and want to impose them on us. Our Christian, Muslim, Cultural and Legal beliefs guide us that homosexuality is not only a perversion but also a natural abomination.
5. The Bill is also to address Headmasters and those in Authority who are entrusted with children, and yet under their care, these children are victimized and raped by their bullies, yet Headmasters are afraid to speak because of fear for their schools and for them to keep a reputation. Thousands of hundreds are systematically raped and violated while those in authority keep quite. In other countries, people in Authority must report crimes of child abuse, and the law holds them liable if they fail to report these kinds of incidents.
As a Christian and to answer the question you have been asking me on Jesus, Jesus was right not to stone, as he continues to teach and show about grace and forgiveness, Jesus is God and knows the state of people’s hearts so he choose to forgive, and so i would do the same as a christian, i would show mercy on homosexuals, however if the law catches up with them, which the government is working on, just like any crime, all i can do is to minister christ to them and not go to courts of law and defend their acts of evil, just like you guys are trying to do here, Homosexuality is a sin. I preach salvation to all. In law it is a crime, same as others, and in public health its spreading diseases, the most efficient way to spread HIV/AIDS- which is taking a lot of tax payers money in treatment and affecting family and friends. Rom 13:1-5 the bible says that there is a sword bearer to punish lawbreakers. So we preach grace, but the state promotes the law. The State is mandated to punish lawbreakers.
The issue of two consenting adults committing the same, it affects communities and lives of everyone, so we are concerned, their private affair becomes public when destroyed rectums have to be repaired in hospitals and when they get HIV/AIDS and affect the whole community. How about two consenting adults practicing female genital mutilation, are you ok with that. What does the law say; the law is against this same thing.
Frank,
It is shocking that you advocate for that, strange that you gay people, that is if you are, advocate for arson, Sorry but let us be able to make our own laws,
In Africa I am because we are, and we are because I am. So whatever everyone does even in the secrecy of their bedroom affects the whole community…
Karoont,
Of course as an independent nation your country has every right to enact and enforce its own laws.
I’m not advocating that your nation be accpeting of homosexual, rapist and such. I am hoping that those of your country will re-consider the impact it will have on those sinners who want to repent but can find no help for themselves when life imprisonment or death are the penalties for such.
I am an ex gay and my heart breaks for those who want to find help and will be hidden from help because of such penalties. Hearts and lives do change but I have not known of a true transformation that was coerced or imposed by law. It only hides the sinner and does not help the sinner.
Frank-
I’ve been a part of many a heated conversation between adversaries here but it’s my opinion that you are have seriously crossed some ethical lines here. Your last statement was outrageously offensive and definitely counter-productive to open dialogue. It is my hope that you are restricted from blogging here.
ban me.
Frank,
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your statement. You are an embarrasment and not representative of my voice for human dignity. Your suggestions are not the teachings of Christ and in NO WAY are you correct in your assertions. You are a gross and disgusting example of an American and Christian and gay.
Back to topic (or thereabouts):
Randy Thomas still has not spoken up. He whispered an intentionally vague statement in one Exodus blog post.
Since loudly applauding Don Schmierer’s role in the March conference, Exodus has released no press release condemning the legislation and its supporters. Exodus’ only action has been to advise blog readers to pray for someone else — certainly not Exodus — to take action.
True. Has any established, conservative Christian group in the USA? I have been combing the internet to try to find one.
Thomas not only applauded Don Schmierer’s role in the March conference, he allowed Schmierer to make a statement that held little if any connection with reality.