There is absolutely no need for commentary. Really, you’ll see.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
Ok, maybe a little commentary. To read all my posts on Scott Lively’s tough gay nazi assignment, click here.
There is absolutely no need for commentary. Really, you’ll see.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
Ok, maybe a little commentary. To read all my posts on Scott Lively’s tough gay nazi assignment, click here.
In his appearance on Michael Brown’s Line of Fire show, Martin Ssempa said that homosexuals have not been arrested or killed under current law. Canyon Ridge Christian Church provided a transcript of a short portion of the show (oddly calling it an “unedited interview”) where Ssempa responds to charges from Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin:
Brown reads a written challenge from Jim Burroway posted on Box Turtle Bulletin, and Martin responds regarding death penalty provision and allegations of gays being killed or imprisoned.
One aspect of Burroway’s challenge was for Martin Ssempa to post the bill. Ssempa told Brown he would do it but did not. Ssempa goes on to discuss his view of government and says that his pastor’s group does not favor the death penalty. He calls the bill “a draft” which is not true unless you think of all bills as drafts. The bill published in the Uganda Gazette is a bill, which can be amended but it is clearly more than a draft. Drafts cannot be read in Parliament, drafts are not sent to committee where they await committee report. Bills can be amended, but they can also be voted on. But I digress.
Ssempa ends his placation of critics by saying this:
I just want to let you know in the history of Uganda for the last 50 years we’ve had this law, since we’ve had a law against homosexuality, no homosexual has been arrested or killed for homosexuality.
Ugandan activists have contested this claim and said that often they are brought in on trumped up charges as a pretense to harass them for their sexual orientation. I have been tracking a story from Gulu of a woman who was burned to death because she made a pass at another woman but cannot as yet offer conclusive evidence. However, this clip from a recent British documentary, Africa’s Last Taboo, documents in detail the arrest and detention of two gay men in Mbale under the existing sodomy law.
Please note that this situation is ongoing and was initiated prior to Martin Ssempa’s statement that such things do not happen in Uganda. I have another clip where Julius Oyet tells a homosexual that he will be arrested when the law takes effect. Martin Ssempa told Line of Fire there would not be a witch hunt. When it becomes a criminal offense to remain silent if you know homosexuals, what do you think the effect of that will be? If this can take place under current law, what could happen under this new law?
Additional footage showing the attitudes of the crowd toward the Mbale gays.
The last half of this clip features the appearance by Lou Engle. I will have a brief post about that soon…
It seems like a distinct possibility.
Over the weekend, various Facebook users (e.g. here) reported that Martin Ssempa’s Facebook page had been removed. Sure enough, it is not available.
I contacted Facebook and asked if any statement could be made about the removal. Facebook spokesperson Simon Axten wrote to say he could not comment on specific users but in response to my inquiry said:
We take our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities very seriously and react quickly to reports of inappropriate content and behavior. Specifically, we’re sensitive to content that includes bullying, pornography, direct statements of hate, and actionable threats of violence. Facebook is highly self-regulating, and users can and do report content that they find questionable or offensive. When reported content is removed by one of our professional investigators, a warning is sent to the person who posted it. In rare cases when a person repeatedly violates our policies, we may disable that person’s account.
If Ssempa’s page has been removed, he would have an opportunity to appeal. Axten explained:
We always provide the ability for people whose accounts have been disabled to contact us to appeal the decision.
I am guessing videos like this one now removed from the Facebook page pushed the “direct statements of hate” button.
It is possible that the removal is a glitch such as effected the Facebook group which opposes the AHB earlier this year or that perhaps Rev. Ssempa did it himself. However, given the reaction of those who attend his church, it may indeed be an action of Facebook.
Ugandan pop has got some game as indicated by this energetic music video collaboration of Ugandan artists Weasel, Radio, and Chance Nalubega with a guest appearance by Martin Ssempa. Below the video, I have a translation provided by Thomas Muyunga.
ABATEESI BY RW&C
VERSE I (CHANCE SINGING)
……You have made me part of the common conversation, as if am Museveni,
am part of all your conversations, that I Chance, am showing off, What is wrong with my showing off?
People are hard to understand in this world.
I Chance, it is my habit to not interfere with people
I never despise people at all,
But am flabbergasted about it all,
The good thing am made out of mettle,
I know how to go about this world,
The world needs those who are tougher.
CHORUS (ALL SINGING):
…but all of you, who are against me,
Know your limits.
All you enemies should know your limits,
All of you who are against me, know your limits,
All you enemies should know your limits…..
VERSE II (WEASEL)
..if one is hard working then people start talking bad about you,
Once you make money, they want to work against you,
They even make sure that they do wrong to you, in order to foil your work,
So that when you are badly off they start laughing at you.
They are saying prayers that I fail to sell my music,
Once upon a time they even made a name because of my singing.
I weasel, I have my own ways,
I do not despise people at all.
I only play ragga music,
There are many who don’t like me,
I even don’t have peace of mind,
They are like the TITANIC sheep.
But, I am a harder person, made of mettle and rocks.
That is how the world is.
Goodlyfe is like that .
CHORUS (ALL SINGING)
VERSE III (RADIO)
……I am as thin as a reed,
Your ill words against me cause that ,
They are like the thorns placed in my doorsteps,
Everything that befalls me they cheer in glee,
I woke up earlier to make money,
But am now the topics of all your conversations,
I survived the hard times, but now they are waiting for me at the end of the bridge,
I Radio, that is my way, I never quarrel with anyone.
I never have a grudge against anyone,
My voice is for my supporters,
That is what the world expects of me,
Goodlyfe needs that of us,
According to Thomas, Abateesi means: “those who are against everything you do.” Wonder what that means? I welcome Ugandan readers comments on the meaning of the song which was posted in April.
Canyon Ridge Christian Church pastor Kevin Odor told his congregation earlier this month that one reason they continue to support Martin Ssempa is so they can have an influence on his work. Since March when they met with Ssempa, he has gone a little quieter. He did meet with Muslims to rally support in May and in late March, he called Molotov Mitchell to complain that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was being misrepresented. Mitchell then did a video which claimed to accurately describe the bill. That video is up on the WorldNetDaily video site but appears to have been removed from the initial March 31 WND post. (Check that, it is now back up)
This comes up because yesterday Rob Tisinai (ht BTB) described a Facebook conversation with Molotov Mitchell where Mitchell is still claiming that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is being misrepresented. Mitchell said this in his March video about the AHB:
A deliberate disinfo campaign has convinced tons of people that Ugandans want nothing short of gay genocide. I decided to look deeper. This isn’t my opinion, this isn’t Rick Warren’s opinion, this isn’t even MSNBC’s monolithic gay opinion. This is what’s in the bill. Uganda’s anti-gay bill formally extends the death penalty to homosexuals who commit pre-existing capital crimes. They are as follows:
#1 — Pedophilia or sexual abuse of the handicapped.
#2 — Knowing that you are HIV+ yet continuing to spread it to others, and
#3 – Using positions of authority to coerce others into performing sexual acts.
That is it. That’s as far as the “genocide” goes.
Anyone who has read the bill knows that those #1 and #3 are in there, but #2 is distored by Mitchell because the bill does not require knowledge of HIV status, let alone intent to spread it. That distinction in #2 is pretty important and Mitchell leaves out the reference to “repeat offenders” of other offenses of the bill which could be just about anyone. Failure to report homosexual behavior more than once could be construed as a repeat offense as defined by the bill. He completely ignores the life in prison for homosexual behavior aspect, and the extradition for gay behavior elsewhere, and the fines or jail terms for failure to report. If death is not involved, it must be a-ok with Martin Ssempa’s friend, Mitchell.
So Tisinai tells Mitchell that he is distorting the bill and Mitchell says:
Sorry Rob, but you’ve got shady info. There are multiple versions of the bill, even one that has no death penalty at all. The version I was discussing was the same one Pastor Ssempa was (and is?) supporting. The Left Wing is touting early versions and even fake versions of the bill, but they’re wrong. No bill calling for the execution of straight people will be presented or passed.
The problem here is, as Tisinai points out, is that Mitchell in his video claimed that he was not telling us opinions about the bill, but what was actually in it. But which bill? Mitchell says there are several versions; he says Ssempa has a version. He acknowledged he has not actually seen this bill but going on what he has heard. By this logic, there could be as many versions as there are people in Kampala.
Mitchell could be referring to the same recommendations that Martin Ssempa gave to Canyon Ridge Christian Church from the Uganda Joint Christian Council. I have that here but those recommendations do not constitute a new version of the bill. If me and a few of my professor friends here at GCC made up some recommendations to Congress about the health care bill, would I have been justified in telling people in Uganda that our recommendations constituted another version of the health care bill?
Are there different versions of the bill? Perhaps there are some proposals floating around but the official version is still the one published by the Uganda Gazette in September, 2009. To make sure, several days ago I went to the source, Uganda’s Parliament, to find out if any amendments had been read. Charles Tuhaise is a researcher for the Parliamentary Research Service and the President of the National Association of Social Workers – Uganda. I asked him if the rumors of amendments were true. He replied:
To the best of my knowledge, these rumours are unfounded. There are many Bills pending in committee and it is not clear when each of the pending bills will be tackled. Committees have no mandate to amend a Bill, but to present their proposals to the House in a report read by the Committee Chair.
In case it is unclear, by “many Bills” Mr. Tuhaise is referring to many bills on multiple subjects, not many versions of the AHB. When the AHB was first read in October, the bill was assigned to the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Committee on Presidential Affairs. There was some debate on the matter but the Speaker asked the CLPA to take the lead with help from the CPA. According to Charles Tuhaise, the bill is still before those committees and cannot be amended without consent of Parliament. The role of the committee is to make recommendations but those come in the form of a report to Parliament.
It would really aid the conversation between all parties, supporters, opponents and undecided, if supporters would simply post the bill and discuss what is current. Martin Ssempa said he would do that on March 11 in a radio show with Michael Brown. Instead, he called Molotov Mitchell sometime afterwards and complained that people were distorting the bill. And from what Mitchell said, he didn’t see a copy of it before he told the world what was in it.
This really is pretty simple. Everybody, supporter and oppponents, post the Uganda Gazette copy (wait, opponents have already done that). We discuss what it says. Then if people want to discuss what they think should be in it, then we could call those proposals.
Sunday morning, a small group of teens stood outside Canyon Ridge Christian Church in Las Vegas and protested that church’s support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I reported about this event last night on Salon.com.
Chase Cates and Spencer Niemetz are listed as the organizers of the event on this Facebook event page. According to Chase, 17 students came out altogether with about 10 at any one time. The protesters ranged in age from 15-19 and represented a variety of views, backgrounds and orientations. The focus of their concern was that a local church was supporting one of the chief instigators of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. They wanted to raise awareness since there has been very notice of the situation around Las Vegas.
According to Cates, the leaders dodged some of their questions, including how much support the church sent to Martin Ssempa and what criteria would be used to determine support. Pastor Mitch Harrison confirmed to me that the meeting occured although he did not say whether or not he acknowledged that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill addressed adult consensual behavior. Cates seemed to think they understood, but Harrison did not confirm this. Here is an excerpt from the Salon piece on that point:
Cates said he wanted to raise awareness about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and said that “if this bill was passed and people were executed or criminalized in any way, Canyon Ridge Christian Church in turn would be held responsible for financing Ssempa who so overtly pushed the bill.”
Cates, a Las Vegas man who will enter college in the fall, said the reaction from the church members was mostly positive. “After the second service, CRCC invited us to join members of the church to have an open discussion of the issue. We took them up on their offer and ended up having a two-hour conversation with Pastor [Mitch] Harrison and others,” he said.
According to Harrison, “nine or so” protesters came into the church for the discussion. Harrison said the teens raised “concerns about the bill criminalizing homosexual behavior.” He added, “Our goal in meeting with them wasn’t so much to express our opinions but to listen to their concerns and gain understanding.”
I hope understanding was gained because the recent response on the CRCC website demonstrates a lack of it when it comes to the AHB. Cates told me that he was not finished with the issue and there may be more awareness raising to come.
You gotta sympathize a little bit with McDonalds COO, Don Thompson. Comments about a French McDonald’s ad in a June 14, Chicago Tribune interview have earned him a twofer of some distinction. First, the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce said they were not lovin’ the fast food chain and announced that they were severing ties. Then today, the American for Truth About Homosexuality, Peter LaBarbera, announced a Big Mac boycott based on the same commercial and comments.
Since I saw the ad a while ago, I have stopped eating at McDonalds — which has had the added bonus of helping to keep my already protruding gut from officially being designated as “super-sized.”
Now LaBarbera and the NGLCC wants everybody else to eat elsewhere.
What has the culture war factions all upset? Here are Thompson’s comments in response to a question about that French ad (see below):
Tribune: A French TV ad featuring a gay teen and his father has stirred some controversy — not there, but here. Can you talk about that?
Thompson: It is an example that markets, cultures are very different around the world. (For instance), I’ve never shied away from the fact that I’m a Christian. I have my own personal beliefs and I don’t impose those on anybody else. I’ve been in countries where the majority of the people in the country don’t believe in a deity or they may be atheist. Or the majority of the country is Muslim. Or it may be the majority is much younger skewed. So when you look at all these differences, it’s not that I’m to be the judge or the jury relative to right or wrong. Having said that, at McDonald’s, there are core values we stand for and the world is getting much closer. So we have a lot of conversations. We’re going to make some mistakes at times. (We talk) about things that may have an implication in one part of the world and may be the cultural norm in another part of the world. And those are things that, yes, we’re going to learn from. But, you’re right, that commercial won’t show in the United States.
Here is the commercial:
Having watched the commercial, I can clearly see what has everyone so upset. The father’s blatant encouragement of heterosexual promiscuity in his son is shocking and indeed would be offensive to many Americans.
On the local level, the McDonalds here is pretty community minded, having recently hosted a fundraiser for the public library. They donate lots of food, drinks and other items to local charities, churches and sports teams. Friends and neighbors work there and I think they would be confused and upset if their livelihood was hurt due to what some French corporate people decided to do.
Having said that, I suppose there are issues which might trouble someone enough that avoiding the business could bring relief from the dissonance. Personal boycotts may give someone a feeling that they are doing something to live a consistent life. This is a matter of personal conscience. In this instance, I suspect McDonalds has little to worry about from either side.
Salon published my news article on the Canyon Ridge Christian Church response this morning.
Feel free to carry the discussion over there….
In his sermon, Pastor Odor mentioned his church’s involvement in the April AIDS walk in Las Vegas. If readers were involved in that event or live in Las Vegas, I would be interested in talking to you. Please email email@example.com.
On July 11, Pastor Kevin Odor took about 17 minutes to open his sermon with a description of the current controversy over Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s partnership with Martin Ssempa. He described some of the methods Ssempa has used to promote Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill as “offensive” and said the church leaders met with Ssempa in March to hear his side of the story. While the church leaders advised Ssempa against the unnamed offensive methods, Pastor Odor said the group was heartened by Ssempa’s reasons for supporting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Those reasons seemed to center around the perception that the bill was needed to cover certain gaps in the law.
I certainly agree with Pastor Odor that Ssempa’s methods and rhetoric have been offensive to say the least. However, I completely disagree with Odor’s description of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. In essence, with the narrative he provided for his church, he suggests that Rick Warren, World Vision, WAIT Training, Philadelphia Biblical University, and numerous others have misunderstood and/or misrepresented the AHB. Although this is familiar territory for frequent readers here, we go over it again.
Here is what Pastor Odor told his congregation about the bill:
Now the problem comes last Fall that there was a member of Parliament who decided to propose a bill to take care of some things that he was concerned weren’t being protected. And it was introduced as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. There had been a number of sodomy laws on the books already in Uganda but there were a couple of things that weren’t protected. One in particular is aggravated pedophilia basically where there was a repeat offender who was violating young men over and over again and there wasn’t a protection for that. And the second was now with HIV/AIDS if someone with HIV/AIDS, knowing that, violated someone and passing that on that was another concern.
And so…the new bill that was written had about 60% of the old bill in it and it added these new provisions to protect young people and this lawmaker’s idea was to make the equal punishment because over there already on the books if a man violates a young woman, the man would be put to death. The death penalty was prescribed for that. Let’s make that equal for young boys, let’s make the death penalty for someone who violates young boys. And so that was his intent and that was what he put in the bill.
A little later in Odor’s speech, he described his interview with Barbera Bradley Hagerty of National Public Radio. He told her his view of why the bill was tabled:
…she didn’t understand the equal thing of boys and girls being protected and so there was a misrepresentation that we were trying to clarify.
Pastor Odor wants us to believe that Ugandan law does not address the same-sex molestation. However, as I pointed out here, it does. On April 18, 2007, the Uganda Parliament passed The Penal Code Amendment Act of 2007 and corrected the imbalance by removing references to gender.
The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 129 the following new sections—
“Defilement of persons under eighteen years of age
129. (1) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.
(2) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years.
(3) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.
If the boy child is unprotected by this language, then so is the girl child. In fact, all situations involving male and female victims and male and female perpetrators are covered here. Girls and boys are protected equally; Pastor Odor’s narrative falls apart.
The other issue referred to by Pastor Odor is intentional spread of HIV. The Penal Code Amendment Act also references that crime and imposes the death penalty:
(b) where the offender to his or her knowledge, is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS);
Don’t believe me or the minutes of the Parliament? Then maybe Pastor Odor will believe Martin Ssempa. On Michael Brown’s Line of Fire radio show and then on his blog, Ssempa acknowledged for the first time that “the boy child” was, after all, protected. Speaking to Brown about the need for the AHB, Ssempa wrote:
3. Why does Uganda need bill now.
a. International groups which are coersing homosexuality down our throats ie France and Netherlands at the UN.
b. Lack of protection for the boy child from homosexual rape.
c. Lack of protection for the girls and women in the current law. Only focus on male homosexuality.
d. Lack of legislation against promotion and conspiracies to promote homosexuality.
Note: We have learnt that now the Penal Code was amended to cater for the gender imbalance in b above. (my emphasis)
Even Martin Ssempa acknowledges that there is no gender imbalance in the current Uganda Penal Code. That imbalance had been addressed in 2007. I informed Rev. Ssempa of that fact in November, 2009 via a link to a legal analysis of the bill. Ssempa was also aware that the AHB targeted consensual behavior via emails from a friend of his in the Ugandan Parliamentary research service, Charles Tuhaise.
When I first contacted Ssempa in October, 2009, he referred me to Tuhaise, believing he could help address my questions about the bill. Mr. Tuhaise made the purpose of the bill clear in a November 5 email to both Martin Ssempa and me. Addressing my concerns about the bill, Mr. Tuhaise wrote:
Pr. Ssempa and Mr Throckmorton,
I appreciate Pr. Ssempa copying me in on this conversation and hope Mr. Throckmorton too appreciates us sharing this conversation as brethren in Christ. I have read to the bottom of your conversation and have understood the key issues of contention, basically, that critics of Hon. Bahati’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill see it as disregarding the right of adults to engage in consensual sex. I think this is where Mr. Throckmorton is raising objection when he says that the issue at hand is not “child abuse”, which is justifiable.
I would like to clarify what the Bill says and why, because it seems to me Mr.Throckmorton either has not read the full text of the Bill (with its memorandum) or has not correctly interpreted its import. The Bill states its object as:
“to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting (1) any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and (2) the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places through or with the support of any Government entity in Uganda or any governmental organisation inside or outside the country”.
The Bill’s specific objectives are to:
(a) provide for marrige in Uganda as that contracted only between a man and a woman;
(b) prohibit and penalise homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;
(c) prohibit ratfication of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and
(d) prohibit the licensing of organisations which promote homosexuality.
Even if I stop here, Mr.Throckmorton’s querry about “consenting adults” is answered. The Bill asserts that continued practice of homosexuality by anybody, including “consenting adults” constitutes a threat to the traditional family.
I’m a social scientist and know that this assertion is true, because behaviour spreads through social learning. All that behaviour needs to begin spreading like bushfire is any form of social or legal legitimacy. As science has proved, gay behaviour is not in the genes, it spreads through social learning and experimentation. Yet, the other aspect about behaviour is that once it is acquired, it is so difficult to unlearn – especially sexual behaviour that is associated with such powerful a reinforcer as “orgasm”. A young man who under peer influence experiments with homosexuality is risking fine-tuning his entire life in that direction, because the brain records such an experience, which then becomes a triger for sexual thoughts and feelings.
Mr. Tuhaise here confirms that the bill is not simply about child abuse and lays out his justification for keeping homosexuality criminal “for anybody.” Pastor Ssempa was also a recipient of the email and responded to both Mr. Tuhaise and me the next day calling Mr. Tuhaise’s views “a good reply to further your understanding.”
The AHB includes references to aggravated defilement as a duplication of the 2007 law but there is so much more to it. By making his narrative about a non-existent problem, Pastor Odor did not give his congregation the full picture. The problem is not just Martin Ssempa’s “offensive” methods or the way he says things, but it is with the proposals he helped to create and has supported for months. Toning down the rhetoric won’t change that.
For all posts on the AHB, click here.
For my response to Martin Ssempa’s Line of Fire interview, click here. In this interview, he said the AHB was on the Ugandan Parliament website (not true) and that he would post it on his blog (has not done it).
Recently Canyon Ridge Christian Church launched a defense of their partnership with Uganda’s Martin Ssempa. Despite the fact that Willow Creek Association expressed regret over their 2007 award to Ssempa for his AIDS work and Rick Warren’s condemnation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Pastor Kevin Odor told his congregation a couple of Sundays ago that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and Rev. Ssempa had been misrepresented by the media. The Canyon Ridge leadership seems to take encouragement that Martin Ssempa leads a coalition of clergy which recommended that the death penalty be dropped from the bill. However, Ssempa expressed no reservations about the death penalty when the bill was first introduced, saying he fully supported it. He has not explained why he changed his views.
Some of these recommendations were delivered to Rick Warren after he forcefully denounced the bill in December. I first saw this document in March after Martin Ssempa’s appearance on the Line of Fire show. I was told at that time by host Michael Brown that the document was not for public consumption and so I did not publish it. Now, a link to the first page of the recommendations is on the Canyon Ridge website. However, they failed to produce the entire document and so I thought it might be good to see clearly what has satisfied Canyon Ridge. Despite the length, I am publishing the whole thing after the break with commentary to follow.
To the uninitiated, these recommendations might look reasonable. However, without the actual bill, one might overlook that the UJCC did not make any recommendations about the part of the bill calling for life in prison for homosexual touching. Here is the section (S2) without any recommended changes:
2. The offence of homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.
Please note that there is nothing in the proposed bill which specifies ages of the people involved or requires coercion to violate this section. Also, recall that the Introduction to the bill says this:
The object of this Bill is to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting (i) any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex;
And then also keep in mind that touching (see subsection 2c) is defined as:
“touching” includes touching—
(a) with any part of the body;
(b) with anything else;
(c) through anything;
and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ, anus or mouth.
The plain language of Section 2 describes consensual relations. This was confirmed to me by Martin Ssempa’s colleague Charles Tuhaise, President of the National Association of Social Work – Uganda and Parliamentary researcher. The Uganda Joint Christian Council did not make any recommendations to change this section (Section 2). The UJCC recommends a change to the definitions section and then begins making recommendation to Section 3 (S.3) Aggravated Homosexuality. Based on what Canyon Ridge provided, a church goer would not get the full picture. See below for the full UJCC document.