Uganda's Monitor interviews Bahati and gay advocate; Bahati admits bill redundant

Uganda’s Sunday Monitor interviewed Anti-Homosexuality Bill author David Bahati and gay advocate Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera about the anti-gay bill. Here are some highlights:
Bahati continues to say the death penalty will be removed.

Certainly the punishment of death penalty is something we have moved away from- attempt to commit homosexuality is something we have also moved away from.

There are a number of amendments we have made, and those are going to be brought forward. Since we have moved it, we have listened to a number of views from a number of stakeholders, and all those views have been incorporated in the amendments, which will come when we happen to bring it.
But the focus is on inducement, stopping the inducement of our children to this behaviour, and promotion- those two things are the ones that we will be focusing on.

The committee report I have does not remove the death penalty.
In this part, Bahati admits that the bill is not necessary to address defilement. The Monitor reporter asked why the law is needed when laws addressing child protection are on the books.

If protecting children is the focus of the Bill, why does it require an entirely separate bill from current child protection laws?
We are not really singling out anybody. In 2007, we had an Act which stops defilement, the defilement Act, it is already there. We have the Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality in some form, but it is not specific, it’s not effective, it needs strengthening.
The Bill comes in to include other issues that have emerged over time-issues of promotion, it has never happened, it is happening now, issues of inducing children- it was never there, it was happening now.

Do not miss the significance of this. Bahati and Ssempa have been saying that the law is needed to protect boy children. The Penal Code Amendment Act made the defilement laws very stringent and gender neutral.
Finally, note the time frame of addressing a new version of the AHB: a few weeks from now.

The close of this (8th) Parliament is just pressing on the pause button-in a few weeks when Parliament resumes we will begin the process of legislating against homosexuality.

Kasha provides her point of view, and she says they will challenge the bill in court. The current bill would have many problems which would make it immediately vulnerable to a court challenge (e.g., see this excerpt of a longer critique by Makerare University law professor Silvia Tamale).
Finally for this brief post, Kasha reminds us that the GLBT groups in Uganda have condemned defilement and any activities that could be considered “recruitment,” saying

If I found someone trying to recruit children into homosexuality, I would even hand them in myself – he is trying to pretend that he’s protecting children of Uganda, but he’s not doing that.

36 thoughts on “Uganda's Monitor interviews Bahati and gay advocate; Bahati admits bill redundant”

  1. We gays have no intention of recuriting children and no one has ever come out with such an agenda this is all being done to with the intention to make us look like devils in the eyes of Ugandans to spoil our names we are against such people
    some of us have had problems from our own parents because of being homosexuals which i think ‘s unfair people do not want to leave us free to do what we want to do like other Ugandans .Let us try to kill this bill

  2. Given how things looked in November 2009 (with the original ‘slaughter programme’ set to become law), things have moved on.
    I suspect that the old Clause 13 will form much of the next ‘outrage’ (i.e. attempts will be made effectively to ‘squeeze’ LGBT persons out of civil society, rather as Nazis did the Jews in the mid-1930s.).
    Will the international community be fooled by the next round of bahatic shenanigans? I doubt it.

  3. The current bill would have many problems which would make it immediately vulnerable to a court challenge (e.g., see this excerpt of a longer critique by Makerare University law professor Silvia Tamale

    Without going into specifics, some of the issues raised by the pro-gay Ms Silvia Tamale are correct and legitimate, but the rest are just pure simple bunkum.

  4. Indeed – all this ‘recruitment’ stuff is cheap, dirty propaganda. Everybody (on both sides) who knows anything about the whole situation understands this (even if some do not admit as such).
    Ironically, it is perhaps the disingenuous* David Bahati (“I want to kill them all”) himself who has undermined this whole murderous scheme, ably assisted by the likes of Otto Odonga (“I would want to hang my own son”) and Martin Ssempa (with his p**-p** porn shows). And then there are people like Buturo, with his less-than-savoury past (see the most recent UG post on this blog). A motley crew of ‘nasties’ indeed!
    It does now seem that plenty of intelligent and influential people in Uganda are working quietly but surely to kill the Bill. Let’s hope they succeed.
    * May’s events (the [non-]changes proposed by the Tashobya committee) showed that Bahati’s claim to be ‘moving away from’ potential genocide was simply a pack of lies.

  5. Anyway, let’s look at your statement: “Contrary to Western media propaganda, Gays who keep their heads down and do their stuff privately will be left alone.” That was a lie, wasn’t it? You just said it in order to deceive (just as Bahati and Ssempa lied about Article 129).
    Source: http://ncronline.org/news/hope-houston-extremes-uganda

    I see you are still playing clever games. Why are you afraid of reproducing my statements in full? You deliberately take a small segment of my full statement and then proceed to quote it out of context. Just for the record, you are deceiving no one but yourself.

    This attempted trickery did not ‘play well’ in certain important circles – put people more ‘on guard’, actually.

    Only a naive Ugandan will think that anything other than our parliament passing laws declaring “gayism a great, wonderful and legal behaviour” will satisfy the Europeans and Americans. But let me reiterate for the umpteenth time that gayism will NEVER be legal here in my life time or that of my grand kids. You and your cohorts can remain on guard forever if you wish. We have time on our side. Before this parliament terminates in 2016, we will have a robust legal framework that meets the aspirations of our people with regards to the abominable sex crime of gayism.

  6. Kasha provides her point of view, and she says they will challenge the bill in court. The current bill would have many problems which would make it immediately vulnerable to a court challenge

    I will be shocked if the domestic agents of the foreign lobbies do not challenge in court whatever law that hits the gazette. This is the reason why any anti-sodomy law that comes into existence must be compliant with the constitution. I am glad that the female gay sex practitioner has made clear the intentions of her agency. This will enable all stakeholders working on their “projects” to take notice and not be naive. This people have got money from Europe and America to fight this thing all the way to the supreme court if need be. I am so glad our judges do not legislate from the bench !!

  7. If you say so, dear!
    Anyway, let’s look at your statement: “Contrary to Western media propaganda, Gays who keep their heads down and do their stuff privately will be left alone.” That was a lie, wasn’t it? You just said it in order to deceive (just as Bahati and Ssempa lied about Article 129).
    Source: http://ncronline.org/news/hope-houston-extremes-uganda

  8. Consensual same-sex activity is not currently a ‘sex crime’ under UG law

    Ha, ha, ha. Gayism is a sex crime. I am not interested in engaging you in a game of semantics. Ugandans are competent to interprete their own laws. Since year 2000, both male and females have been liable to be prosecuted for same-sex deviant acts as defined by provisions on “carnal acts against the order of nature” and “engagement in acts of gross indeceny”. All this talk of “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” is just nonsense since I do not even recognize those terms as legitimate.

  9. ‘Maazi’
    Shall we have a look together at the current ‘Clause 13’?
    (By the way, you might dismiss what I said as ‘propaganda’ – I expected that, of course, complete with ‘hysterical caps’ – but more people here see it differently. But there is one important point of detail that you have overlooked: Clause 13 does not apply only to what you term ‘gay sex practitioners’, it could also apply to, for example, someone giving shelter to, or providing health care for, a homeless gay person. It’s just ‘slow slaughter’, rather than ‘quick’.)

  10. I suspect that the old Clause 13 will form much of the next ‘outrage’ (i.e. attempts will be made effectively to ‘squeeze’ LGBT persons out of civil society, rather as Nazis did the Jews in the mid-1930s

    Propaganda ! Propaganda !! Propaganda !!!! This has nothing to do with Nazism. Gayism is a sex crime. Anyone who keeps on the right side of the law and avoids engaging in gay sex is free to live his or her life in Uganda.

  11. Anyway, since ‘Maazi NCO’ declines to comment on the infamous Clause 13, I will.
    It is clearly a kind of ‘catch all’ clause (just look at the ‘loose’, all-embracing wording) that can be interpreted to suit those who use it (for their own political ends?). It represents a huge threat to good work done by both individuals and NGOs in, for example, the fight against HIV/AIDS. I suspect that when leaders in the international community called for the complete abandonment of the Bill, Clause 13 was very much in their thoughts.
    Ironically perhaps, all ‘Maazi’s’ blogging (and especially some of his more ‘rash’ statements, such as “Contrary to Western media propaganda, Gays who keep their heads down and do their stuff privately will be left alone”) might be seen as a breach of the Clause, if only because of all the discussion it has stimulated (the Clause is designed effectively to criminalise discussion). Ssempa’s porn shows would certainly have breached it.

  12. I take it you admit that the statement I quoted is false, ‘Maazi’. If it is not, perhaps you would care to explain further. The statement is very clear and definite, the ‘context’ to which you refer notwithstanding. Try as you might, my dear, you can’t wriggle out of that one. I suspect that only your homophobic allies would agree that I am deceiving myself, and maybe even they are ‘raising an eyebrow’ or two.
    By the way, as far as I know, neither the EU nor the US has told UG to pass laws saying that ‘gayism is great and wonderful’. If they have done so, perhaps you’d like to produce evidence for this. (Mind you, producing evidence for things is not exactly your strongest point; we’ve still seen nothing from you on the subject of so-called ‘recruitment’.)
    Anyway, shall we look at Clause 13 of the current Bahati Bill? What are your thoughts on that?

  13. Aha! Just spotted a factual error in something ‘Maazi’ has said. He said, “Gayism is a sex crime.”
    Consensual same-sex activity is not currently a ‘sex crime’ under UG law; certain activities** are deemed ‘offences against nature’ (the same is in fact true is of the same ‘certain activities’ with regard to heterosexual couples). The UG police made this point a few weeks ago.
    For such activity to be classified a ‘sex crime’, a change in the law would be required.
    ** The main ‘activity’ in question is the one that dear little WUg kept getting so extremely excited about.

  14. Claims made by some that the death penalty was removed during the Eighth Parliament were also untrue, of course. This attempted trickery did not ‘play well’ in certain important circles – put people more ‘on guard’, actually.

  15. Indeed – all this ‘recruitment’ stuff is cheap, dirty propaganda. Everybody (on both sides) who knows anything about the whole situation understands this (even if some do not admit as such).
    Ironically, it is perhaps the disingenuous* David Bahati (“I want to kill them all”) himself who has undermined this whole murderous scheme, ably assisted by the likes of Otto Odonga (“I would want to hang my own son”) and Martin Ssempa (with his p**-p** porn shows). And then there are people like Buturo, with his less-than-savoury past (see the most recent UG post on this blog). A motley crew of ‘nasties’ indeed!
    It does now seem that plenty of intelligent and influential people in Uganda are working quietly but surely to kill the Bill. Let’s hope they succeed.
    * May’s events (the [non-]changes proposed by the Tashobya committee) showed that Bahati’s claim to be ‘moving away from’ potential genocide was simply a pack of lies.

  16. We gays have no intention of recuriting children and no one has ever come out with such an agenda this is all being done to with the intention to make us look like devils in the eyes of Ugandans to spoil our names we are against such people
    some of us have had problems from our own parents because of being homosexuals which i think ‘s unfair people do not want to leave us free to do what we want to do like other Ugandans .Let us try to kill this bill

  17. Anyway, since ‘Maazi NCO’ declines to comment on the infamous Clause 13, I will.
    It is clearly a kind of ‘catch all’ clause (just look at the ‘loose’, all-embracing wording) that can be interpreted to suit those who use it (for their own political ends?). It represents a huge threat to good work done by both individuals and NGOs in, for example, the fight against HIV/AIDS. I suspect that when leaders in the international community called for the complete abandonment of the Bill, Clause 13 was very much in their thoughts.
    Ironically perhaps, all ‘Maazi’s’ blogging (and especially some of his more ‘rash’ statements, such as “Contrary to Western media propaganda, Gays who keep their heads down and do their stuff privately will be left alone”) might be seen as a breach of the Clause, if only because of all the discussion it has stimulated (the Clause is designed effectively to criminalise discussion). Ssempa’s porn shows would certainly have breached it.

  18. Anyway, I’m still interested to hear your ‘take’ on Clause 13 of the Bahati Bill. You’ve not responded to my question up till now.

    I refer you to one of the newest comments I made on this thread

  19. Anyway, I’m still interested to hear your ‘take’ on Clause 13 of the Bahati Bill. You’ve not responded to my question up till now.

    I refer you to one of the newest comments I made on this thread

  20. I take it you admit that the statement I quoted is false, ‘Maazi’. If it is not, perhaps you would care to explain further. The statement is very clear and definite, the ‘context’ to which you refer notwithstanding. Try as you might, my dear, you can’t wriggle out of that one. I suspect that only your homophobic allies would agree that I am deceiving myself, and maybe even they are ‘raising an eyebrow’ or two.
    By the way, as far as I know, neither the EU nor the US has told UG to pass laws saying that ‘gayism is great and wonderful’. If they have done so, perhaps you’d like to produce evidence for this. (Mind you, producing evidence for things is not exactly your strongest point; we’ve still seen nothing from you on the subject of so-called ‘recruitment’.)
    Anyway, shall we look at Clause 13 of the current Bahati Bill? What are your thoughts on that?

  21. Anyway, let’s look at your statement: “Contrary to Western media propaganda, Gays who keep their heads down and do their stuff privately will be left alone.” That was a lie, wasn’t it? You just said it in order to deceive (just as Bahati and Ssempa lied about Article 129).
    Source: http://ncronline.org/news/hope-houston-extremes-uganda

    I see you are still playing clever games. Why are you afraid of reproducing my statements in full? You deliberately take a small segment of my full statement and then proceed to quote it out of context. Just for the record, you are deceiving no one but yourself.

    This attempted trickery did not ‘play well’ in certain important circles – put people more ‘on guard’, actually.

    Only a naive Ugandan will think that anything other than our parliament passing laws declaring “gayism a great, wonderful and legal behaviour” will satisfy the Europeans and Americans. But let me reiterate for the umpteenth time that gayism will NEVER be legal here in my life time or that of my grand kids. You and your cohorts can remain on guard forever if you wish. We have time on our side. Before this parliament terminates in 2016, we will have a robust legal framework that meets the aspirations of our people with regards to the abominable sex crime of gayism.

  22. Claims made by some that the death penalty was removed during the Eighth Parliament were also untrue, of course. This attempted trickery did not ‘play well’ in certain important circles – put people more ‘on guard’, actually.

  23. If you say so, dear!
    Anyway, let’s look at your statement: “Contrary to Western media propaganda, Gays who keep their heads down and do their stuff privately will be left alone.” That was a lie, wasn’t it? You just said it in order to deceive (just as Bahati and Ssempa lied about Article 129).
    Source: http://ncronline.org/news/hope-houston-extremes-uganda

  24. Consensual same-sex activity is not currently a ‘sex crime’ under UG law

    Ha, ha, ha. Gayism is a sex crime. I am not interested in engaging you in a game of semantics. Ugandans are competent to interprete their own laws. Since year 2000, both male and females have been liable to be prosecuted for same-sex deviant acts as defined by provisions on “carnal acts against the order of nature” and “engagement in acts of gross indeceny”. All this talk of “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” is just nonsense since I do not even recognize those terms as legitimate.

  25. Aha! Just spotted a factual error in something ‘Maazi’ has said. He said, “Gayism is a sex crime.”
    Consensual same-sex activity is not currently a ‘sex crime’ under UG law; certain activities** are deemed ‘offences against nature’ (the same is in fact true is of the same ‘certain activities’ with regard to heterosexual couples). The UG police made this point a few weeks ago.
    For such activity to be classified a ‘sex crime’, a change in the law would be required.
    ** The main ‘activity’ in question is the one that dear little WUg kept getting so extremely excited about.

  26. ‘Maazi’
    Shall we have a look together at the current ‘Clause 13’?
    (By the way, you might dismiss what I said as ‘propaganda’ – I expected that, of course, complete with ‘hysterical caps’ – but more people here see it differently. But there is one important point of detail that you have overlooked: Clause 13 does not apply only to what you term ‘gay sex practitioners’, it could also apply to, for example, someone giving shelter to, or providing health care for, a homeless gay person. It’s just ‘slow slaughter’, rather than ‘quick’.)

  27. The current bill would have many problems which would make it immediately vulnerable to a court challenge (e.g., see this excerpt of a longer critique by Makerare University law professor Silvia Tamale

    Without going into specifics, some of the issues raised by the pro-gay Ms Silvia Tamale are correct and legitimate, but the rest are just pure simple bunkum.

  28. I suspect that the old Clause 13 will form much of the next ‘outrage’ (i.e. attempts will be made effectively to ‘squeeze’ LGBT persons out of civil society, rather as Nazis did the Jews in the mid-1930s

    Propaganda ! Propaganda !! Propaganda !!!! This has nothing to do with Nazism. Gayism is a sex crime. Anyone who keeps on the right side of the law and avoids engaging in gay sex is free to live his or her life in Uganda.

  29. Kasha provides her point of view, and she says they will challenge the bill in court. The current bill would have many problems which would make it immediately vulnerable to a court challenge

    I will be shocked if the domestic agents of the foreign lobbies do not challenge in court whatever law that hits the gazette. This is the reason why any anti-sodomy law that comes into existence must be compliant with the constitution. I am glad that the female gay sex practitioner has made clear the intentions of her agency. This will enable all stakeholders working on their “projects” to take notice and not be naive. This people have got money from Europe and America to fight this thing all the way to the supreme court if need be. I am so glad our judges do not legislate from the bench !!

  30. Given how things looked in November 2009 (with the original ‘slaughter programme’ set to become law), things have moved on.
    I suspect that the old Clause 13 will form much of the next ‘outrage’ (i.e. attempts will be made effectively to ‘squeeze’ LGBT persons out of civil society, rather as Nazis did the Jews in the mid-1930s.).
    Will the international community be fooled by the next round of bahatic shenanigans? I doubt it.

Comments are closed.