Recently, Uganda’s Daily Monitor summarized diplomatic cables from the office of U.S. Ambassador to Uganda Jerry Lanier. Some of those communications, released on Wikileaks website, implicated Uganda’s First Lady Janet Museveni as the originator of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Today, in the government affiliated media outlet New Vision, Mrs. Museveni responded to charges leveled in those cables. In her article, she denied being involved in the creation of the bill.
The second Daily Monitor report alleges that I am the initiator of the Gay Bill. This ludicrous claim is not only an insult to Hon. Bahati, the originator of the bill but also to me, because it implies that I need to hide behind someone else in order to introduce a bill in parliament.
I believe Ugandans know by now that I have always had the courage to stand by my convictions – even when they go against the grain of prevailing popular opinion. I think I have adequately demonstrated, in my work over the years, that I can boldly stand by what I believe in without fear or favour.
In other words, if she had wanted to see the bill become law, she would have introduced it herself.
Reports of the bill’s origins conflict. Ugandan minister Julius Oyet once claimed that various ministers, including Martin Ssempa, and other Christian leaders in Uganda looked for a member of Parliament to introduce the bill and asked Bahati to be the one. Certainly, Ssempa had involvement with the bill before it was introduced. He sent a copy of the bill to me which originated in a Las Vegas area Christian school (Faith Lutheran) dated August 11, 2009 which was long before the October 14, 2009 introduction of the bill in Uganda. Whether Ssempa helped author it or not, he was privy to the bill before it was introduced.
@ Warren – What are Canyon Ridge up to these days? Have they stopped funding Ssempa?
@ ‘Maazi NCO’ – I’m not sure that I would use the word ‘merely’ in connection your country’s current premier. This prime minister is an unusually powerful one, I suspect, certainly by comparison with his rather gentle, if punctual(!), predecessor.
Jim G. – In the case of Rick Warren, you would be wrong. Warren is quite active in Rwanda which is turning out to be more accepting of GLB people than elsewhere in the region. Also, Warren convincingly denounced the Uganda bill in December 2009, much to the consternation of Uganda’s fundamentalist clergy.
Am I wrong in asserting that the Uganda anti-Gay potential murderers including Mrs. Museveni and on-the-take Bahati are being funded by venomously anti-Gay white American evangelicals like Rick Warren and others of his sinister ilk?
The position of the premier is powerless. However, its present occupier is the secretary-general of the ruling NRM, which is a powerful position. Therefore Mbabazi is powerful because of his status within NRM not because he is the Prime Minister (which is —constitutional speaking—a powerless position).
You seem to love this propagandist narrative peddled by Euro-American Gay Lobby. Are you one of the gay sex lobbyists? I want to assure you that many MPs who are actively seized on this particular subject matter are not evangelicals. We have no interest in getting anyone killed, but gayism is an abominable crime against our culture and traditions and therefore new legislation is required. It has nothing to do with your compatriot-opponents in the ongoing US Cultural Civil War.
I would point out that ‘Maazi NCO’s’ many references to ‘gay sex militancy’ are classic instances of his misleading dialectic. All that people like Frank Mugisha are really asking is that LGB Ugandans are not thrown into prison or murdered (whether by an individual or – as Bahati proposes – by the state) simply because they are LGB. By the same token, I’m sure that ‘Maazi NCO’ would not want to be imprisoned or murdered simply because he is an opposition MP (and I would entirely agree with his wishes on this score).
I suppose the reason why South Africa has sexual orientation in its Constitution is due to ‘foreign pressure’ too? LOL.
I think Nelson Mandela would have something to say to that idea …
The constitution is the reason for their foreign policy stand – that is what they have said.
I find it hilarious that whenever fellow Africans stand up for LGBT it must be due to foreign influence but when they support you it is nothing to do with foreign influence (the American evangelicals).
Mrs Museveni is a politician in her own right and a member of parliament (MP). Therefore, she can introduce private member bills just like any MP. Her spouse is the President of Uganda not the Prime Minister who is merely the leader of government business in the parliament.
Just like I said in the other comment thread, Mrs Museveni was not the originator of the Bahati Bill. But she offered her unflinching support for it openly. It was well known inside and outside parliamentary circles. There was nothing secret about her support for that bill.
Before my depature, let me just address a couple of things you claimed….
The African Group agreed in principle that no one deserves to be killed for committing the abominable crime of gayism, however the African Group cannot agree to the inclusion of the word “sexual orientation”. We know how clever Europeans and Americans are. If we allow internationally unrecognized terms such as “sexual minorities” and “sexual orientation” under the guise of fighting extra-judicial murder then it will be spurn around and used by the foreign gay propagandists and their local african puppets to pressure African nations to legalize an abominable sex crime.
The Rwandan UN delegate was lying. Why did Rwanda join most African nations in 2008 to vote against the doomed French and Dutch-sponsored UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? Why did Rwanda support the original Benin Republic Initiative to remove the silly misnomer “sexual orientation” from the UN Declaration on Extra-Judicial Killings? What magic occurred to make the UN delegates of Rwanda and South Africa change their minds and double-cross their fellow africans and support US government initiative to restore the “sexual orientation” misnomer? Please don’t make me laugh. There was serious pro-gay lobbying (verging on playground bullying) from the gayism-obssessed Obama administration. I know for a fact that attempts were made to force African nations and other 3rd world nations to either support or abstain from voting on the US initiative to restore that misnormer “sexual orientation”. Uganda successfully resisted the bullying tactics of the US government and so most African nations who voted against the US initiative.
Like I said previously, kindly fly to Kigali City with your male lover. When you get there, kiss publicly in full view of a Rwandan Policeman to test whether the currently existing anti-immorality laws are enforceable.
Paul Canning—–I am perfectly aware of what Rwanda’s UN delegate said. You need not reproduce what the Rwandan delegate said. I have access to the transcript of comments made by the African group at the UN and contrarian comments made by a few individual African nations who succumbed to US government blackmail.
To test whether I am being ridiculous, please fly to Kigali and kiss a fellow man publicly and see whether the Policemen on the streets of the Rwandan capital would remain calm on sighting you and your “lover-boy” and not charge you under their currently existing anti-immorality laws. Until you try what I have said, there is no point replying to my comment.
Regarding Maazi’s ridiculous statement on Rwanda, I refer you to this statement by Rwanda’s UN delegate Olivier Nduhungirehe on why Rwanda was voting FOR December’s UN resolution against extra-judicial killings of gays. He said it was not because of lobbying or threats but because of the lessons learned from the genocide that country had suffered.
“Whether or not the concept is defined or not, whether or not we support the claims of people with a different sexual orientation, whether or not we approve of their sexual practices – we must deal with the urgency of these matters and recognize that these people continue to be the target of murder in many of our societies, and they are more at risk than many of the other groups listed. This is unfortunately true, and recognizing this is not a call to give them special rights; it’s just recognition of a crime, that their fundamental rights, their right to life should not be refused. But to refuse to recognize this reality for legal or ideological or cultural reasons will have the consequence of continuing to hide our heads in the sand and to fail to alert states to these situations that break families.”
“Believe me, sir, that a human group doesn’t need to be legally defined to be the victim of execution or massacre, since those who target their members have previously defined them. Rwanda has experienced this sixteen years ago indeed, and for this reason our delegation will vote for the amendment, and calls on other delegations to do likewise.”
You clearly know nothing about Rwanda. Yes, there is no explicit law against gayism in our sister country, but I can assure you that there are other “anti-immorality” laws on Rwandan stature books that can be used to combat sexual depravity if the pernicious brand of gay sex militancy witnessed in Uganda were to rear its ugly head in Kigali.
@ ‘Maazi NCO’ – I know that the Ugandan Premier is, on paper, relatively powerless … but come on, old fruit, let’s be realistic about Amama Mbabazi’s place in the scheme of things (and he would probably still in practice be pretty powerful even if he were not the SG … not least because of his previous ministerial position). As for Rwanda: well, Kigali decided not to proceed with arbitrary repressive measures against LGB persons, so there is no need for the same level of human rights activity there regarding this matter.
what does it matter who started it.what matters is how it ends.
though;is Janet for or against the proposal?
what does it matter who started it.what matters is how it ends.
though;is Janet for or against the proposal?
I do not deny that there is a tiny minority of western-centric african elite types (e.g. our own Makarere Law Professor Sylvia Tamale) that support whatever comes from Europe and America as inherently superior and therefore support gayism. Let me just say that I do respect the Professor Soyinka and late Professor Wangari Maathai, but strongly disagree their western ideology of free-wheeling “mind-your-own-business” libertarianism which runs contrary to African Communalism (*** please note the word “communalism” and do not mix it up with the failed european ideology of “communism” ***).
To conclude, I continue to maintain my previous comment that—
Not wanting to sound pendantic, but the statement above translates to MOST africans who support gayism are either sex deviants themselves or just doing it to collect hot dollar-cash money from Euro-American Gay Propagandists.
It wasn’t pressure from outside, that’s BS, it was pressure from inside South Africa – from South Africans – which caused a foreign policy change. According to what Matjila is quoted as saying this is about far more than gay stuff, it is about – yes – this ‘non interference’ policy, which has obviously been oh so successful regarding their neighbour Zim.
So what was Wangari Maathai?
What is Wole Soyinka?
Okay, I am really busy with important work so I will keep it as brief as possible….
South Africa may glamourize gayism in their 1994 constitution, but the post-apartheid South African government from Nelson Mandela to Thabo Mbeki had a long standing policy of not upsetting the rest of the continent by promoting gayism outside their borders. Earlier this year, the Zuma Government chickened out under pressure from gayism-obssessed Western governments. If the South Africans don’t stop their irritating (though ineffective) Jehovah Witnesses-style of promoting gayism, their influence in the African Union will take a massive beating in the near future.
I am not an evangelical. I don’t care about anyone who is not a Ugandan. Gayism is an abominable crime in our culture and traditions. It is an opinion held by most Africans regardless of socio-economic class, education, religion (or lack of it) and ethnicity. And Yes, those africans who support gayism are either sex deviants themselves or just doing it to collect hot dollar-cash money from Euro-American Gay Propagandists.
I suppose the reason why South Africa has sexual orientation in its Constitution is due to ‘foreign pressure’ too? LOL.
I think Nelson Mandela would have something to say to that idea …
The constitution is the reason for their foreign policy stand – that is what they have said.
I find it hilarious that whenever fellow Africans stand up for LGBT it must be due to foreign influence but when they support you it is nothing to do with foreign influence (the American evangelicals).
I do not deny that there is a tiny minority of western-centric african elite types (e.g. our own Makarere Law Professor Sylvia Tamale) that support whatever comes from Europe and America as inherently superior and therefore support gayism. Let me just say that I do respect the Professor Soyinka and late Professor Wangari Maathai, but strongly disagree their western ideology of free-wheeling “mind-your-own-business” libertarianism which runs contrary to African Communalism (*** please note the word “communalism” and do not mix it up with the failed european ideology of “communism” ***).
To conclude, I continue to maintain my previous comment that—
Not wanting to sound pendantic, but the statement above translates to MOST africans who support gayism are either sex deviants themselves or just doing it to collect hot dollar-cash money from Euro-American Gay Propagandists.
It wasn’t pressure from outside, that’s BS, it was pressure from inside South Africa – from South Africans – which caused a foreign policy change. According to what Matjila is quoted as saying this is about far more than gay stuff, it is about – yes – this ‘non interference’ policy, which has obviously been oh so successful regarding their neighbour Zim.
So what was Wangari Maathai?
What is Wole Soyinka?
Okay, I am really busy with important work so I will keep it as brief as possible….
South Africa may glamourize gayism in their 1994 constitution, but the post-apartheid South African government from Nelson Mandela to Thabo Mbeki had a long standing policy of not upsetting the rest of the continent by promoting gayism outside their borders. Earlier this year, the Zuma Government chickened out under pressure from gayism-obssessed Western governments. If the South Africans don’t stop their irritating (though ineffective) Jehovah Witnesses-style of promoting gayism, their influence in the African Union will take a massive beating in the near future.
I am not an evangelical. I don’t care about anyone who is not a Ugandan. Gayism is an abominable crime in our culture and traditions. It is an opinion held by most Africans regardless of socio-economic class, education, religion (or lack of it) and ethnicity. And Yes, those africans who support gayism are either sex deviants themselves or just doing it to collect hot dollar-cash money from Euro-American Gay Propagandists.
Before my depature, let me just address a couple of things you claimed….
The African Group agreed in principle that no one deserves to be killed for committing the abominable crime of gayism, however the African Group cannot agree to the inclusion of the word “sexual orientation”. We know how clever Europeans and Americans are. If we allow internationally unrecognized terms such as “sexual minorities” and “sexual orientation” under the guise of fighting extra-judicial murder then it will be spurn around and used by the foreign gay propagandists and their local african puppets to pressure African nations to legalize an abominable sex crime.
The Rwandan UN delegate was lying. Why did Rwanda join most African nations in 2008 to vote against the doomed French and Dutch-sponsored UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? Why did Rwanda support the original Benin Republic Initiative to remove the silly misnomer “sexual orientation” from the UN Declaration on Extra-Judicial Killings? What magic occurred to make the UN delegates of Rwanda and South Africa change their minds and double-cross their fellow africans and support US government initiative to restore the “sexual orientation” misnomer? Please don’t make me laugh. There was serious pro-gay lobbying (verging on playground bullying) from the gayism-obssessed Obama administration. I know for a fact that attempts were made to force African nations and other 3rd world nations to either support or abstain from voting on the US initiative to restore that misnormer “sexual orientation”. Uganda successfully resisted the bullying tactics of the US government and so most African nations who voted against the US initiative.
Like I said previously, kindly fly to Kigali City with your male lover. When you get there, kiss publicly in full view of a Rwandan Policeman to test whether the currently existing anti-immorality laws are enforceable.
Paul Canning—–I am perfectly aware of what Rwanda’s UN delegate said. You need not reproduce what the Rwandan delegate said. I have access to the transcript of comments made by the African group at the UN and contrarian comments made by a few individual African nations who succumbed to US government blackmail.
To test whether I am being ridiculous, please fly to Kigali and kiss a fellow man publicly and see whether the Policemen on the streets of the Rwandan capital would remain calm on sighting you and your “lover-boy” and not charge you under their currently existing anti-immorality laws. Until you try what I have said, there is no point replying to my comment.
Regarding Maazi’s ridiculous statement on Rwanda, I refer you to this statement by Rwanda’s UN delegate Olivier Nduhungirehe on why Rwanda was voting FOR December’s UN resolution against extra-judicial killings of gays. He said it was not because of lobbying or threats but because of the lessons learned from the genocide that country had suffered.
“Whether or not the concept is defined or not, whether or not we support the claims of people with a different sexual orientation, whether or not we approve of their sexual practices – we must deal with the urgency of these matters and recognize that these people continue to be the target of murder in many of our societies, and they are more at risk than many of the other groups listed. This is unfortunately true, and recognizing this is not a call to give them special rights; it’s just recognition of a crime, that their fundamental rights, their right to life should not be refused. But to refuse to recognize this reality for legal or ideological or cultural reasons will have the consequence of continuing to hide our heads in the sand and to fail to alert states to these situations that break families.”
“Believe me, sir, that a human group doesn’t need to be legally defined to be the victim of execution or massacre, since those who target their members have previously defined them. Rwanda has experienced this sixteen years ago indeed, and for this reason our delegation will vote for the amendment, and calls on other delegations to do likewise.”
I would point out that ‘Maazi NCO’s’ many references to ‘gay sex militancy’ are classic instances of his misleading dialectic. All that people like Frank Mugisha are really asking is that LGB Ugandans are not thrown into prison or murdered (whether by an individual or – as Bahati proposes – by the state) simply because they are LGB. By the same token, I’m sure that ‘Maazi NCO’ would not want to be imprisoned or murdered simply because he is an opposition MP (and I would entirely agree with his wishes on this score).
@ ‘Maazi NCO’ – I know that the Ugandan Premier is, on paper, relatively powerless … but come on, old fruit, let’s be realistic about Amama Mbabazi’s place in the scheme of things (and he would probably still in practice be pretty powerful even if he were not the SG … not least because of his previous ministerial position). As for Rwanda: well, Kigali decided not to proceed with arbitrary repressive measures against LGB persons, so there is no need for the same level of human rights activity there regarding this matter.
You clearly know nothing about Rwanda. Yes, there is no explicit law against gayism in our sister country, but I can assure you that there are other “anti-immorality” laws on Rwandan stature books that can be used to combat sexual depravity if the pernicious brand of gay sex militancy witnessed in Uganda were to rear its ugly head in Kigali.
The position of the premier is powerless. However, its present occupier is the secretary-general of the ruling NRM, which is a powerful position. Therefore Mbabazi is powerful because of his status within NRM not because he is the Prime Minister (which is —constitutional speaking—a powerless position).
You seem to love this propagandist narrative peddled by Euro-American Gay Lobby. Are you one of the gay sex lobbyists? I want to assure you that many MPs who are actively seized on this particular subject matter are not evangelicals. We have no interest in getting anyone killed, but gayism is an abominable crime against our culture and traditions and therefore new legislation is required. It has nothing to do with your compatriot-opponents in the ongoing US Cultural Civil War.
@ Warren – What are Canyon Ridge up to these days? Have they stopped funding Ssempa?
@ ‘Maazi NCO’ – I’m not sure that I would use the word ‘merely’ in connection your country’s current premier. This prime minister is an unusually powerful one, I suspect, certainly by comparison with his rather gentle, if punctual(!), predecessor.
Jim G. – In the case of Rick Warren, you would be wrong. Warren is quite active in Rwanda which is turning out to be more accepting of GLB people than elsewhere in the region. Also, Warren convincingly denounced the Uganda bill in December 2009, much to the consternation of Uganda’s fundamentalist clergy.
Am I wrong in asserting that the Uganda anti-Gay potential murderers including Mrs. Museveni and on-the-take Bahati are being funded by venomously anti-Gay white American evangelicals like Rick Warren and others of his sinister ilk?
Mrs Museveni is a politician in her own right and a member of parliament (MP). Therefore, she can introduce private member bills just like any MP. Her spouse is the President of Uganda not the Prime Minister who is merely the leader of government business in the parliament.
Just like I said in the other comment thread, Mrs Museveni was not the originator of the Bahati Bill. But she offered her unflinching support for it openly. It was well known inside and outside parliamentary circles. There was nothing secret about her support for that bill.
So in Uganda, the spouse of the Prime Minister is also allowed to introduce bills to parliament?
So in Uganda, the spouse of the Prime Minister is also allowed to introduce bills to parliament?