Uganda: Members of Parliament Call for Another Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Yesterday members of Uganda’s Parliament called for legislation akin to the failed Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014. Beginning in 2009, Uganda had the world’s attention as the nation’s Parliament debated a bill which would have implemented the death penalty for repeat instances of same-sex behavior between consenting adults. A slightly modified bill finally passed in 2013 only to be struck down by a Ugandan court in 2014.
In protest, nations around the globe cut off aid to Uganda and President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the bill at the 2010 prayer breakfast. Evangelicals were divided over the bill with some giving quiet support to the evangelical parliamentarians in Uganda. Others, like Rick Warren, criticized the bill and urged Ugandan pastors to come out against it. See the end of this post for more reading on the issue. I wrote scores of articles about the bill and came out strongly against it.

A New Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

After speaking out against same-sex marriage at the March Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, members of Parliament passed a commendation of Speaker Rebecca Kadaga.


Here is Kadaga at the IPU meeting:

The recognition of Kadaga Wednesday led to other members of Parliament making statements about a need for a new law against homosexuality.


That homosexuality spreads “like a wild fire” is just one of many misconceptions which members of Parliament use to generate support for their efforts. As a response to a request from President Museveni for scientific information relating to homosexuality, Jack Drescher and I wrote a scientific consensus letter in 2014 which was signed by over 200 scholars and sex researchers. I would like to think it helped but he signed the bill anyway. Furthermore, when I read these statements from the Parliament, I can see we have more work to do.

Additional Reading

Scientific Consensus Statement
History of Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill – NPR
Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill Inspired by American Evangelicals  – Daily Beast
My Salon series about a Nevada church who dropped support of a Uganda missionary over the bill
Straight Man’s Burden – Harpers
The Bill Inspired by American Evangelicals – The Atlantic
All posts about Uganda
 

Meeting Minutes from Uganda's Ministry of Health Task Force Debate on Homosexuality

Although Yoweri Museveni has not yet signed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, he has signaled his intent to do so based on information presented to him from a task force set up by Uganda’s Ministry of Health. Museveni passed the buck to that committee and claims to be taking steps in line with their recommendations. I posted the committee’s report here last week.
Apparently, the task force only met two times prior to presenting their findings. According to minutes of those two meetings which I present here, the entire process seemed to be thrown together at the last minute.
Minutes for the first meeting:

Minutes of the 1st task force on the homosexuality debate held at the Ministry of Health on 3rd February 2014

Members Present
Dr. Isaac Ezati                                     Chair, Director Planning, Ministry of Health
Dr. Sylvester Onzivua                     Senior Pathologist, Mulago Hospital
Dr. Misaki Wayengera                    Geneticist, Makerere University
Prof. Seggane Musisi                      Psychiatrist, Makerere University
Dr. Sheila Ndyanabangi                 Head, Mental Health Desk, Ministry of Health
Dr. Paul Bangirana                           Psychologist, Makerere University
Assoc. Prof. Eugene Kinyanda    Psychiatrist, Makerere University
Dr David Basangwa                          Director, Butabika Hospital
Min 1: The Chair briefed members that the President needs an opinion from experts whether homosexuality is abnormal.
Min 2: The team agreed to answer the following questions;
a)      Is there a scientific basis for homosexuality, if yes what is it?
b)      Is it a disease (disease process) or not?
c)       Is it an abnormality. What drives it? Include the social, psychological and religious causes.
Min 3: They also noted the need to mention the following in the report;
a)      The protection of families and that the act needs to be regulated i.e. no recruiting, public displays so as to protect children and families.
b)      The controversies of the literature. No literature in Uganda about homosexuality, most studies done in the West. There is need to balance between the evidence from the west and protecting our culture.
c)       Studies are needed to study homosexuality/sexuality in Uganda.
Min 4: To meet again on Wednesday at 6pm with answers to the question, is there a scientific basis for this?

Minutes for the second meeting:

Minutes of the 2nd task force on the homosexuality debate held at the Ministry of Health on 5th February 2014

Members Present

  1. Dr. Isaac Ezati                                     Chair, Director Planning, Ministry of Health
  2. Dr. Sylvester Onzivua                     Senior Pathologist, Mulago Hospital
  3. Dr. Misaki Wayengera                    Geneticist, Makerere University
  4. Prof. Seggane Musisi                      Psychiatrist, Makerere University
  5. Dr. Sheila Ndyanabangi                 Head, Mental Health Desk, Ministry of Health
  6. Dr. Paul Bangirana                           Psychologist, Makerere University
  7. Dr Jacinto Amandua                        Commissioner, Ministry of Health

Absent with apology

  1. Assoc. Prof. Eugene Kinyanda    Psychiatrist, Makerere University
  2. Dr David Basangwa                          Director, Butabika Hospital

Min 1: Dr Ezati nominated Prof Seggane to Chair the scientific arm of the task force. He reiterated the question the Minister wanted answered; what is the scientific or genetic basis of homosexuality and can it be learned or unlearned.
Min 2: Prof Seggane presented his report. He gave a background on sexuality and overview of the biological basis. He concluded that homosexuality is not an abnormality nor a habit but a normal biological variant of sexuality. It needs to be regulated as was in the traditional African society.
Min 3: Dr Bangirana presented evidence showing that that the hypothalamus in both homosexual men and heterosexual women was activated by androgen containing odours. All brains of the three groups processed other odours similarly. These findings imply that homosexual men have a different brain response to male odours compared to heterosexual men but they respond to other odours like heterosexuals. It is not clear whether this differing physiological response exists at birth or developed after homosexual experience later in life.
Min 4: Dr Onzivua made his presentation. He mentioned that there is no biological basis for homosexuality. There is no biological basis to promote homosexuality, different body parts are adapted for their functions, eg pinna to collect sound waves etc.  The anatomy of the human being is not designed homosexuality. There are no conclusive studies on the genetics of homosexuality. However the environmental influence can not be ignored.
Min 5: Dr Wayengera presented his report. There are statistical correlations between the behaviour and structural and genetic factors. The current based on the dearth of genetic studies imply that it is a learned behaviour (social influence). Chromosomal studies have not produced consistent results when replicated. Animal studies have shown a genetic basis of homosexuality (in Drosophila and mice) but have not replicated in humans. Evolutionary biology where the main role for sex is procreation implies there is no structural basis for homosexuality.
Min 6: A discussion followed these presentations. It was suggested that simple explanations are needed to explain homosexuality since the lay public will not understand the science presented above. Need to look at it from all angles i.e. biological, psychological and social.
Min 7: Conclusions:
a)      There is no definitive gene for homosexuality
b)      Homosexuality is not a disease
c)       Homosexuality is not an abnormality
d)      In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexual tendencies
e)      It can be influenced by environmental factors (e.g. culture, information, permissiveness)
f)       The practise needs regulation like any other behaviour

It is stunning to think that a decision as important as whether to endorse the Anti-Homosexuality Bill could be decided in this manner. Clearly this committee did not consider all of the evidence and ignored some that was presented. At least as reported here, the committee did not reflect on the inappropriate use of science requested by the president, and even discussed simplifying the complexity of the issues for public consumption. There is something very wrong about this process; the right to exist should not depend on research studies.
 

Report on Homosexuality by Uganda's Ministry of Health

I have secured a copy of the report of the ministry of health on genetics and homosexuality. According to media reports and those close to the situation, this report was referred to by President Museveni as a reason to sign the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Each page of the report can be read by clicking the thumbnails below. First, I am including the press release describing the report and Museveni’s response to it at the NRM caucus meeting. Museveni refers in the report to a letter from “USA scientists.” I don’t know if he is referring to our letter or another one. Several were sent to the caucus meeting.
While there are several problems with the report, one glaring issue is the way the new genetics study was handled by the committee. On page 7, the report states:

More recently, a group from the American Societies of Human Genetics have used a genome-wide study to replicate Hamer’s Xq28 in animal model studies…

I know of no efforts like this using animal models. I feel sure they are referring to the study that found two regions of linkage between over 400 pairs of gay brothers. This study, along with other evidence, should have influenced the committee to come to a different conclusion.
Much of the report was reasonable (e.g., efforts to change have not been successful) but the conclusions the committee came to were not.
Committee press release PDF

The Republic of Uganda
STATE HOUSE Department of Press and Public Relations. News. Information. Communication
Telephone 0414 231900/0414343308; Fax: 0414 235462
Email: Press@statehouse.go.ug
P.O. Box 25497 Kampala, Uganda
Press Release
President to sign anti-gay bill after experts prove there is no connection between biology and being gay
February 15,  2014
President Yoweri Museveni has stressed that there is no debate regarding the promotion of homosexuality, those who are homosexuals for mercenary reasons and the promotion of exhibitionalism saying these should not only be dealt with by law but also harshly. “In my role as a strategist and a responsible leader for our country, there is no debate regarding the promotion of homosexuality. That one I totally agree with everybody that anybody who is promoting homosexuality we must stop him… this must be stopped by law and harshly. Secondly I do not accept those who become homosexuals for mercenary reasons, thirdly, I cannot accept exhibitionalism of homosexual behavior that must be stopped and stopped harshly. The only question which I raised was, are there those who are born as homosexuals? He said amidst ululations and clapping by NRM members of parliament currently attending a retreat at the National Leadership institute in Kyankwanzi. “That is why therefore am very happy. What is important for us is the authoritative statement of those who are charged with the medical affairs of Uganda at this time because they are the ones who are historically responsible. The question I put to them was, are there people born like this? Now they are saying they are no such people. And if they put it in writing… because this is a historical document…that the one who was running Uganda at that time got worried, asked the experts what did they say about this and this is what they said….then my work is finished,” he said attracting more cheering from celebrating legislators.
The President emphasized that this is a job for the scientists before reading out a letter from USA scientist about the same debate. (Letter from US scientists to be sent to the media ASAP) “The authorities are these ones, the University Medical School and medical authorities. And since they have put this in writing…me my job is finished. The most important thing is on the three where there is no debate. On the promotion/recruitment of homosexuals no debate; mercenary homosexuals no debate and exhibitionism not debate. Leadership is not a joke. Don’t just sit there because somebody is calling you Your Excellency, Honourable and you think you are a God. You are just a servant and a servant does his best to do the right thing. That is why I want a scientific answer not a political answer. Let the scientists answer this. And according to the way they have answered it, if they mislead us they are the ones who are responsible,” he said.
Dr. C. Ibingira the head of School of biomedical sciences at Makerere University as according to the data they have presented there is no single gene associated with homosexuality. (Paper will be sent to media ASAP) “Am speaking at the point from where we stand in space time of science..the evidence we have shows that there is no gene associated with homosexuality,” Ibingira said. The Presidential Advisor on Science Richard Tushemereirwe said it was wrong to try and use genetic link to justify homosexuality saying they may as well justify drug addiction or abuse. “Whether there is a link or no link to genes, there is no justification for this, it is a wastage of time for us to debate about this. The only science that I find relevant to the science of homosexuality is not genetic but public health citing India were homosexuality has been reinstated as a crime under their constitution. He said diseases that were initially confined to the genitalia like gonorrhea have now migrated to the mouth and throat like gonorrhea. Infections like HPV have found their way in mouth and throat from genetalia. “Homosexual person danger to himself and the public” he said. END

The report of the Ministry of Health: (Jim Burroway also posted this pdf of all 12 pages)

 

Over 200 Scientists and Mental Health Professionals Respond to President Museveni Regarding Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill

In a February 3 letter to Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, over 200 researchers and mental health professionals from around the world joined together to provide a statement of scientific consensus regarding sexual orientation. The letter was in response to Museveni’s call for evidence regarding choice of sexual orientation as he deliberates about his response to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
The letter was distributed for comment and signature among various professional and academic listservs during a 3 day window of time. Many more wanted to sign the letter but because we wanted to get the letter to President Museveni in time for his political party retreat, we were unable to add all that asked to sign on.  However, those wanting to add their support may do so in the comments section or via email (see the letter).
Click the link to read the letter.

Sen Jim Inhofe Heading To Uganda; Will He Speak Against The Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

According to a tweet from Maria Burnett at Human Rights Watch Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is heading to Uganda. From sources I trust, I have learned that Inhofe and a Congressional delegation will be in Uganda next week.
 

 
Inhofe (@jiminhofe) has stated in the U.S. that he opposes the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but will he bring up his opposition when he meets with Uganda’s president Museveni? My guess is that regional security issues will dominate the meetings but I hope Inhofe and his delegation will communicate that yhey oppose the human rights disaster in the making in Uganda.
I will add information here as I get it.
 

Top Ten Posts – 2011

To reflect on 2011, I have listed here the ten most popular posts in terms of visits this year. Two of the posts were written in prior years but were visited frequently this year. In addition to being popular, I think they are representative of the stories and issues which I wrote about this year.

1. The Trail of Tears remembered

2. Uganda update: Anti-Homosexuality Bill on tomorrow’s agenda

3. Committee chair says Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill may not be considered

4. What would dominionists do with gays?

5. A major study of child abuse and homosexuality revisited (2009)

6. NARTH is not primarily composed of mental health professionals

7. Only the gay die young: Examining the claims of shorter life expectancy for homosexuals (2007)

8. The evangelical blackout of research on sexual orientation

9. William Penn founded the Quakers and other tall tales from David Barton

10. Was the Jefferson Bible an evangelism tool?

Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill: Is the death penalty off the table or not?

Earlier today, I received a report from a source in Uganda which appears to be the report from the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee on the AHB. I did not write about it because I could not confirm that the report was indeed a final report from that committee. Given the time in Kampala, I won’t be able to confirm it until tomorrow. However, if the report is the committee’s final report then the death penalty may not be off the table. Let me add that the report looks like other committee reports I have seen and matches up with what I have heard it contains with the exception of the claims about the death penalty.
For now, I am going to focus on section three of the report which is where the death penalty can be found. Here is section 3 from the bill:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

Note especially #2 above and then read the recommendation for section three in the committee report:

1.   Clause 3 (2) is amended by substituting for the words “…suffer death’’ with words “…the penalty provided for aggravated defilement under Section 129 of the Penal Code Act”.

The justification for this change is given as follows:

Justification
To harmonise the provision with the penalty under the Penal Code Act

Now at issue is “the penalty provided for aggravated defilement under Section 129 of the Penal Code Act.” What is it? Here is Section 129 of the Penal Code Act. Read this and find the penalty:

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.
(4) The circumstances referred to in subsection (3) are as follows—
(a) where the person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of fourteen years;
(b) where the offender to his or her knowledge, is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS);
(c) where the offender is a parent or guardian of or a person in authority over, the person against whom the offence is committed; or
(d) where the offender is a serial offender.
(5) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4), commits an offence and is liable on conviction, to imprisonment for life.
(6) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—
“serial offender” means a person who has a previous conviction for the offence of defilement or aggravated defilement;
“sexual act” means penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus, however slight, of any person by a sexual organ or the use of any object or organ by a person on another person’s sexual organ
“sexual organ” includes a vagina or penis.

Note that the penalty for “aggravated defilement” (underlined in bold above) is death. Now note that the AHB only refers to the penalty for aggravated defilement and not any of the offenses. The recommendation does not seem to be a substitution of defilement laws (which by the way covers both boys and girls), but rather is simply another way of wording the death penalty.
Those who are saying the death penalty has been removed have some explaining to do. No one should accept those claims after reviewing this report.

Christianity Today’s website contradicts Timothy Shah’s CT conspiracy article

Since October, 2009, there have been a number of flawed articles about Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but none more flawed than the one currently up on the website of Christianity Today, by Timothy Shah. I have written here and here to demonstrate just a few of the problems, but I want to address some of them again with more information.

First, in reference again to this Shah authored statement:

But the legislation has received widespread attention not primarily because of its draconian provisions, whose very harshness has repelled virtually all of Uganda’s major political and religious leaders—including the President, the Catholic Bishops Conference, and a parliamentary committee that recommended the bill be thrown out as unconstitutional, effectively stopping it in its tracks. Instead, a major reason for the attention focused on the bill is that many believe it is the fruit of American evangelical homophobia.

I asked to write a rebuttal but CT declined. About an hour ago, I posted this comment:

I encourage readers of Timothy Shah’s article to read the articles provided by Christianity Today on page three. Although incomplete, these articles accurately contradict several of the claims made by Shah. For instance, Shah says that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill repelled “virtually all of Uganda’s major political and religious leaders…” However, on CT’s website, Ugandan Bishop David Zac Niringiye told Sarah Pulliam Bailey:

How are Ugandan Christians generally responding to this legislation?

This is not just a Christian response. I can certainly say the objectives of the bill have the total support of most of Uganda, not just Christians, but also Muslims and Roman Catholics. It would not be right to talk about how Christians feel. They’re all agreed on the objectives. There will be a difference of opinion on the details of the bill. Space does not permit a detailed fact-based rebuttal which is why CT should allow one.

Bishop Niringiye’s response is linked after the Shah article and can be read here. He adds as if to make the point clear (but not clear enough for Timothy Shah):

Bailey: Do you know how Christians are responding to the penalties in this bill?

Niringiye: The point I’m making is that Christians in the country, including other people in the culture, really support the objectives of the bill. When it comes to the issue of the death penalty, there is as much debate over the death penalty as there are different Christian persuasions. The discussion on the death penalty [in this bill] needs to be separated from, Is the death penalty [ever] an acceptable sentence? I am sure there are American Christians or others in the world who will say the death penalty is an acceptable sentence. There will be Christians in Uganda who will say the death penalty is an acceptable sentence. There will be Christians in Uganda who will say no, the death penalty is not an acceptable sentence for any offense.

The CT website also has articles which demonstrate the division among American Christians over the issues raised by the AHB. For instance, this one by Sarah Pulliam Bailey notes that American Christians were troubled by the bill and took various positions on criminalization. Shah reduces the narrative to a left versus Christian conflict, ignoring the opposition among Christians around the world to what most Ugandan leaders were supporting in the name of Jesus.

Shah completely ignores that David Bahati told the media that he did indeed have evangelical supporters in the US. He declined to name them but I named a few here. Moreover, Lou Engle went to Uganda in May, 2010 and told the Ugandans alongside religious and political leaders that Uganda was “ground zero” in the culture war. He later acknowledged favoring the criminalization of homosexuality. Bahati, Nsaba Buturo and Julius Oyet all felt supported by Engle’s visit. The left did not make that up.

Shah’s vision is woefully inadequate to suggest that  American opposition was triggered solely by perceptions of “American homophobia.” What completes the picture is to understand that the American opposition was not exclusively from the New York Times (which actually came late to the issue) and the left, but also with vigor from American evangelicals contending with Ugandan and other American evangelicals that the AHB was wrong.

Shah mentions the Fellowship, the evangelical group which David Bahati aligns with in Uganda, but fails to examine the significance of the fact that the Fellowship’s American leadership condemned the AHB. The platform used by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to condemn the AHB was the National Prayer Breakfast in February, 2010. The National Prayer Breakfast is organized by the Fellowship.

I was in the African Suite at the Washington Hilton watching the speeches by Obama and Clinton. After the NPB ceremonies were done, a spirited discussion broke out in the room involving myself and the Ugandan delegation. Only one Ugandan spoke against the bill, while three were vigorous in their support for it.

In his attempt to make a case for a conspiracy, Shah comes too close to engaging in one. He clearly wants to beat up on Jeff Sharlet, who incidentally helped get the Fellowship’s Bob Hunter on the Rachel Maddow Show to condemn the AHB, but makes an irresponsible claim to do so. Shah writes:

He [Sharlet] further suggests that American “fundamentalists” such as Rick Warren harbor a genocidal “motive” because they aim at the “eradication of homosexuality” and so countenance the murder of open homosexuals such as David Kato.

I have the book C-Street and also asked Sharlet if he has ever suggested that “fundamentalists such as Rick Warren…countenance the murder of open homosexuals.” It is not in the book and Sharlet tells me that he has never linked fundamentalists with the murder of David Kato. In his book, Sharlet says Bahati and Warren both believe homosexuality is wrong, and in that sense favor the eradication of homosexuality, but he notes that Warren’s approach is religious and curative while Bahati’s bill proposes darker ends. Sharlet does not say Warren wants gays killed and it is irresponsible to suggest it.

There is much more to say, but a read of the CT website on Uganda will quickly reveal how problematic it is. I will pick this up in another post soon…

David Bahati intervenes in UK asylum case

This in from Lezgetreal.com:

Brenda Namigadde left Uganda 8 years ago, in 2003. She lived together with her partner, a Canadian woman Janet, but they were threatened, and both left the country, first Janet back to Canada, then Brenda went to the UK:

“Our relationship led us to be sworn at, threatened. Even the house where we were living was hurt, so we had to live in hiding for a month. Janet had to go back to Canada, the last time I saw here was in 2003. I’ve been in the U.K. for 8 years, applied for asylum last year for human protection.”

“I’ll be tortured, or killed, if I’m sent back to Uganda. They’ve put people like me to death there.”

“Yes I was involved in the protest at Trafalgar Square, we wanted to speak out against the law in Uganda. It’s not right how they treat gay people there. In Uganda, I have nobody there, it’s very dangerous for me. If I can stay here in the UK I can continue my studies, live my life freely, openly, without fear.”

This is the woman who faces deportation back to Uganda on January 28th. International Activists have worked in unity to effect a campaign to save Brenda from certain harm.

Brenda is presently detained at Yarlswood Immigrtaion Removal Centre. She has another removal date set for 28th January 2011 to Entebbe Uganda in Flight VS671 & KQ412 via Nairobi, Kenya at 21.20 hrs.

I am supporting asylum for this woman as it appears to me that she could well face threat in Uganda. The case took an interesting and unexpected turn yesterday when Anti-Homosexuality Bill author called Melanie Nathan, the author of the Lezgetreal blog, to comment on the Namigadde case:

Bahati said he read the piece about Brenda  Namigadde where I quoted him and that he was calling to tell me to give Brenda a message. The author of the anti-gay legislation said that the legislation will be presented to the Ugandan Parliament in the next few weeks. Homosexuality Including men and women is considered a crime in Uganda as being against the order of nature. The new Bill by Bahati seeks to affirm its criminalization and also calls for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

He told me that Brenda should stop bad mouthing Uganda; that she would be welcome back to Uganda if she renounced her homosexuality and if she “repented.”   I asked him if he based this ideal upon religious beliefs and he said “yes” that he did. I asked what if Brenda did not have the same belief as he did?  I asked what if she did not believe that she could repent?  He affirmed then she would be tried as a criminal.

After speaking to Mr. Bahati, I realize that he believes that Ms. Namigadde is indeed a lesbian. This serves only to enhance the danger she is in and flies in the face of the UK assertion that she may not have proved that she is a lesbian. She is indeed in danger.

Although the campaign is in full swing in Uganda, Mr. Bahati faces no opposition and must have some time on his hands.

Change.org and Paul Canning have efforts going to alert the UK authorities about what would be good for Ms. Namigadde.

More on this situation from the UK Guardian.