Ugandan Politicians Celebrate Passing of Anti-Gay Laws

[ola.]

(From the Guardian - Monday 24 February 2014):


President Museveni's supporters revel in new anti-gay laws passed despite pressure from US, EU, western donors and rights groups

Uganda's president has signed a controversial law allowing those convicted of homosexuality to be imprisoned for life, defying international disapproval from western donor nations.

At a public ceremony in a packed room at the State House in Entebbe, Yoweri Museveni formally initialled the anti-homosexuality act, which also outlaws the promotion of homosexuality and requires citizens to denounce to the police anyone suspected of being gay. "No study has shown you can be homosexual by nature. That's why I have agreed to sign the bill," Museveni said in a speech at the presidential palace near the capital, Kampala.

"Outsiders cannot dictate to us. This is our country. I advise friends from the west not to make this an issue, because if they make it an issue the more they will lose. If the west does not want to work with us because of homosexuals, then we have enough space to ourselves here."

Supporters clapped during the press conference. One MP sitting at a white table in the front row, said: "I hope the Obamas are receiving it live, Desmond Tutu, Cameron … [Museveni] has resisted them." The ethics and integrity minister, Simon Lokodo, said: "I feel very fulfilled, very elated, because at last my head of state has pronounced it on behalf of the entire nation, Uganda, that this is a bill that was worth putting in place."

David Bahati, the MP who introduced the bill, added: "This is a victory for the family of Uganda, a victory for the future of our children…"

The US announced on Monday night that it would begin an internal review of its relationship with Uganda's government, including assistance programmes. Barack Obama had warned Museveni that ties between Kampala and Washington would be damaged if the bill was passed.

The British foreign secretary, William Hague, said: "I am deeply saddened and disappointed that the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda has been signed into law. The UK strongly opposes all discrimination on any grounds. "We question the [law's] compatibility with Uganda's constitution and international treaty obligations. There can be no doubt that [it] will increase persecution and discrimination of Ugandans, as well as damage Uganda's reputation internationally.We ask the government of Uganda to protect all its citizens and encourage tolerance, equality and respect."

Museveni, a key African ally of the US and the EU, had already come under fire from western donors for alleged corruption and had been under increasing pressure to block the legislation.

The anti-homosexuality bill passed through parliament in December after its architects agreed to drop a death penalty clause. The legislation requires those found guilty of repeat homosexuality to be jailed for life.

The South African Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu said at the weekend that the law recalled attempts by the Nazi and apartheid regimes to "legislate against love". Amnesty International called the bill a "horrific expansion of state-sanctioned homophobia".

Homophobia, supported by many US-funded evangelical Christians, has become more virulent in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. In 2011, a prominent Ugandan gay rights campaigner, David Kato, was bludgeoned to death at his home after a newspaper splashed photos, names and addresses of gay people in Uganda on its front page along with a yellow banner reading "Hang Them".

This month Museveni, a devout evangelical Christian, also signed into law dress code legislation that outlaws "provocative" clothing, bans scantily-clad performers from appearing on Ugandan television and closely monitors what individuals view on the internet.

A coalition of UK gay rights groups and charities has written to the Foreign Office calling on Britain to withdraw its high commissioner in Kampala.

Jonathan Cooper, chief executive of the Human Dignity Trust and one of those who signed the letter, said: "[This] law promises to tyrannise the lives of the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. This is a huge blow for anyone who values basic human rights. This bleak situation will have an immediate effect on countries like the UK, the rest of the EU, Canada and US, as people flee and seek sanctuary."

Comments?

[The Intransigent Faction]

The only comment I can think of at the moment is: Obviously I agree this is absolutely terrible. It's also just more ammunition for the Westerners who argue that we need to "liberate" backward societies from themselves, which is also bad...but the main thing is, this law is fucking terrible.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Comments?
Fuck Uganda. Fuck evangelical Christians.

[Sea]

Fuck Uganda. Fuck evangelical Christians.Why "fuck Uganda"? What do you mean by this?


Much of the rhetoric is exactly the same as in the USA:

1. Reducing an entire sexual orientation to "sodomy"
2. Unfounded accusations
3. Cherrypicking, bigtime
4. Blaming Obama for the evil gay menace (2:06)
5. Perverting the already-stupid concept of human rights (2:12)
6. Showing gay scat porn in church (honestly I though that was an exclusively American thing)
7. Trying to link homosexuality and drug use (0:56)
17C_9TXgAms

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why "fuck Uganda"? What do you mean by this?
Fuck the Ugandan state would be more accurate.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

So fucking sad :(

[Atsumari]

Why "fuck Uganda"? What do you mean by this?


Much of the rhetoric is exactly the same as in the USA:

1. Reducing an entire sexual orientation to "sodomy"
2. Unfounded accusations
3. Cherrypicking, bigtime
4. Blaming Obama for the evil gay menace (2:06)
5. Perverting the already-stupid concept of human rights (2:12)
6. Showing gay scat porn in church (honestly I though that was an exclusively American thing)
7. Trying to link homosexuality and drug use (0:56)
17C_9TXgAms
8. Using anti-imperialist rhetoric by saying that they will not take shit from the West anymore.

It is sad how anti-imperialism seems to be evolving from national autonomy to looking an excuse for the violation of human rights.

[bricolage]

The only comment I can think of at the moment is: Obviously I agree this is absolutely terrible. It's also just more ammunition for the Westerners who argue that we need to "liberate" backward societies from themselves, which is also bad...but the main thing is, this law is fucking terrible.
backwards societies with bigotry that originates in british laws and is backed up by american christians. it's homophobia thats western imperialism, not homosexuality.

[sosolo]

Western nations can whine and moan about this all they want, but if they continue to have economic ties with Uganda (which I'm sure will continue), they don't have a leg to stand on. Funding homophobia while complaining about it is a pointless distraction at best.

--sosolo

[The Intransigent Faction]

backwards societies with bigotry that originates in british laws and is backed up by american christians. it's homophobia thats western imperialism, not homosexuality.

Yeah, I never said that homosexuality was imperialist. A lot of racism is rooted in British imperialist practices, too...doesn't mean they won't try to exploit its current existence to justify their imperialism.

[Sea]

8. Using anti-imperialist rhetoric by saying that they will not take shit from the West anymore.

It is sad how anti-imperialism seems to be evolving from national autonomy to looking an excuse for the violation of human rights.Are you trying to say that you accept eating poopoo? In any event, that's not part of American homophobic rhetoric.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The only comment I can think of at the moment is: Obviously I agree this is absolutely terrible. It's also just more ammunition for the Westerners who argue that we need to "liberate" backward societies from themselves, which is also bad...but the main thing is, this law is fucking terrible.

Do you know the number of countries that have threatened to intervene in Uganda due to this law? It happens to be zero, the same number as the number of times a country has been invaded due to LGBT rights. Yet whenever gay rights in a "Third World" country are mentioned, people have to qualify their disagreement with "Third World" homophobia by raising the specter of imperialism. It's disingenuous, and quite frankly probably reflective of deep homophobic prejudice.

[tachosomoza]

The only comment I can think of at the moment is: Obviously I agree this is absolutely terrible. It's also just more ammunition for the Westerners who argue that we need to "liberate" backward societies from themselves, which is also bad...but the main thing is, this law is fucking terrible.

The funny thing is that Western (especially American) missionary and evangelical groups are stirring up the sentiments that are responsible for these atrocious laws in the first place.

If Uganda had petroleum, we'd have another Iraq on our hands right now, under the pretense that we have to" liberate the LGBT community". Liberals would be pissing themselves with ecstasy.

[goalkeeper]

you know ugandans can decide whether or not to be homophobic all by themselves just as much as Americans, regardless of some involvement of evangelical groups from the west or decades old colonial anti-gay laws...

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Obviously Christian missionaries from the West are severely responsible for the rise of homophobia. But many of you also act like Ugandans cannot think for themselves. Why can't we condemn these people while also condemning the West? It is utterly unacceptable for these people to have these homophobic beliefs, and it's not just the Ugandan state. These policies have a ton of popular support. So, therefore, fuck Uganda as a whole.

[Kim Il-sung]

Swag but does anyone know if anti-gay laws like supposed in Russia can actually help a countries demographics?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Swag but does anyone know if anti-gay laws like supposed in Russia can actually help a countries demographics?

The influence of that sort of legality on the decision to have children are so insignificant compared to other concerns such as the economic conditions and overall societal state and support, so... why are you even asking that? Do elaborate.

[Sinister Intents]

Swag but does anyone know if anti-gay laws like supposed in Russia can actually help a countries demographics?

From your previous post I'm suspecting you're a troll, are you a homophobe? That's the only reason I can think you'd ask a question like this.

[tachosomoza]

Swag but does anyone know if anti-gay laws like supposed in Russia can actually help a countries demographics?

It doesn't matter if they did, they still should be vigorously opposed.

[NoXiOuScRaSh]

The only thing I can really say is this type of attack on personal liberties is appalling. There is no reason to go beyond that fact it just terrible and oppressive.

[synthesis]

It is utterly unacceptable for these people to have these homophobic beliefs, and it's not just the Ugandan state. These policies have a ton of popular support. So, therefore, fuck Uganda as a whole.

This person actually says this, and y'all are focused on the troll that'll be banned within 24 hours?



m3_hKv4pEM4

Uganda and the Myth of African Homophobia

Karl T. Muth - 23rd July 2013

I recently finished writing an article for a law journal on the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda. It focuses on the evolution of this law from a legislative history standpoint, but also focuses on the history and ethnographic realities within which this law (which many, including me, believe was drafted and advocated primarily by American lobbyists) was drafted, edited, and eventually brought to the floor of the Ugandan Parliament.

It is easy, even tempting, for white Occidental commentators to depict Africans as homophobic. It mirrors the underestimation of the American black community’s acceptance of homosexuality (part of one of the larger Republican blunders of the last few decades wherein a political calculation was made, incorrectly, that black and Hispanic voters were more interested in hating homosexuals – and thus embracing the right-wing agenda – than making economic progress for themselves and their families). It also plays into classic neocolonial tropes: Africans are unsophisticated, Africa lacks the heterogeneous cosmopolitan culture needed for tolerant social policy, Africans are uneducated and hence intolerant, Africans are equal-opportunity luddites and oppose progress technological or social or otherwise, etc.

Sometime in the 1960’s, when nearly all things related to international development were clustered under “peasant studies” (a term that, in retrospect, seems to have been selected to belittle the work of both the studiers and subjects), an interest in perceptions of sex, gender, and social relationships evolved. Many of these early studies were predictably focused on population control (the famous – and at a times contradictory – studies of the introduction of birth control in Bangladesh, for instance). Others focused on nebulous research questions like, “do Africans value education?” Obviously, beginning with such a research question makes the research process harder than diamonds and defensible findings rarer than sashimi.

The article I wrote recently had a far narrower focus: What was the history of this law and what incentives existed that caused its almost-exclusively-American supporters to pour millions of dollars of support into oppressing gay people in a landlocked African country smaller than Oregon? After more than a year of work on this article, I came to believe – strongly – in two main unsettling conclusions. First, that there is very little history of homophobia, at least in the area of northern Uganda where I lived and worked. And I suspect, though have little evidence, that this is true elsewhere in Africa. Second, that the vast majority of erroneous propaganda about homosexuality (that homosexuals are pedophiles, that corrective rape is an acceptable practice, that homosexuals are members of a conspiracy, etc.) has been introduced by Americans.

In a historical review, I found little evidence of a history of anti-homosexual sentiment in Uganda in precolonial times. Even during colonial times, when the British were quick to interfere in anything they considered alien in Ugandan culture, there is no record of the High Commission Courts or Colonial Magistrates having heard even one prosecution related to the defendant’s sexual orientation. The Ugandan concept of sexuality is substantially different from the modern Western view – and, in many ways, more advanced (at least in my view). For decades, men have been able to have sex with other men in Uganda without being considered “gay” or of a different sexual orientation (distinguishable from Western medicine, for instance, which has only relatively recently recognised, at least in the clinical context, that there are “men who have sex with men” and “women who have sex with women” who do not self-identify as homosexual).

With all the press about Uganda’s anti-gay law (if you’ve been living under a right-wing Christian extremist rock for the last five years, you may not have heard that a law in the Ugandan parliament would subject people who’ve had homosexual intercourse to the death penalty), you’d think Ugandans hate gay people more than anyone else in the region. Of course, that thinking depends upon all sorts of fallacies, such as the concept that Uganda has a functional representative democracy or that the laws passed in the Ugandan Parliament generally enjoy widespread support among Ugandans (both untrue, but fallacies that American and British people tend to enjoy believing, particularly after having seen seven Marshall Plans worth of aid money mostly-squandered in Africa). In fact, recent research by several organizations suggests that Ugandans are substantially more tolerant of homosexuals than Kenyans or Rwandans.

What is so fascinating about homophobia in Africa is that it is a kind of philosophical import substitution. Whereas homophobia used to be something that had to be imported to Africa from America, Africa is now slowly beginning to produce its own homophobia. There is a right-wing megachurch in Kampala that looks and feels very much like an American megachurch (holding over 10,000 worshippers, it is even American-sized) and preaches the usual mix of give-us-money and hate-thy-neighbour. Local organizations, many of which are outgrowths of American anti-LGBTQ NGO activity, are springing up that promise jobs, free t-shirts, and opportunities to network.

Equally fascinating is Americans’ enduring ignorance about their country’s relationship with Africa and their unshakable belief that things being imported to Africa from America include democracy, goodwill, and happiness (happiness is a difficult thing to pin down, but it can be created by mixing American high-calorie-per-serving soft drinks, major label meaningless hip-hop, and episodes of Baywatch). Meanwhile, the actual imports from America (political and religious extremism, messages of white supremacy, people and organisations encouraging homophobia, quasi-government agents peddling weapons, etc.) go either unnoticed or purposefully ignored.

I have no doubt there are homophobes and intolerant people everywhere on earth, including in Africa, and including in Uganda. However, I know that the primary inspiration for these people in Africa is American – not African – attitudes.

http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/b...can-homophobia (http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/23/07/2013/uganda-and-myth-african-homophobia)[/YOUTUBE]

[Kim Il-sung]

From your previous post I'm suspecting you're a troll, are you a homophobe? That's the only reason I can think you'd ask a question like this.

Which post? And no I'm curious to know if there is an advantage to anti-gay laws for a countries demographics? I think Russia is having problems with their own demographics.

[Atsumari]

The last thing that would cause a demographic problem is homosexuality. Just by common sense, there are not that many homosexuals to cause such a crisis.
Just give up on searching for a positive thing in an anti-gay bill, it is like looking for scientific evidence in creationist "science"

This lecture debunks every single argument used against gay marriage and gay rights in general
tk1O9pf7eak

[Sinister Intents]

Which post? And no I'm curious to know if there is an advantage to anti-gay laws for a countries demographics? I think Russia is having problems with their own demographics.

Your first one you posted in the recent Stephen Colbert thread :P Also there is absolutely nothing advantageous of homophobic laws, if anything it'd harm a location's demographics. You should pay close attention to Atsumari's post.

[Kim Il-sung]

I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just conservative in what I say and liberal towards what I'm told.

I know Russia has certain demographic issues, I was wondering if there was anyone knowledgeable about ANY "positive" effect even though outweighed by it's negativity, to have certain laws of this type.

For example I think the Romans and the Greeks were quite open towards homosexuality but also open towards pedophilia in their culture. Same for the samurais. Is there a link between homosexuality and pedophilia in society?

Please don't label me as a troll because I'm not a molded revolutionary. Formality and dogmatism must not harm the progress of the revolution.

I invite everyone who wants to engage in dialogue so we can share and learn from each other.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just conservative in what I say and liberal towards what I'm told.

I know Russia has certain demographic issues, I was wondering if there was anyone knowledgeable about ANY "positive" effect even though outweighed by it's negativity, to have certain laws of this type.

For example I think the Romans and the Greeks were quite open towards homosexuality but also open towards pedophilia in their culture. Same for the samurais. Is there a link between homosexuality and pedophilia in society?

Please don't label me as a troll because I'm not a molded revolutionary. Formality and dogmatism must not harm the progress of the revolution.

I invite everyone who wants to engage in dialogue so we can share and learn from each other.

The reason people are labeling you a troll is because the arguments you are making strongly echo those of homophobes and, more generally, in the desires by states/ruling classes to manage and control social reproduction and enforce a particular model of life for the masses.

The argument about homosexuality and pedophelia, for example, is textbook homophobic biotry. It is an attempt to deflect charges of bigotry against "homophobes" and for them to claim that they only care because of "the children". A quick google search will offer pleanty counters to this pedophelia-homosexuality argument:



Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Same sex attraction has, by any reasonable historical examination, always existed in some form - what has mattered is how it was treated and in some ancient societies it was treated not much differently than unmarried male-female relationships, at some points in feudal europe same sex attraction was only taboo in the sense that any non-reproductive sex acts were taboo.

Demographics - really I don't care or see how it's relevant to the working class in the abstract. Some abstract notion of ideal demographics seems to be the rallying cry for a lot of really terrible and oppressive ideas: eugenics, immigration restrictions and control, forced sterilization of the poor, NAZI and Stalin-era birth programs, mysoginist politics etc. Ruling classes worry about demographics because they need growing economies full of people who they can squeeze surplus from. Revolutionaries shouldn't care about demographics in such a way - a use-based society run collectivly would not need to manage and patrol demographic numbers in such a way - production would be planned around the needs and wants of the population... rather than in class society where the population has to be shaped and diciplined to meet the needs of production.

If demographics, and not the oppression of same-sex partnerships, were the point, why are there never pogroms against single people or yuppies who only have one child, etc? It's about homophobia, not demographics, that's why.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The only comment I can think of at the moment is: Obviously I agree this is absolutely terrible. It's also just more ammunition for the Westerners who argue that we need to "liberate" backward societies from themselves, which is also bad...but the main thing is, this law is fucking terrible.

Western countries are most likely not going to war with an ally of the USA. :rolleyes: Honestly, I would pretty much do anything to see that leader killed. Homophobes are cockroaches. There is no "anti-imperialist" justification that can sufficiently justify bigotry.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Do you know the number of countries that have threatened to intervene in Uganda due to this law? It happens to be zero, the same number as the number of times a country has been invaded due to LGBT rights. Yet whenever gay rights in a "Third World" country are mentioned, people have to qualify their disagreement with "Third World" homophobia by raising the specter of imperialism. It's disingenuous, and quite frankly probably reflective of deep homophobic prejudice.

I take deep offense to this (I gather this person's been banned, though, and won't see this response) as someone who's been heavily involved with LGBT friends on campus as an ally, but I know it's a very serious, banworthy accusation and I've taken a lot of flak for this so let me clarify:

I never suggested or meant to suggest that Uganda would be "invaded" over this. I was just thinking about remarks made by a friend of a Ugandan friend of mine who's been very vocal about his opposition to the bill (rightfully so).


Resistance against homosexuality in Uganda and other parts of Africa is part of European religious colonial legacy and a result of deeply entrenched cultural beliefs and practices. In a bid to spread Victorian morality to Africa, European missionaries through religious movements, teachings and crusades preached against homosexuality and sodomy.So I just find it convenient, is all, that the West ignores the role of its own colonial legacy in fermenting homophobia in the first place and if the idea is collective punishment of any sort in response, that doesn't seem like the way to go.

It's not that there's a "threat of Western influence" in that sense. It's the perception in Uganda that there is, and anything that might fuel that perception has a disconcerting chance at backfiring.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn it. I have, and I know Ugandans who have. It does mean we should keep in mind the connection between homophobia in modern Uganda and the legacy of colonialism if we're gonna talk about sanctions or some kind of "collective punishment".

Again, I hope that clarifies things for any mod who might see those accusations toward me.