Uganda's President signs controversial antigay bill into law

[wautd]

Uganda president: Homosexuals are 'disgusting'

President Yoweri Museveni, who made anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda much tougher Monday, told CNN in an exclusive interview that sexual behavior is a matter of choice and gay people are "disgusting."

After signing the bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, Museveni told CNN's Zain Verjee that, in his view, being homosexual is "unnatural" and not a human right.

"They're disgusting. What sort of people are they?" he said. "I never knew what they were doing. I've been told recently that what they do is terrible. Disgusting. But I was ready to ignore that if there was proof that that's how he is born, abnormal. But now the proof is not there."

Museveni had commissioned a group of Ugandan government scientists to study whether homosexuality is "learned," concluding that it is a matter of choice.

"I was regarding it as an inborn problem," he said. "Genetic distortion -- that was my argument. But now our scientists have knocked this one out."

Dean Hamer, scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, wrote an open letter to the Ugandan scientists in the New York Times last week urging them to reconsider and revise their report. Among his responses to their conclusions: "There is no scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is a learned behavior any more than is heterosexual orientation."

Museveni, whose public position on the measure changed several times, signed the bill into law at a public event Monday. The bill was introduced in 2009 and originally included a death penalty clause for some homosexual acts.

The nation's Parliament passed the bill in December, replacing the death penalty provision with a proposal of life in prison for "aggravated homosexuality." This includes acts in which one person is infected with HIV, "serial offenders" and sex with minors, according to Amnesty International.

The new law also includes punishment -- up to seven years in prison -- for people and institutions who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, language that was not in the 2009 version of the bill.

Lawmakers in the conservative nation said the influence of Western lifestyles risked destroying family units.

The bill also proposed prison terms for anyone who counsels or reaches out to gays and lesbians, a provision that could ensnare rights groups and others providing services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The White House issued a statement Monday: "Instead of standing on the side of freedom, justice, and equal rights for its people, today, regrettably, Ugandan President Museveni took Uganda a step backward by signing into law legislation criminalizing homosexuality."

The statement continued: "As President Obama has said, this law is more than an affront and a danger to the gay community in Uganda, it reflects poorly on the country's commitment to protecting the human rights of its people and will undermine public health, including efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. We will continue to urge the Ugandan government to repeal this abhorrent law and to advocate for the protection of the universal human rights of LGBT persons in Uganda and around the world."

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also denounced the law, saying it institutionalizes discrimination and could promote harassment and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"This law violates a host of fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom from discrimination, to privacy, freedom of association, peaceful assembly, opinion and expression and equality before the law -- all of which are enshrined in Uganda's own constitution and in the international treaties it has ratified," Pillay said in a statement.

Museveni also told CNN that the West should not force its beliefs onto Ugandans.

"Respect African societies and their values," he said. "If you don't agree, just keep quiet. Let us manage our society, then we will see. If we are wrong, we shall find out by ourselves, just the way we don't interfere with yours."

He also said Westerners brought homosexuality to his country, corrupting society by teaching Ugandans about homosexuality. The West has also helped make children at schools homosexual by funding groups that spread homosexuality, he said.

Attitudes against homosexuality are prevalent in Uganda. A 2013 report from Pew Research found that 96% of Ugandans believe society should not accept homosexuality.

Thirty-eight African countries have made homosexuality illegal. Most sodomy laws there were introduced during colonialism.

Even before Museveni signed the bill into law, homosexual acts were punishable by 14 years to life in prison.

Ugandan gay rights activist Pepe Julian Onziema told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that some gay people in Uganda would rather kill themselves than live under the new law.

"Prior to the bill becoming law today, people attempted suicide because they are like, 'I'm not going to live to see this country kill me -- so I would rather take my life.' "

Many have already left the country in fear of violence, Onziema said, and among those who stay, many are stopping their activism.

Onziema, however, says he is not afraid. He says he won't let the law take away his voice.

The stupid is strong in this one. But hey, what to expect when you take everying evangelical fundies say at face value.

[Broomstick]

It's not just the evangelicals, they found fertile soil here because there is a long-standing bias against homosexuality in many traditional cultures. The fact that homosexuality is see as a "western" value means some oppose it simply as being non-African or non-Ugandan (even though we're all aware there have always been a certain number of gay people in Uganda). If you have a society where homosexuality is fiercely repressed, and has been for a long time, it becomes easy for the average person to perceive gays as either non-existent or a foreign infection.

I'm not sure how you go about convincing a nation so convinced that gays are something like a sexually transmitted disease that they're harmless members of society.

[General Zod]

It's not just the evangelicals, they found fertile soil here because there is a long-standing bias against homosexuality in many traditional cultures. The fact that homosexuality is see as a "western" value means some oppose it simply as being non-African or non-Ugandan (even though we're all aware there have always been a certain number of gay people in Uganda). If you have a society where homosexuality is fiercely repressed, and has been for a long time, it becomes easy for the average person to perceive gays as either non-existent or a foreign infection.

I'm not sure how you go about convincing a nation so convinced that gays are something like a sexually transmitted disease that they're harmless members of society.

Probably about the same as America, given homosexuality was considered a mental illness for a good stretch of time.

[Thanas]

Yeah but societies tend only to become tolerant of different ways of life when they become wealthy which Uganda is sadly far from achieving.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah but societies tend only to become tolerant of different ways of life when they become wealthy which Uganda is sadly far from achieving.

Untrue.



British Carribean holdings that are still in the Commonwealth are among the red territories. Contrast this with the French Empire's tolerance zone in Africa.

So societies that aren't spoiled by Victorian racist and homophobic bullshit that Anglo-Saxons, primarily British, brought to all corners of the Earth with their conquests and late "Westernization", can be tolerant without being wealthy.

But undoing Britain's hideous touch is impossible.

[Kane Starkiller]

Are we supposed to see a correlation between British rule and anti homosexuality? Because there is none that I can see.

[Channel72]

Of course I totally believe any research coming from Ugandan scientists.

[K. A. Pital]

Are we supposed to see a correlation between British rule and anti homosexuality? Because there is none that I can see.

British colonial rule and criminalization of homosexualism in poorer British colonies suspiciously match. The same cannot be said for the French, Spanish or Portuguese colonial empires. Those dastardly tolerant continentals, what do they know 'bout homosexuality.

So what is true: for unfortunate lands that happened to be British territories or Britain itself, decriminalization of homosexuality is only possible when the country is rich.

For other countries that had little or no contact with "benevolent" British racists and homophobes (and dare I say, erotophobes in general) decriminalization and tolerance are possible well before societies become wealthy. Which means "societies tend only to become tolerant of different ways of life when they become wealthy" isn't true. In fact, it is nothing but a huge lie, since it is very well known that ancient China was quite tolerant to homosexuals, but no one would call it wealthy by modern standards.

[Lagmonster]

Are we supposed to see a correlation between British rule and anti homosexuality? Because there is none that I can see.

I think he's showing that wealth isn't the issue on tolerance; areas of Africa that were French colonies are currently tolerant with no respect to how well-off they are relative to other countries.

[K. A. Pital]

Are we supposed to see a correlation between British rule and anti homosexuality? Because there is none that I can see.

I think he's showing that wealth isn't the issue on tolerance; areas of Africa that were French colonies are currently tolerant with no respect to how well-off they are relative to other countries.

They are often in a worse condition financially, some of them quite certainly so. But, Napoleonic Code. Jean Diot and Bruno Lenoir, never forgotten!

[Thanas]

For other countries that had little or no contact with "benevolent" British racists and homophobes (and dare I say, erotophobes in general) decriminalization and tolerance are possible well before societies become wealthy. Which means "societies tend only to become tolerant of different ways of life when they become wealthy" isn't true.

This chart does not support what you think it does in such absolute terms. For example, Senegal is anti-homosexual despite being a French colony. Mauretania is one of the most anti-gay countries there are despite also being a French colony (death penalty). Anti-gay is also present in all the French colonies in Northern Africa (nowadays Algeria and Tunisia). The same applies to Guinea, Nigeria, Gambia, Eritrea and Togo.

Thus, the majority of french colonies (including the most important one Algeria) in Africa do not seem to be more gay friendly than the British ones. I am not willing to discount that positive French influence helped a bit in countries like the CAR and Chad, but also note how the British Hong Kong also does not criminalize homosexuality.

So why I can understand how you view British influence as worse than the French (which I in general believe to be true as well) I don't think it is as easy a picture as you paint it.

In fact, it is nothing but a huge lie, since it is very well known that ancient China was quite tolerant to homosexuals, but no one would call it wealthy by modern standards.

China was freaking rich by contemporary standards. So was Rome. Or Greece. The people could afford to spend time on social issues instead of worrying about their security.

I do accept your rebuke though and should have said "in general" to allow for exceptions.

[K. A. Pital]

There's a third factor here - orthodox, fundamentalist Islam. Which explains the virulently homophobic Maghreb and Middle East beyond colonial borders. The countries which weren't so exposed to Islam or Victorianism are doing way better. So I think I've identified the poison correctly, just forgot to add there were some other poisons as well.

Hong Kong simply managed to get rid of the British benevolence (after becoming rich!):

The criminal laws against male homosexuality were initially a product of British colonialism, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. During the 1970s – 1980s, there was a public debate about whether or not to reform the law in line with human rights principles. As a result, in 1991 the Legislative Council agreed to decriminalize private, adult, non-commercial and consensual homosexual relations.

So what I said stands true. British colony = virulently homophobic while poor, only repeal gay-to-prison laws after becoming rich. Victorianism is a pile of stinking shit.

In fact Hong Kong underscores the trend better than anything. Taiwan, a "Japanized" Chinese territory, did not have to do with the same level of virulent homophobia as long-standing British possessions.

Britain loved to kill gays, put them in prison for life, and do other nasty things. In Pakistan they loved to castrate people who were in the political resistance (which they later did again in Kenya).

[Elheru Aran]

I would posit that it has more to do with fundamentalist Islamic and Christian influences than colonialism necessarily.

Looking at a map of the Portuguese, German and Spanish empires, honestly most of the countries in Africa that were theirs actually appear on that map. Angola and Mozambique are right there, for example-- Portuguese colonies. Even the French aren't exempt; Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia are big ol' orange blots, and they were French. So are Cameroon, Togo and Benin. Mauritania is solid black. It is also important to note that the grey areas in the middle of West Africa are something like 80-90% Sahara Desert, with the population pretty much 95-100% Muslim. The Congo has also fairly recently-- still is, kind of-- going through political turmoil and it has no time to waste on homosexuals (as far as I know).

I honestly cannot comment on Asia and South America, but it bears noting that the Middle East's prejudice against homosexuality is almost certainly far more Islamic in origin than colonial. China is clear because it's officially non-religious-- but sodomy was banned until 1997, and there aren't really any civil-rights protections there for gay people and couples. Turkey, likewise, has no legal protection, but still appears clear on that map even though it was never a colonial domain of the major European powers.

I'm not disputing that a continental legal heritage may have been influential in bringing equal protection to gays in some countries in Africa and elsewhere. It is necessary to acknowledge the pervasive influence of Western evangelism in pretty much nearly every non-European country in the world. Baptist missionaries, for example, have been in Nigeria more than 150 years-- and that doesn't account for other missionary organizations or native churches started by these missionaries. If anything, colonialism facilitated missionary work by extending these Westerners the protection of the colonial nation.

So the broader picture is an overlapping influence of local culture and religion (most notably Islam, an introduced religion in and of itself), Western colonial government and the legal structures they set up, and Western missionary work that introduced foreign religious beliefs and mores and in its own way was more deliberately self-propagating than the colonial legal code. A village in Nigeria might not care what the law says; but they listen to their churches and imams.

This, by the way, is a more nuanced view of gay rights in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World ... y_laws.svg

(Edit: Geez, you guys are fast...)

[K. A. Pital]

Having no legal protection and having an article in the penal code are two different things. Like, being with no protection is bad, but being put in prison for life is much worse. It's true that I forgot Islam; it explains the continuing "ring of phobia", if you combine it with Victorian influence.

Victorian erotophobia and homophobia aren't figments of my imagination. Alan Turing didn't die two centuries ago, that wasn't too far away. India didn't get revealing clothes banned and an article in the Penal code for homosexuality from their own; it got this from the "benevolent" British Raj, just like Hong Kong and Singapore got it from Britain. It was, tolerance-wise, one of the worst colonial Empires. It couldn't bring tolerance to places that were intolerant, but it brought intolerance to places which weren't.

Western and colonial law did not necessarily have provisions that banned homosexuality (see Brazil), but British colonial law always did. I dare you guys to find me one example of a British colony which didn't have this shit.

I mean, just look at Latin America. British Guyana is an eyesore, immediately seen. It's alone in its homophobia there. French Guyana, Brazil, Paraguay and Peru are a good counterexample.

[Thanas]

There's a third factor here - orthodox, fundamentalist Islam. Which explains the virulently homophobic Maghreb and Middle East beyond colonial borders. The countries which weren't so exposed to Islam or Victorianism are doing way better.

I would still say that colonialism seems to only have had a positive effect if the social situation present there allowed it. For example, the tribes of the Sahara don't hate against Gays iirc, which means that the social situation was not altered that much by France. Meanwhile, in states where the social situation did not allow homosexuals free expression, french colonialism did little to change it. This includes most strikingly Algeria, which was the most colonialized of all the colonies.

Victorian erotophobia and homophobia aren't figments of my imagination.

Nobody is claiming that they are.

It was, tolerance-wise, one of the worst colonial Empires. It couldn't bring tolerance to places that were intolerant, but it brought intolerance to places which weren't.

Fits well with the racism theories which were almost universally English whereas the Spanish colonies featured a wide variety of intermarriages etc.

I think your theory that the British made things worse are true but I doubt french colonialism had a beneficial social impact per se. It is not like they re-engineered societies to be better on principle. The whole colonial interaction of New Caledonia for example features a very callous French administration which de facto committed genocide.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not saying that French colonialism was universally beneficial; far from it. What I do know, however, is thanks to the Revolution a lot of countries received the "sodomy-free" penal codes as a bonus, very early on (1800s), so this does count as progress - for example in Latin America. The other problems still stand, of course.

[wautd]

I'm worried a genocide against homosexuals is in the making when shit like this happens.

[Simon_Jester]

They are often in a worse condition financially, some of them quite certainly so. But, Napoleonic Code. Jean Diot and Bruno Lenoir, never forgotten!

I would not forget them, had I ever heard of them. Pray enlighten me.

[Broomstick]

The fact a nation doesn't have blatant anti-homosexuality laws does not automatically mean there is tolerance. Gays can still be a despised, persecuted, and vulnerable group even if not officially illegal. The official law isn't the whole of the matter.

[K. A. Pital]

They are often in a worse condition financially, some of them quite certainly so. But, Napoleonic Code. Jean Diot and Bruno Lenoir, never forgotten!

I would not forget them, had I ever heard of them. Pray enlighten me.

Last homosexuals killed in France. Burned alive.

[General Zod]

Before the usual suspects start chiming in that Uganda has more important things to worry about than "gay rights", just remember that this sort of law also makes for a great excuse to get rid of inconvenient political opposition. Your opponent's proving too popular? Start to hint that they sympathize with homosexuals and secretly have a gay lover on the side. Once they get locked up by a kangaroo court it's a sure-fire way to solidify your political entrenchment.

[Thanas]

Before the usual suspects start chiming in that Uganda has more important things to worry about than "gay rights", just remember that this sort of law also makes for a great excuse to get rid of inconvenient political opposition. Your opponent's proving too popular? Start to hint that they sympathize with homosexuals and secretly have a gay lover on the side. Once they get locked up by a kangaroo court it's a sure-fire way to solidify your political entrenchment.

Meh. As if those nations didn't already have enough laws to get rid of people or just don't even care about the pretense.

[General Zod]

Before the usual suspects start chiming in that Uganda has more important things to worry about than "gay rights", just remember that this sort of law also makes for a great excuse to get rid of inconvenient political opposition. Your opponent's proving too popular? Start to hint that they sympathize with homosexuals and secretly have a gay lover on the side. Once they get locked up by a kangaroo court it's a sure-fire way to solidify your political entrenchment.

Meh. As if those nations didn't already have enough laws to get rid of people or just don't even care about the pretense.

Might as well add on an easy one to your arsenal.

[K. A. Pital]

It's true. Anti-gay laws have been used in political fights during history quite often.

[Borgholio]

I'm worried a genocide against homosexuals is in the making when shit like this happens.

Guardian has a link on it too:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... omosexuals

This strikes me eerily of the beginning of McCarthyism back in the 50's, or the Salem Witch Trials. Don't like your neighbor? Accuse him of being gay. Political rival? Gay. I assure you that list will not stop at only 200 of the "top homos". This is going to get very ugly.