Uganda to kill all gays with US congressionals' support

[stormthebeaches]

Just because the Ugandans pulled the trigger doesn't mean the US didn't give them a gun.

Further, the missionaries still exist, and it's extremely dishonest of you to refer to the eighteen fucking hundreds when talking about anti-gay conservative missionaries who have been most active since the 60s and especially the 80s. If you want to go ahead and look this entire board in the metaphorical eyes and claim that no missionary activity of any significance has occured in that time, go ahead.

But sane human beings know that evangelical and mainline protestants alike have spent millions and millions of dollars going to Africa. Some of it is altruistic- they bring food and water and help construct infrastructure and treat the sick. My own sister is part of some stupid little evangelical cult that goes to rural mexico and helps take care of orphans.

But they bring their religion with them- hardline, evangelical religion, looking to convert anyone to the One True God. And this theology has taken hold in Uganda; in Nigeria; in Jamaica; in a dozen different states. African Anglicans for instance are considering breaking off from the liberal Anglicans in england and america. Why? Is it their Native Black Homophobia?

No. Africans and other third world people such as Jamaicans are no more homophobic than any other society on the whole- they may socially discriminate against such people, and will never be granting them rights until they join the first world. But this new step- mass executions- is entirely and documentably funded and organised by conservative western influence.

Missionaries have a profound influence on the theology of a nation, and Religion has a profound influence on the people. American Evangelicals are to blame for anti-gay hysteria in Nigeria and in Uganda. That's a fact. American Evangelicals are assisting in the writing of the bill in Uganda. That's a fact. American money is flowing into Uganda from missionaries and evangelicals alike. That's a fact. American Evangelicals are the closest confidantes of the president of Nigeria. That's a fact.

The scares are using language that the evangelicals use using their own terminology and theology (Gays = Nazis, for example). The scares are explicitly American-influenced: "Look at how we, the One True Religion, lost in America- soon we shall lose in Nigeria/Uganda/Jamaica". Africa is a dumping ground for the losers of the culture war to export their hateful ideology.

If you want to make yourself feel better about the United States by pretending missionaries don't exist past 1890 and that the US is blameless and it's all those stupid Africans faults, that's okay with me. But don't go pretending you're correct.

1. In order for such ideas to gain such support a large number of people in Sudan have to support such policies. Simply writing up a bill for them won't work. The Uganda government is not being physically forced to do this.

2. I never said that no missionary work is going on now. Don't put words in my mouth. But the majority of the missionary work went on in the 19th century. That was the time period when Christianity was exported to Africa as a replacement to the regular Africa religions. Maybe the education system is wrong but I've always been taught that it was European colonialism which led to Christianity being established as the main religion in Africa (along with Islam).

3. Not all missionary work comes from America.

3. I'm British, so don't act like I'm some American in denial.

4. Regardless, I can see your point about evangelicals are encouraging homophobia in Africa and I agree that their role in this is morally appalling. Considering the point dropped.[/quote]

[Themightytom]

Um guys American EVANGELISTS are involved, not American Evangelicals. Evangelicals are one of the splinter groups from Britain. I'm reasonably sure we can blame Catholics for this as well right?

[Duckie]

Evangelical as in Fundamentalist Christianity as a subset of Evangelical Theology, not any specific church named "Evangelical Church", tom. And no, this isn't the Catholics fault this time.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm not sure how this is a result of US influence. Isn't most of Africa very homophobic? I'm not sure how one could argue that America imported its homophobia over to Africa as the majority of Africa is much more homophobic that the United States.

The homophobia wasn't there until christian missionaries brought it. Uganda had a gay king before colonisation. The very christian missionaries whose leaders are named in the copious articles I've posted, who edited the bill for the Ugandan parliament. The missionaries whose theology has been accepted by the heads of the christian religions in Uganda, whose people have converted to that form over the 30 years of proselytisation that have taken place, with Evangelical missionaries bringing their religion along with their aid.

Did you even read the articles, or do you want to continue to deny it?

Such a bill would never gain traction unless the people in Uganda supported anti-gay death squads to some degree. Also, the Christian missionaries were most active during the 19th century and most of them came from Europe. Uganda wasn't colonized by the USA.

No moron, but it is OUR missionaries that spread a particularly virulent form of homophobia. If these people were anglican they may not be holding hands with gay people but would by and large be willing to let them exist. Same with the catholics for the most part.

However our missionaries are crazy pentacostal, southern baptist and "non-denominational" (code for batshit nuts) protestants who bring over a particular brand of lunacy, converting them away from the more moderate christianity of the colonial past, animism etc and then use them to point a gun at the heads of homosexuals.

Our religious groups wrote the fucking bill, and fund its passage.

[Tanasinn]

After the "morality of resistance" thread we had elsewhere, I'm curious - how would people here feel about individuals actively trying to kill those responsible for or involved in this legislation? Is it morally permissible, particularly in the face of what will essentially be state-mandated murder?

[The Romulan Republic]

A couple thoughts on this. First off, I fully expect some of the more militant and dissatisfied gay rights supporters to say that Obama's continuing to give money to Uganda means he supports the killing of gays. He doesn't. Probably every President in history has given money to people and countries they don't personally agree with, and ignored some pretty nasty things, for political reasons or some greater objective. It doesn't make it ok, of course, but Obama is probably no worse than the status quo in this respect. Now, I'm not saying that anyone here has accused Obama of personally supporting this policy, but I thought I'd point this out anyway, especially in light of highly suggestive comments such as this:

Incidental Fact: While not a known member, Pastor Rick Warren (the one who Obama invited to his inauguration, whereupon every single Uncle Tom said "Oh no, don't worry, it doesn't mean anything") has refused to condemn the mass execution of gays in Uganda when explicitly and verbally asked. Further, the US State Department has refused to take any action in regards to Uganda, even a verbal condemnation in private or public such as Stephen Harper or the UK gave. Indeed, Hilary Clinton even went out of her way to recently praise Uganda as a "model state" that other african ones should imitate.

While quite disgusting on the face of it, I would very much like to know the context of Hilary Clinton's statement and what exactly she was referring too about Uganda, as well as weather she was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Administration at the time. Likewise, I would remind everyone that while Rick Warren was an unfortunate choice, having him speak at the inauguration does not constitute a personal endorsement of every one of his views by Obama.

Also, I have to disagree rather pointedly with some of the other sentiments expressed in this thread, specifically:

Which is also, quite simply, why things like this are allowed to stand there. But if a tolerant climate for homosexuals is secured in China and India, which is actually possible, then 2.3 + billion people have civil rights. The population of Sub-Saharan Africa is barely a third that, and it's filled with governments of people who think drinking lemon juice can cure AIDS. It's a write-off, don't waste your nights unable to sleep over it. If they weren't executed by the government for being gay they'd just get tortured to death the next time the Lord's Resistance Army sends cocaine-addicted children with machetes on rampaging murder sprees through the country.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with this level of apathy and indifference. If the population of Africa is less than a third that of China and India, that's only what, 700 million people or so you're describing as "a write-off?" As tempting as it may be to dismiss sub-Saharan Africa as hopeless or irrelevant, it is also despicable.

So, what's to be done about it? My first thought is pretty much "what's stopping us from trying any American who participated in writing this abomination of a piece of legislation with Crimes Against Humanity?" I'm honestly not sure weather this would technically fit the definition of genocide, but its seems comparable at least. What would it take to press charges against these individuals? Is it a question of their actions being legal through some loophole, or is it simply a lack of political will to prosecute?

[Alyrium Denryle]

After the "morality of resistance" thread we had elsewhere, I'm curious - how would people here feel about individuals actively trying to kill those responsible for or involved in this legislation? Is it morally permissible, particularly in the face of what will essentially be state-mandated murder?

Yes. They are short-stopping the political process by making it a crime to try to change the legislation later. Protesters can be arrested etc. They are systematically removing the ability of those negatively affected by the law to peacfully resist it.

It is no more immoral than the jews resisting the nazis in warsaw.

[Samuel]

Probably every President in history has given money to people and countries they don't personally agree with, and ignored some pretty nasty things, for political reasons or some greater objective. It doesn't make it ok, of course, but Obama is probably no worse than the status quo in this respect.

I'm not sure comparing the president to ones that backed regimes that used death squads is a good thing. Because you know we had the excuse "otherwise the communists will take over". Now we are just doing this because we are cartoonishly evil.

So, what's to be done about it? My first thought is pretty much "what's stopping us from trying any American who participated in writing this abomination of a piece of legislation with Crimes Against Humanity?" I'm honestly not sure weather this would technically fit the definition of genocide, but its seems comparable at least. What would it take to press charges against these individuals? Is it a question of their actions being legal through some loophole, or is it simply a lack of political will to prosecute?

Is what they are doing illegal?

After the "morality of resistance" thread we had elsewhere, I'm curious - how would people here feel about individuals actively trying to kill those responsible for or involved in this legislation? Is it morally permissible, particularly in the face of what will essentially be state-mandated murder?

Yes. They are short-stopping the political process by making it a crime to try to change the legislation later. Protesters can be arrested etc. They are systematically removing the ability of those negatively affected by the law to peacfully resist it.

It is no more immoral than the jews resisting the nazis in warsaw.

Trying to do so by taking down the legislature is futile though. I doubt that Ugandan gays can launch a campaign of terrorism that would make the government back down either. However resistence in this case is justified on the grounds that there is no alternative- if you resist you die, but if you are gay you die.

Ironically, if Uganda had a large criminal underground this would make sodomy the perfect initiation rite.

[Serafina]

Which is also, quite simply, why things like this are allowed to stand there. But if a tolerant climate for homosexuals is secured in China and India, which is actually possible, then 2.3 + billion people have civil rights. The population of Sub-Saharan Africa is barely a third that, and it's filled with governments of people who think drinking lemon juice can cure AIDS. It's a write-off, don't waste your nights unable to sleep over it. If they weren't executed by the government for being gay they'd just get tortured to death the next time the Lord's Resistance Army sends cocaine-addicted children with machetes on rampaging murder sprees through the country.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with this level of apathy and indifference. If the population of Africa is less than a third that of China and India, that's only what, 700 million people or so you're describing as "a write-off?" As tempting as it may be to dismiss sub-Saharan Africa as hopeless or irrelevant, it is also despicable.

So, what's to be done about it? My first thought is pretty much "what's stopping us from trying any American who participated in writing this abomination of a piece of legislation with Crimes Against Humanity?" I'm honestly not sure weather this would technically fit the definition of genocide, but its seems comparable at least. What would it take to press charges against these individuals? Is it a question of their actions being legal through some loophole, or is it simply a lack of political will to prosecute?

Agreed.

Yes, Sub-Saharan Africa has less people than China or India.
But by this logic, we should be more concerned (or at least those of us not from the US) with the Sub-Saharan than with the USA - after all, they have nearly twice the number of inhabitants.

If it was a choice between this and China/India, i would choose them - but of course, thats not the way it works in real life.

IHMO, much could be achieved with just a bit of leverage. After all, these laws clearly violate several human rights.
Not only could you appeal to international courts, but the EU and/or the USA could also threaten them with sanctions.
Or at least stop giving them money to kill people!

I actually hope that the EU will do so since we are already enforcing gay rights in our own countries.

But it also quite likely that no one will give a damn, since it's "only" some african country - who cares? /sarcasm
But this would be a great opportunity to show with relatively small effort that gay rights ARE important - make an example out of them for the rest of the world.

Trying to do so by taking down the legislature is futile though. I doubt that Ugandan gays can launch a campaign of terrorism that would make the government back down either. However resistence in this case is justified on the grounds that there is no alternative- if you resist you die, but if you are gay you die.

I hope that some Ugandan has the courage to appeal to some international institution (dont know which right now) and will get charged by these new "laws" in Uganda - that could create enough leverage by showing that they ARE undermining basic human rights, not "just" gay rights.

[The Romulan Republic]

After the "morality of resistance" thread we had elsewhere, I'm curious - how would people here feel about individuals actively trying to kill those responsible for or involved in this legislation? Is it morally permissible, particularly in the face of what will essentially be state-mandated murder?

Yes. They are short-stopping the political process by making it a crime to try to change the legislation later. Protesters can be arrested etc. They are systematically removing the ability of those negatively affected by the law to peacfully resist it.

It is no more immoral than the jews resisting the nazis in warsaw.

In the event that this legislation has passed, killing a police man or soldier who was trying to arrest/kill you or another individual under the law would be justified as a defensive act. Overthrowing the government by non-violent or if nessissary violent means would be. Hunting down politicians/missionaries/whoever who supported it and engaging in revenge/terror assassinations would not be.

[mr friendly guy]

In America and Canada, people always say they're against illegal immigrants but not legal immigrants. However, I've found that if you start arguing with them, you soon find out that they also dislike the refugee system, they think the legal immigration process is too lax, they express vague concerns about "cultural assimilation", they fear "Islamicization", etc. Basically, they say everything except for "I hate dark-skinned immigrants", which would be too honest. Instead, they propose a battery of immigration-related arguments which, if they were all implemented, would have the effect of nearly shutting down non-white immigration.

Right wing people have been against immigration by non whites for a long time in my country. We even had the white Australia policy, where one of our leaders made a big spill about with God's grace we will keep Australia white. Naturally we named a university after him. Also God wasn't feeling graceful.

I do feel that this focus on illegal immigrants seem a relatively recent phenomenom. That is the right wing are publicly targeting immigrants because they are illegal rather than because of their race. It becomes obvious thats not the reason because after ranting for a while they inevitably slip in the phrases "islamisation", "their culture" etc. Who are they fooling? But then, no one claimed racists were smart.

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed.

Yes, Sub-Saharan Africa has less people than China or India.
But by this logic, we should be more concerned (or at least those of us not from the US) with the Sub-Saharan than with the USA - after all, they have nearly twice the number of inhabitants.

If it was a choice between this and China/India, i would choose them - but of course, thats not the way it works in real life.

IHMO, much could be achieved with just a bit of leverage. After all, these laws clearly violate several human rights.
Not only could you appeal to international courts, but the EU and/or the USA could also threaten them with sanctions.
Or at least stop giving them money to kill people!

I actually hope that the EU will do so since we are already enforcing gay rights in our own countries.

But it also quite likely that no one will give a damn, since it's "only" some african country - who cares? /sarcasm
But this would be a great opportunity to show with relatively small effort that gay rights ARE important - make an example out of them for the rest of the world.

You have highlighted part of why sentiments like "its just Africa, its a write-off" are so offensive to me. People think its only some African country, and would be like this regardless, so we have no responsibility to oppose what's going on their or something.

I would suggest lobbying the US Congress to cut funds to Uganda that might be used to enforce/support this legislation, and to push the Department of Justice to investigate the Congressmen connected to these organizations for possible charges. I don't expect it to happen, not in the next few years at least, but its still the right thing to do to demand it. At least those who speak out won't have the complicity in these crimes of those who didn't.

I agree that more action is likely to come from Europe. I also agree that an example should be made of Uganda.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure comparing the president to ones that backed regimes that used death squads is a good thing. Because you know we had the excuse "otherwise the communists will take over". Now we are just doing this because we are cartoonishly evil.

I'm not saying its a good thing. But I sadly expect that every fucking President does shit like this, always has, and always will. Obama, I maintain, is better than many, but he is not completely free of the taint of corruption in American politics, he never will be, and to have expected him to be was unrealistic.

That said, the gay rights people should lobby the shit out of him over this. Hell, their should be a non-stop gay rights march in front of the White House until he does something. I might be in Washington in the spring, and if so I will be their.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ah yes, because we shouldn't write off Africa, because protests in our home countries will somehow magically change governments obsessed with stopping Neo-Colonialism. Just like all the sanctions stopped Mugabe from starving his own people to death. The only result of protests and sanctions against Uganda would be mobs of people hacking off the limbs of anyone suspected of being gay. And let's see what's going on right now in the country to the immediate south, Tanzania, where--and this is definitely without any western influence--the natives have decided that hacking apart albinos for the magic powers in their bodyparts is an utterly brilliant idea. You claim to care about Sub-Saharan Africa? Then you will probably have to condemn every single existing government there. And they'll just lockstep refuse your efforts.

How do you propose to avoid making Sub-Saharan Africa a write-off? How can you, for god's sake, reach out to people who think that killing and dismembering albinos for the magic power in their body parts is a good idea ? Or for that matter, Hunting and eating pygmy peoples for the magic power in their bodies? You think diplomatic pressure is going to fix Sub-Saharan Africa? Pathological fear of anyone different from you and a complete devaluation of human life are fundamental cultural issues which a harsh letter from Brussels is not going to make magically go away.

I also find it illuminating that it's now suddenly a big deal and we "need to make an example" of Uganda the moment it's gays, but nobody suggested anything like that when eating pygmies and dismembering albinos came up.

[wolveraptor]

Does anyone else think that this policy will result in a mass emigration of "aggravated homosexuals" from Uganda? Is that even an option? What are the liklihoods of surrounding countries accepting gay refugees? A quick look at Uganda's neighbors shows pretty depressing prospects. For fuck's sake, to their left is the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

[Turin]

Further, the US State Department has refused to take any action in regards to Uganda, even a verbal condemnation in private or public such as Stephen Harper or the UK gave. Indeed, Hilary Clinton even went out of her way to recently praise Uganda as a "model state" that other african ones should imitate.

While quite disgusting on the face of it, I would very much like to know the context of Hilary Clinton's statement and what exactly she was referring too about Uganda, as well as weather she was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Administration at the time.

Point of fact, Hillary Clinton is an alleged member of the Family herself. Which goes a long way to explain why the State Department is ignoring this.

This 2007 Mother Jones article goes into detail about Clinton's involvement with the Fellowship (a.k.a. the Family).

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.
<snip lots>
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

[Serafina]

*snip*

Fix it? No.

HELP fixing it? Quite likely.

Prevent it from getting worse? Definately.

Look, it is not just a problem from within these countries. Yes, thats a part of it.
But it is ALSO a problem brought there from the outside.
They are also, if not more, suspect to political or legal pressure.

Just because it is a long, hard and complicated task does not mean it is an impossible - or worthless - one.
Just because it will take decades to bring these coutries to anything resembling our standards does not mean they are writeoffs.

I also find it illuminating that it's now suddenly a big deal and we "need to make an example" of Uganda the moment it's gays, but nobody suggested anything like that when eating pygmies and dismembering albinos came up.

Do you think i am happy with that?
But i will happily say that gay rights are more important, because it is a world-wide problem.

Either way, there are fundamental differences between these examples and the current problem:
Those atrocities are "part of their culture" - or rather, their own stupid superstitions.
These anti-gay sentiments are influenced, inspired and supported by westerners.
That not only makes it partially our responsiblity, but it also means it is more important to stop it.
Because it is still spreading, and because it will continue to spread regardless of cultural conditions.

"Making an example" against eating albinos is pointless, because people are not doing it elsewhere.
"Making an example" for gay rights is not, because it affects everyone.

[The Romulan Republic]

Further, the US State Department has refused to take any action in regards to Uganda, even a verbal condemnation in private or public such as Stephen Harper or the UK gave. Indeed, Hilary Clinton even went out of her way to recently praise Uganda as a "model state" that other african ones should imitate.

While quite disgusting on the face of it, I would very much like to know the context of Hilary Clinton's statement and what exactly she was referring too about Uganda, as well as weather she was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Administration at the time.

Point of fact, Hillary Clinton is an alleged member of the Family herself. Which goes a long way to explain why the State Department is ignoring this.

This 2007 Mother Jones article goes into detail about Clinton's involvement with the Fellowship (a.k.a. the Family).

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.
<snip lots>
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Disturbing to say the least, and I do seem to vaguely recall hearing something about this in the past. I don't want to jump from this association to claiming that she actually supports killing all gays, but then again, there's not a lot I would put past Hillary Clinton, including joining such a group purely for political advantage. I was against making her Secretary of State in the first place, and this is just another reason to hold her in suspicion and contempt.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do you think this is unique? Don't you realize that a huge number of Muslim countries in the world already have the death penalty for homosexuality? So are we going to fire up our Abrahms tanks next and invade Saudi Arabia? Do you realize how ridiculously nonsensical and impractical this is? Am I seriously hearing people advocate regime change, by force of arms, in late 2009 from the same people who opposed the invasion of Iraq? So let's fire up those tanks and put a B-2 over Riyadh, boys!

Or, oh wait, is it only bad when black people do it?

The naive and ignorant hypocrisy in this thread is truly cringe-worthy.

[Turin]

Do you think this is unique? Don't you realize that a huge number of Muslim countries in the world already have the death penalty for homosexuality? So are we going to fire up our Abrahms tanks next and invade Saudi Arabia? Do you realize how ridiculously nonsensical and impractical this is? Am I seriously hearing people advocate regime change, by force of arms, in late 2009 from the same people who opposed the invasion of Iraq? So let's fire up those tanks and put a B-2 over Riyadh, boys!

Don't be stupid. The only advocating of regime change I see in this thread are those who are speculating that this law could inspire internal revolt. I'd say that's unlikely, but only because I worry the inevitable witch-hunts will spiral out of control and ignite Rwanda-like massacres based on anything other than homosexuality (as if that wouldn't be horrible enough).

Certainly economic sanctions and UN "shaming" isn't out of line. And yes, you're right, sanctions would only happen because Uganda doesn't have anything that anyone wants, so it's politically and economically risk-free to scold them publicly (as opposed to, say, the ME nations you've mentioned). Of course, prominent members of the US government are not just ignoring but actively encouraging what could easily spiral into genocide. Which is exactly what people are so damn outraged about.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure how much of this is addressed to me specifically, but anyway...

Do you think this is unique? Don't you realize that a huge number of Muslim countries in the world already have the death penalty for homosexuality? So are we going to fire up our Abrahms tanks next and invade Saudi Arabia? Do you realize how ridiculously nonsensical and impractical this is? Am I seriously hearing people advocate regime change, by force of arms, in late 2009 from the same people who opposed the invasion of Iraq? So let's fire up those tanks and put a B-2 over Riyadh, boys!

Its an interesting point. While I would argue that the use of force might be theoretically morally justified in such cases, I would also argue that it is practically impossible for America to carry it out at this time, due to being overstretched militarily, not that well-off economically, and yes, having a lot of other countries they would probably have to invade as well to be consistent about it. Perhaps I should have clarified that sooner.

Partly for this reason, I would advocate political presure, travel restrictions (as in charges of Crimes Against Humanity and arresting the suspects if they leave Uganda), and possibly some sanctions on the Ugandan government rather than open armed intervention. And yes, I would advocate the same towards any nations with similar laws.

That said, I for one have nothing inherently against the concept of regime change, and I would hazard a guess that the same is true for many of the people who post here. There is justified and unjustified regime change, and one can no more point to Iraq as proof that all regime change is unjustified than they can point to it as proof that all wars are unjustified.

Or, oh wait, is it only bad when black people do it?

Kindly do not try to play the race card against me. This has absolutely nothing to do with race so far as I am concerned. I would oppose the same legislation from anyone, regardless of skin color. Nor do I recall anyone else bringing race into it. So back off from the straw man.

The naive and ignorant hypocrisy in this thread is truly cringe-worthy.

No more so than the "fuck Africa" attitude you seem to prefer.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you think this is unique? Don't you realize that a huge number of Muslim countries in the world already have the death penalty for homosexuality? So are we going to fire up our Abrahms tanks next and invade Saudi Arabia? Do you realize how ridiculously nonsensical and impractical this is? Am I seriously hearing people advocate regime change, by force of arms, in late 2009 from the same people who opposed the invasion of Iraq? So let's fire up those tanks and put a B-2 over Riyadh, boys!

Or, oh wait, is it only bad when black people do it?

The naive and ignorant hypocrisy in this thread is truly cringe-worthy.

Hey, I am not talking about the native ugandan gays playing warsaw ghetto uprising...

Hunting down politicians/missionaries/whoever who supported it and engaging in revenge/terror assassinations would not be.

Why not? They are just as guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide as anyone else. Why the hell not target them? It is not as if things can get any worse for gay people or gay people's supporters in uganda if this law is passed, why not take the miserable bigots who would rather live in straw huts with their morality self-rightousness than increase their standard of living with the caveat that they accept homosexuals down with them?

[Serafine666]

Partly for this reason, I would advocate political presure, travel restrictions (as in charges of Crimes Against Humanity and arresting the suspects if they leave Uganda), and possibly some sanctions on the Ugandan government rather than open armed intervention. And yes, I would advocate the same towards any nations with similar laws.

Practicality question: if the Ugandan parliament passes this law, Ugandan courts enforce it, and the law enforcement carries out the death penalty, who are we going to hit with "crimes against humanity"? The Parliament for making the law in the first place? Any judge who sentences a gay person? The officers that arrest them in accordance with the law? The prison officials who keep an eye on them in prison? Any doctor who assists in an execution? Assuming this abominable law passes, who are we planning to indict and either stick in prison or execute? Precedent would justify the charge at any of those levels because at Nuremberg, people were successfully convicted for passing a law, sentencing under the law, and executing the law.

Although... the threat might be highly useful because international tribunals try to convict whomever they can because of the moral repugnance attached to crimes against humanity--and this tendency is very well-known.

[Samuel]

or staying friendly so they won't get friendly with China instead.

China is not evil. They are going to ask "why should we give you money to kill gays" and decide that they can spend the money on better things, like investments.

Interestingly, on what basis to you describe Uganda as any more "small and irrelevant" than anywhere else in Africa?

It is land locked, territorally small and in the center of the planet's poorest continent.

I would also suggest that your idea of "legitimate targets" is a bit out of whack.

Only if isolated. If they continue this campaigning (which there is every evidence they are going to) than they are legitamate targets, not for Ugandans, but for individuals in the next country on their list. Really, it is nothing more than a case of self defense.

it is practically impossible for America to carry it out at this time, due to being overstretched militarily, not that well-off economically,

You are talking about nation building. We can change regimes by assassination or bombing.

[Shroom Man 777]

As discussed in that Responsibility of Wealth and Power thread, an invasion/military campaign/occupation/whatever isn't really going to fix anything. Just because you killed a few government shmucks with some bombs doesn't mean you're going to stop a disturbing societal trend that the (non-gay) populace are embracing, any intervention won't really make the people any less dangerously homophobic. Instead it might just sway local population against you and drive them to further extremism.

However, if and when these Ugandan pricks end up actively murdering gay people, withdrawing support for their government would be pretty much justified. Sure, keep the AIDS medical missions and humanitarian stuff, but retaining any other ties or other forms of support to a bunch of genocidal pricks isn't really a good thing. Aiding and abetting them should be out of the window.