Comments on: Molotov Mitchell spins the record

By: Warren Throckmorton

Warren Throckmorton — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 04:12:23 +0000

Christian Lawyer – Thanks for that analysis.

Terry K – I suspected as much. Until people started calling, the companies had no idea…

By: Terry K.

Terry K. — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 01:51:52 +0000

The reason that ads appear before the video appears to be that WorldNetDaily is now using an outside video streaming service, Ooyala. I presume that they, not WND, are attaching the ads since no self-respecting mainstream business would willingly put an ad before a video like this.

By: Christian Lawyer

Christian Lawyer — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 01:00:24 +0000

Warren,

From a lawyer’s perspective, you’re indisputably right. I agree with Rob Tisinai’s additions as well.

Note that the bill defines “victim” as:

“victim” includes a person who is involved in homosexual activities against his or her will.

But, the word “victim” is not used in the definition of the offense of either “Homosexuality” or “Aggravated Homosexuality” except regarding a “victim” who has a “disability.” Without use of the word “victim,” it seems clear that the conduct described is an “offense” regardless of whether the person consented, or not. (Although no one would argue that a child would/could consent to any sexual conduct by a parent or guardian, in Sec. 3(1)c.)

Courts in common law jurisdictions interpreting statutory language generally assume that when a legislature uses a defined word in one place and not in others that that distinction was intended. So, a court is unlikely to read “against his or her will” into either the offense of “Homosexuality” or the offense of “Aggravated Homosexuality” except where the word “victim” is expressly stated, as in Sec. 3(e). (Uganda, having an English colonial history, has a legal system generally based on the English common law.)

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:01:25 +0000

“DEATH… brought to you by French’s fried onions”

By: Matthew David

Matthew David — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:45:52 +0000

Why is omitting all the good bits? He’s been speaking with Ssempa… that’s why. Ssempa’s the talking-heads-whisperer. The heads with an ounce of intelligence would never believe him.

By: Richard Bartholomew

Richard Bartholomew — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:28:42 +0000

Mitchell is an attention-seeker who will hopefully feel some shame once his extended adolescence finally comes to a close - I've written about some of his previous antics here (and I got a response). I saw he also left a comment of support on Ssempa's Facebook page.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:23:12 +0000

In reply to Rob Tisinai.

Rob – I had lost the link to the vid. Thanks for commenting and posting the link. And you are correct the bill includes a section on related offenses that if done more than once lead to death.

Thanks for adding to the record…

By: Rob Tisinai

Rob Tisinai — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:16:23 +0000

This bill is more dangerous than even you’ve been pointing out, Warren. Here are three examples of people who can be put to death under the serial offender/related offences clauses:

* Someone convicted more than once of having gay sex.

* A heterosexual convicted more than once of not ratting out his gay friends.

* A heterosexual convicted more than once of using letting someone use his photocopier to make flyers for a gay event.

It’s pretty straight forward in the bill. You can be put to death if you’re guilty of aggravated homosexuality, which happens if you’re a serial offender, which happens if you have multiple convictions of homosexuality or “related offences.”

The bill is very specific about related offences. It has a whole section with that title. Related offences include:

* Failure to disclose knowledge of homosexual activity within 24 hours of gaining that knowledge.

* Promotion of homosexuality (letting somone use your premises or fixed or movable assets — e.g., a photocopier — to promote homosexuality.)

http://wakingupnow.com/blog/uganda-kill-everyone-video