Now an Anti-Pornography Bill; Uganda’s Plan B
According to this Afrik-News article, the Ugandan government is set to criminalize pornography. Scott Lively would approve. He told his Ugandan audience in March, 2009 that straight porn leads to homosexuality. Hon. Nsaba Buturo agrees:
“Pornography breeds homosexuality. I am happy that finally a bill to curb pornography in Uganda is out to punish the promoters of the vice. The draft bill is already in cabinet for discussion” Nsaba Buturo said.
According to the bill, any person found guilty of dealing in pornographic materials risks paying heavy fines or a 10-year jail sentence or both.
“The days of the homosexuals are over. The bill is good news to all morally upright Ugandans saying that pornography has contributed to moral decay and increased crimes among Ugandans,” he added.
While addressing the press in Kampala on Wednesday, the Minister of Uganda for Ethics and Integrity, Dr. James Nsaba Buturo said that Pornography is the mother of vice and so there is need to stop it immediately.
Buturo may have to do his crusading as a private citizen since he was defeated in his party primary. Again according to the article:
Dr. James Nsaba Buturo attacked homosexuals who celebrated his defeat in primary elections for his ruling political party in his constituency, saying they “sponsored my rivals and even helped in cheating the votes. But I have appealed to the party electoral commission.”
It is funny to think there is a massive gay vote that could topple Buturo in Uganda. Be interesting to see how this plays out. Most of the rest of the article is flawed but I suspect that most of the quotes attributed to Buturo are correct.
If I can find a copy of the draft, I will post it.
LOL
Good catch.
Mary# ~ Sep 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“We can both look at different research etc, etc,…
You may defend pornography. That is certainly your right. But I cannot.”
I’m not asking you to defend pornography, I’m asking you to defend your claim about pornography. And we can look at the same research, if you cite it.
I wonder, are all the people here who are against pornography also in favor of censoring pornography? I’m really not clear on this, since the former is not necessarily mutual with the latter.
I don’t really understand why pornography isn’t regarded as free speech, in the first place. It’s not really differentiable from protected speech by anything but the most arbitrary and contentious terms, as numerous court cases have proven. I know many people who enjoy consuming pornography, and some who produce it, and I don’t see why their pleasures and livelihoods have any lesser deserve of protection because others have a personal moral opposition to it.
I understand this is perhaps slightly off topic and this blog is highlighting the connection between the anti-pornography bill and the anti-homosexuality bill — but it seems contradictory to argue that people deserve their freedom of conscience concerning the latter and not the former.
Has me wondering what will constitute pornography according to Ugandan law. Any use of the words gay or lesbian? Then perhaps the law itself might be pornography.
Ken,
We can both look at different research etc, etc,…
You may defend pornography. That is certainly your right. But I cannot.
hazemyth–
I’m having trouble making sense out of your post…I think it’s hinging on your use of ‘the former’ and ‘the latter’. You used those words in your opening sentence and in your conclusion so I’m assuming that it’s the same ‘former’ and the same ‘latter’. If that’s true then your closing question would be
but it seems contradictory to argue that people deserve their freedom of conscience concerning ‘censoring pornography’ (the latter) and not ‘against pornography’ (the former).
I know I’m missing something but I’m not sure what. Can you elaborate on the contradiction you see?
Eddy: Based on the language of the Antihomosexuality bill which could condemn someone for touching someone else with any part of their body I think the caution being expressed over this anti-porn bill is warranted.
As a side note .. On the positive side … if this bill is created and passed I guess it will curb Ssempsa from showing audiences gay porn on his laptop
Dave Farrell- Yes, it does.
Eddy – No I don’t favor pornography but these kind of laws are so difficult to enforce without infringing on free speech. Dress codes will be created for cheerleaders and swimming will become interesting and think of the potential for abuse by those in power. I do think there can and should be regulation of sexually explicit content but what is described here is probably unenforceable.
Mary# ~ Sep 8, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Pornography breeds violence.”
Do you have any data to back up this claim? I know of at least on study that contradicts this claim:
Violent pornography, antiwoman thoughts, and antiwoman acts: In search of reliable effects. Fischer, W. A. and Greneir,G. J. Sex Res. 1994, 31: 23-38
available here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813079
As to the issue at hand, I think if the anti-gay folks in Uganda try to link pornography and homosexuality it may (hopefully) backfire on them. What they are doing is increasing the pool of people who will oppose them AND that means more people looking at where these folks are getting their information from and recognizing it as propoganda.
Personally, I wish porn had never existed. It has created such a degradation of h we our bodies and our culture. I wish we could outlaw it in America w/o having an effect on our other rights. Alas, people are free to choose – even when it’s not a good idea.
While I know that laws do at times get abused by those in power, I could only find reference to “dealing in pornographic materials” and “the internet” so am not fully persuaded that they would go Amish on us.
By the way, what do we make of the article’s closing?
Is it possible that the anti-homosexuality bill has already been withdrawn? This might explain why we haven’t been able to find it on their agenda. Yet, it would still be very strange that it would have been withdrawn without some extensive media coverage.
Pornography breeds violence.
This fits in well with the sort of claims being made. Homosexuals are funded by foreign powers. Homosexuals fund political rivals and steal votes. Homosexuals conspire to seduce children with money and gifts. This entire campaign is an exercise in grandiose paranoia.
Timothy–
I think you were searching for ‘voila’ not ‘viola’…although I did manufacture a hilarious Gilda Radner moment in my mind over your word choice.
Warren–
I honestly don’t believe that you favor pornography although the tone of this post would make it seem to many that you do. I believe that the fact that Buturo blatantly and without real basis connected the cause of anti-pornography with homosexuality led to the misrepresentation that seems evident. I’m wondering if you could ‘clear the air’ to some extent….share your views re pornography….good? bad? indifferent? both good and bad–depending? If the issue hadn’t been so connected with homosexuality by Buturo’s remarks, would you be in favor of the criminalization of porn producers?
Others may chime in as well. I’m wondering if we have a consensus about pornography. (Let’s avoid the detour! Let’s define pornography for the purpose of this ‘consensus’ as ‘the graphic portrayal, by word or image, of sexuality’, Common English understanding of ‘graphic portrayal’.) If no interest in discussing a possible consensus, feel free to disregard and move beyond my comment. I’m simply citing what might be one constructive way of addressing/discussing this issue.
(I apologize slightly for the previous comment but will not delete it. Although I have not commented in about a week, I have been reading recent postings and was absolutely mortified by the dysfunctional ‘communication; that followed another very current topic. This post is an attempt to discover if we CAN communicate or if this site is nothing more than a battleground.)
Dr. Buturo is a politician and speaks typically like one. Gay sex practitioners couldn’t get any serious individual in Uganda to light a candle for them not to mention having the capacity to mobilize NRM voters against a cabinet minister. I am not a great fan of MP James Nsaba Buturo, but the idea of pro-gay puppet commentators rejoicing at the ethics & integrity minister’s political losses is hilarious to say the least. I am sure that the puppets know that what they are celebrating amounts to less than a pyrrhic victory.
Pornography breeds homosexuality.
Obviously he means straight pornography.
But I wonder if the converse is true. Does gay pornography breed heterosexuality? Maybe that’s the solution for Uganda; force all their youth to watch gay porn. Viola, 100% heterosexuality.
Timothy,
I wish you had sense, I wish intergrity had permeated your heart, I wish you could remember yesterday and never forget tomorrow. I wish. What a senseless comment and immature comment you threw in there. Oh sorry, you still have a long way.
According to Parliamentary researcher Charles Tuhaise, the bill has not been withdrawn, it is still in committee. Bahati was just on Austrailian TV promoting it.
Here in America…just shy of 100 years ago…
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/stories/capitol_0829.html
I’ve seen the statues and they are amazing but it appears that they concealed the male genitals on these marble masterpieces by taking a handful of plaster and slapping it over the genitals.
Here 100 years ago – I’m not surprised
Ashcroft did the same thing in 2000. The Attorney General of the United States of America having a curtain installed to hide the breasts of Justice. Hard to say what about that was most disturbing.
Wow! And that was only 10 years ago!
That was June, 2010. Two months ago.
Ken Cuccinelli is infamous for arguing simultaneously that gays don’t need state civil rights legislation as they’re already protected by the US Constitution, and that it’s OK to fire them as there’s no state or federal protection.
That is actually quite telling about the mindset of a segment of Christianity.
There’s no concern that the government have statues that either are Roman gods and goddesses or the anthropomorphism of a virtue but they can’t be showing naughty parts.
Graven images are a FAR lesser sin than partial nudity.
Ashcroft – lol – again, not really surprised
Given the fact that Buturo said the word ‘homosexuality’ about three million times when he ‘unveiled’ the Bill in September, it is a fair bet that it could contain some specifically discriminatory measures (such as banning the publicity of counselling or support services for those who are ‘confused’ about their sexuality).
Given the fact that Buturo said the word ‘homosexuality’ about three million times when he ‘unveiled’ the Bill in September, it is a fair bet that it could contain some specifically discriminatory measures (such as banning the publicity of counselling or support services for those who are ‘confused’ about their sexuality).
I suspect that the violent mindset of people like Buturo is far more damaging to society than your average ‘soft’ porn.
Of course, if Buturo gets his bill, he will have to close down his favourite newspaper – the Red Pepper. Can’t say that I would ‘shed a tear’ over that particular outcome! And Giles Muhame’s Facebook page might get him 15 years (take a look if you’re on FB and not too squeamish)!
I suspect that the violent mindset of people like Buturo is far more damaging to society than your average ‘soft’ porn.
Of course, if Buturo gets his bill, he will have to close down his favourite newspaper – the Red Pepper. Can’t say that I would ‘shed a tear’ over that particular outcome! And Giles Muhame’s Facebook page might get him 15 years (take a look if you’re on FB and not too squeamish)!
Actually, I think it’s far less sinister. I remember when our 7th grade class did a tour of the State Capitol, the chaperones were very busy trying to keep our focus off the nude statues. I doubt that I’d hear anyone whisper ‘check out the Roman god’ but I heard a few ‘check out the boobs’.
That is actually quite telling about the mindset of a segment of Christianity.
There’s no concern that the government have statues that either are Roman gods and goddesses or the anthropomorphism of a virtue but they can’t be showing naughty parts.
Graven images are a FAR lesser sin than partial nudity.
Ashcroft – lol – again, not really surprised
Actually, I think it’s far less sinister. I remember when our 7th grade class did a tour of the State Capitol, the chaperones were very busy trying to keep our focus off the nude statues. I doubt that I’d hear anyone whisper ‘check out the Roman god’ but I heard a few ‘check out the boobs’.
That was June, 2010. Two months ago.
Ken Cuccinelli is infamous for arguing simultaneously that gays don’t need state civil rights legislation as they’re already protected by the US Constitution, and that it’s OK to fire them as there’s no state or federal protection.
Wow! And that was only 10 years ago!
Ashcroft did the same thing in 2000. The Attorney General of the United States of America having a curtain installed to hide the breasts of Justice. Hard to say what about that was most disturbing.
Here 100 years ago – I’m not surprised
Here in America…just shy of 100 years ago…
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/stories/capitol_0829.html
I’ve seen the statues and they are amazing but it appears that they concealed the male genitals on these marble masterpieces by taking a handful of plaster and slapping it over the genitals.
LOL 🙂
LOL 🙂
Ken,
Do you think that Uganda is United States where people defend hedonism and sexual licentiousness with a straight face in the name of libertarian ideology? As far as Uganda is concerned, it is 100% unlikely that there would be anyone defending indecency (i.e. pornography) or the legalization of sex crime (i.e. gayism). I am sorry to say that your wish for a “backfire” is actually a hopeless pipe dream.
Ken,
Do you think that Uganda is United States where people defend hedonism and sexual licentiousness with a straight face in the name of libertarian ideology? As far as Uganda is concerned, it is 100% unlikely that there would be anyone defending indecency (i.e. pornography) or the legalization of sex crime (i.e. gayism). I am sorry to say that your wish for a “backfire” is actually a hopeless pipe dream.
Likely the Ugandan government will digitally superpose pants on all images of Michelangelo’s David.
Sorry, I should proof read more closely. I did not notice the double usage. Each use of ‘former’ and ‘latter’ is in regard to the sentence that precedes that usage. My final statement was:
Likely the Ugandan government will digitally superpose pants on all images of Michelangelo’s David.
Sorry, I should proof read more closely. I did not notice the double usage. Each use of ‘former’ and ‘latter’ is in regard to the sentence that precedes that usage. My final statement was:
Some would argue that “Song of Songs” is a little racy. 🙂
I only enjoy erotica. Pornography is what other people read or look at.
In otherwords, everything on television. 😉 just kidding…
I support the freedom of individuals to engage in or view pornography if that is what they wish. Not only do I have no wish to control others, I know of the damage done when we go in this direction.
Before 1958, the US Post Office would not deliver any pro-gay publications – no matter how tame the subject matter – because it deemed them “obscene”.
LOL
Good catch.
The definition of pornography can be found in the Oxford Learners Dictionary. On bright side, you shouldn’t be worried by the proposed law, I am sure it will never call for the extradition of pornographers and their customers from the USA to Uganda. 🙂
hazemyth–
I’m having trouble making sense out of your post…I think it’s hinging on your use of ‘the former’ and ‘the latter’. You used those words in your opening sentence and in your conclusion so I’m assuming that it’s the same ‘former’ and the same ‘latter’. If that’s true then your closing question would be
but it seems contradictory to argue that people deserve their freedom of conscience concerning ‘censoring pornography’ (the latter) and not ‘against pornography’ (the former).
I know I’m missing something but I’m not sure what. Can you elaborate on the contradiction you see?
Mary# ~ Sep 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“We can both look at different research etc, etc,…
You may defend pornography. That is certainly your right. But I cannot.”
I’m not asking you to defend pornography, I’m asking you to defend your claim about pornography. And we can look at the same research, if you cite it.
I wonder, are all the people here who are against pornography also in favor of censoring pornography? I’m really not clear on this, since the former is not necessarily mutual with the latter.
I don’t really understand why pornography isn’t regarded as free speech, in the first place. It’s not really differentiable from protected speech by anything but the most arbitrary and contentious terms, as numerous court cases have proven. I know many people who enjoy consuming pornography, and some who produce it, and I don’t see why their pleasures and livelihoods have any lesser deserve of protection because others have a personal moral opposition to it.
I understand this is perhaps slightly off topic and this blog is highlighting the connection between the anti-pornography bill and the anti-homosexuality bill — but it seems contradictory to argue that people deserve their freedom of conscience concerning the latter and not the former.
Ken,
We can both look at different research etc, etc,…
You may defend pornography. That is certainly your right. But I cannot.
Eddy: Based on the language of the Antihomosexuality bill which could condemn someone for touching someone else with any part of their body I think the caution being expressed over this anti-porn bill is warranted.
As a side note .. On the positive side … if this bill is created and passed I guess it will curb Ssempsa from showing audiences gay porn on his laptop
Some would argue that “Song of Songs” is a little racy. 🙂
I only enjoy erotica. Pornography is what other people read or look at.
In otherwords, everything on television. 😉 just kidding…
I support the freedom of individuals to engage in or view pornography if that is what they wish. Not only do I have no wish to control others, I know of the damage done when we go in this direction.
Before 1958, the US Post Office would not deliver any pro-gay publications – no matter how tame the subject matter – because it deemed them “obscene”.
Mary# ~ Sep 8, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Pornography breeds violence.”
Do you have any data to back up this claim? I know of at least on study that contradicts this claim:
Violent pornography, antiwoman thoughts, and antiwoman acts: In search of reliable effects. Fischer, W. A. and Greneir,G. J. Sex Res. 1994, 31: 23-38
available here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813079
As to the issue at hand, I think if the anti-gay folks in Uganda try to link pornography and homosexuality it may (hopefully) backfire on them. What they are doing is increasing the pool of people who will oppose them AND that means more people looking at where these folks are getting their information from and recognizing it as propoganda.
The definition of pornography can be found in the Oxford Learners Dictionary. On bright side, you shouldn’t be worried by the proposed law, I am sure it will never call for the extradition of pornographers and their customers from the USA to Uganda. 🙂
According to Parliamentary researcher Charles Tuhaise, the bill has not been withdrawn, it is still in committee. Bahati was just on Austrailian TV promoting it.
While I know that laws do at times get abused by those in power, I could only find reference to “dealing in pornographic materials” and “the internet” so am not fully persuaded that they would go Amish on us.
By the way, what do we make of the article’s closing?
Is it possible that the anti-homosexuality bill has already been withdrawn? This might explain why we haven’t been able to find it on their agenda. Yet, it would still be very strange that it would have been withdrawn without some extensive media coverage.
Dave Farrell- Yes, it does.
Eddy – No I don’t favor pornography but these kind of laws are so difficult to enforce without infringing on free speech. Dress codes will be created for cheerleaders and swimming will become interesting and think of the potential for abuse by those in power. I do think there can and should be regulation of sexually explicit content but what is described here is probably unenforceable.
Timothy–
I think you were searching for ‘voila’ not ‘viola’…although I did manufacture a hilarious Gilda Radner moment in my mind over your word choice.
Warren–
I honestly don’t believe that you favor pornography although the tone of this post would make it seem to many that you do. I believe that the fact that Buturo blatantly and without real basis connected the cause of anti-pornography with homosexuality led to the misrepresentation that seems evident. I’m wondering if you could ‘clear the air’ to some extent….share your views re pornography….good? bad? indifferent? both good and bad–depending? If the issue hadn’t been so connected with homosexuality by Buturo’s remarks, would you be in favor of the criminalization of porn producers?
Others may chime in as well. I’m wondering if we have a consensus about pornography. (Let’s avoid the detour! Let’s define pornography for the purpose of this ‘consensus’ as ‘the graphic portrayal, by word or image, of sexuality’, Common English understanding of ‘graphic portrayal’.) If no interest in discussing a possible consensus, feel free to disregard and move beyond my comment. I’m simply citing what might be one constructive way of addressing/discussing this issue.
(I apologize slightly for the previous comment but will not delete it. Although I have not commented in about a week, I have been reading recent postings and was absolutely mortified by the dysfunctional ‘communication; that followed another very current topic. This post is an attempt to discover if we CAN communicate or if this site is nothing more than a battleground.)
Has me wondering what will constitute pornography according to Ugandan law. Any use of the words gay or lesbian? Then perhaps the law itself might be pornography.
Dr. Buturo is a politician and speaks typically like one. Gay sex practitioners couldn’t get any serious individual in Uganda to light a candle for them not to mention having the capacity to mobilize NRM voters against a cabinet minister. I am not a great fan of MP James Nsaba Buturo, but the idea of pro-gay puppet commentators rejoicing at the ethics & integrity minister’s political losses is hilarious to say the least. I am sure that the puppets know that what they are celebrating amounts to less than a pyrrhic victory.
This fits in well with the sort of claims being made. Homosexuals are funded by foreign powers. Homosexuals fund political rivals and steal votes. Homosexuals conspire to seduce children with money and gifts. This entire campaign is an exercise in grandiose paranoia.
Pornography breeds violence.
Timothy,
I wish you had sense, I wish intergrity had permeated your heart, I wish you could remember yesterday and never forget tomorrow. I wish. What a senseless comment and immature comment you threw in there. Oh sorry, you still have a long way.
Pornography breeds homosexuality.
Obviously he means straight pornography.
But I wonder if the converse is true. Does gay pornography breed heterosexuality? Maybe that’s the solution for Uganda; force all their youth to watch gay porn. Viola, 100% heterosexuality.
Personally, I wish porn had never existed. It has created such a degradation of h we our bodies and our culture. I wish we could outlaw it in America w/o having an effect on our other rights. Alas, people are free to choose – even when it’s not a good idea.