All international organizations, where Westerners control decision-making, are opposed to criminalization of gay sex. There is nothing new about that. The WHO article reads like a propaganda piece written by a gay lobby group rather than a global health organization. Sample an excerpt from the WHO article—-
[Gays] want to contribute to society through their work and their spiritual lives. However, many feel that they need to hide their sexuality from their colleagues, friends and congregations.
Very pathetic !! Is this what a person is supposed to find on a health website?!! Did the authorities at WHO hire GayUganda to act as their chief press officer?
With regards to your question as to who is behind the upstart tabloid that have been giving you Western chaps irritable bowel syndrome, I will say this—-
It could be anybody. It could be Hillary Clinton, the late Ronnie Reagan or former President George Walker Bush or even the Euro-American gay lobby. It is entirely possible that the editor Giles Muhame is the person behind the tabloid called Rolling Stone.
Back to the WHO for a moment: they oppose the criminalisation of LGBT persons, as we all know.
Right … Rolling Stone: I’m all ears, Maazi! (I’m sure you’ve got interesting stuff to sya on this topic.)
Never mind … I was referring to your earlier comments to GUg telling him that wanted him to be ‘gone’, or whatever, and asking you to justify those.
Do I understand that, if the persecution of gay people in UG were stopped, you believe that many Ugandans would suddenly CHOOSE to be gay? (Hasn’t happened here in Britain since 1967, as far as anyone can tell.)
One of the most damaging ‘public health’ scenarios must surely be that in which a gay person is ‘forced’ to marry, but is having ‘random’ secret affairs on the side. Greater openness and honesty about human sexuality would help to avoid this. ‘Sexual secrecy’ and hypocrisy are two of HIV’s biggest allies, IMHO.
I don’t think your answer is ‘objective’, as it cites ‘culture’, which is a relative and dynamic concept.
More importantly, you have not answered the question I asked you, which was a request for a moral justification of your proposed ‘treatment’ (which you have yet to specify, by the way, despite my request) of your gay compatriots.
(The question you answered was why you do not approve of homosexuality – but I didn’t ask that question, since I already know the answer to it.)
Your statement that ‘family counts for nothing’ in Britain is more cheap anti-western rhetoric. I could, at this point, make some observations of my own about ‘side-dishes’, but I won’t. Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.
Richard,
You are entitled to your opinions based on western culture. I am entitled to mine based on African culture and moral values. Gayism will not be permitted breathing space in our continent.
One more thing: I thought the HIV infection rate were starting to RISE again in UG … principally as a result of unfaithful husbands, it is suggested. (You’ve agreed with this suggestion already, by the way.)
Obviously, the change from ‘ABC’ to ‘AB’ (pushed by, among others, Martin Ssempa) may have contributed to the recent cited reversal in UG’s otherwise laudable achievement.
Another point: your use of the term ‘sodomite’ shows that you haven’t read and/or understood the story of Sodom & Gomorrah properly. Read it again, then ask yourself this question “it is truthful and just to call people like GUg a ‘sodomite’?”
You’ve still not answered my question, which concerns how people should be treated.
Maybe tomorrow.
Bye for now.
Well, to summarise my view on HIV: an open, honest and fair-minded approach to issues in human sexuality is a vital component in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The WHO report you cite notwithstanding, I think the WHO would agree with me on this point (hence the concern they have expressed over the Bahati Bill).
On the story of Sodom & Gomorrah: it is of course (attempted) ‘gang rape’ that is cited as the ‘trigger’ for their destruction.
Moving on …
You are clearly intelligent and well read, and consider (maybe rightly) yourself well informed.
The CNN interview with GUg took place in the wake of the publication of the ‘Rolling Stone’. Would you like to give us your opinion on who was really behind the libellous article in that ‘newspaper’?
Richard –
I suggest you simply ignore Maazi! I promise you, you’re not going to change his mind. Neither will you receive any compassionate, logical or coherent prose from him. The rest of us learned this the hard way 😉 Good luck my friend, but srsly, just ignore him. I stopped reading his posts months ago. There are far better ways to carry on the fight than engaging this person 🙂
The main point is, while you have said much, you have not given any kind of objective moral justification for your proposed treatment of people like GUg, your fellow Ugandan.
Just seen your latest post – glad to see that you too understand that ‘eradication’ of homosexulaity is not possible. I would go further, of course, and say that it was not desirable to attempt it.
@ Maazi
We’ve looked at ‘culture’. Let’s now go to deeper (or ‘deeeeeeepah’, as Martin Ssempa might say!): MORALITY (which transcends culture).
Two points for you to consider:-
1. Yesterday, I received news (not from Frank M., etc., or Gug – but from another source) of an (alleged) attack on someone who had expressed opposition to the Bahati Bill, and whom his attackers believed was gay.
Do you consider such attacks as morally acceptable? YES or NO?
2. Martin Ssempa wants the Bahati Bill, but without the hangings (so he claims). He favours (or favoured – he might be starting to ‘change his tune’) 20 years imprisonment for those in consensual gay relationships. This would mean that two men in a long-term relationship would be sent to prison for a long time; HOWEVER, another man who sleeps with a different woman each night (and therefore constitutes a much greater public health risk) would not be sent to prison at all.
Do you think that this is a morally acceptable situation? YES or NO?
(By the way, on the subject of public health: according to a recent report [a copy of which I sent to Warren a couple of weeks ago] most current HIV transmission in UG seems to be from an unfaithful husband to his wife.)
Let’s ‘grow up’. Let’s stop using ‘culture’ as an excuse for unjust discrimination, and instead look at FACTS and MORAL PRINCIPLES.
*USED to SUPPORT Bahati …*
It may be a little off topic, but I wanted to say that, from all I have seen, gayuganda seems like a beautiful person — kind, intelligent and thoughtful. I could only wish for neighbors like him and his husband. I pray for your safety and piece of mind my friend. Please forgive us for any part our culture has played in disrupting your life and robbing you of your safety. It truly is a crime.
@ Maazi
I speak with Ugandans on daily basis. Almost without exception, they hate the anti-gay rhetoric of people like Ssempa and Bahati.
Dear GayUganda,
Why are you so bothered, dear Maazi?
I am not bothered at all, but you should be.
But, I am concerned about you…. you are gonna burst a vein somewhere.
Ha, ha, ha. You shouldn’t be concerned about me. You should be concerned about yourself and your standing with the law.
Hey, dude, sorry to say, but… why the anger? Why the huge chip? This is a typical case of you having to look close in your mirror, to actually come to grips with what you are.
If this is an attempt at psycho-analyzing me, then you are a complete failure.
No, I am no longer complaining that you represent Africans, or Ugandans
Ah, that’s good. You are beginning to see the reality. Your pro-gay views are only respected in liberal segments of Western society while mine are mainstream in Uganda and most of Africa. On a global scale, my views are mainstream in nearly 80 nations worldwide that criminalize sexual deviance and in many of the 112 nations where gayism is not explicitly outlawed, but is nevertheless legally restricted via bans on gay marriage, gay propaganda in schools, ban on gay blood donation and ban on gay military service. It goes without saying that in many of these 112 nations, gayism is overwhelmingly rejected by society.
@ Maazi
Actually, the people you list are not those with whom I am generally communicating (although I do know some of them). I won’t names names, but …
One of the things that many of my UG friends and contacts say is that they are fed up with the hypocrisy of those who are stirring up hatred of their fellow Ugandans. They feel that much of the anti-gay rhetoric is designed to deflect attention from the country’s real problems. Many educated Ugandans know full well that most of this ‘child recruitment’ stuff is just cheap, dirty propaganda, and that the vast majority of those recruited into prostitution are female (as is the vast majority of victims of child abuse).
Perhaps the important point is that there is now an lively discussion on what was once a ‘taboo’. This is an encouraging development.
Maazi is like Ssempa.
I think you both boast the same kind of ‘education’…. No, I am very poorly qualified to teach you English. You seem to know it better than me.
So, I will not point out your words and thoughts…. they seem too clear to all but you.
Have a good day, Maazi.
And, I do plan to stay in Uganda.
[If only to spite you…!]
Maazi,
I am sorry but you are deluded.
I am not leaving Uganda. No way.
I love it. It is my country. It has my people. I am too in love with it.
Now, you will do your best to have me thrown out of the country. I promise to do my best to make sure that I stay.
We shall see, even if I do die, executed by the your legal means, but, I will die in my country, which is Uganda.
Now, take that, and mull over it.
gug
Whatever floats your boat man. I see you are still pretending that anyone who is opposed to your deviant behaviour wants you dead. Anyway, its good propaganda and will keep your western fans entertained. Staying or leaving Uganda is your choice. I am only advising you to seek alternatives because gayism will NEVER be accepted by the Ugandan people.You are free to reject my advice. It is inevitable that the gaps in the sodomy laws will be closed at some point in the near future and there is nothing you can do about it apart from crying out to your western fans thousands of miles away. Now take that and mull over it
Maazi,
I am sorry but you are deluded.
I am not leaving Uganda. No way.
I love it. It is my country. It has my people. I am too in love with it.
Now, you will do your best to have me thrown out of the country. I promise to do my best to make sure that I stay.
We shall see, even if I do die, executed by the your legal means, but, I will die in my country, which is Uganda.
Now, take that, and mull over it.
gug
Uh….
Will Maazi send the police after me? Because I am a criminal, breaking the law of the country, in his view
Or Giles Muhame, knowing who I am, make sure I am hanged now… judicially of course?!
Please do not flatter yourself. Enjoy the limelight while it lasts. It is good you are playing fiddle to your western fans. In the future, you will certainly need their help to relocate overseas when the sodomy laws are strengthened to take care of gay militancy.
@ Maazi
You really are a ‘little charmer’, aren’t you.
(Oh, and don’t start telling us you ‘love Jesus’, by the way … after what you’ve said your compatriot, telling us that you loved Jesus would be a disgusting travesty, and could bring condemnation upon yourself.)
Its always funny how westerners pander to the nonsensical Africa stereotypes dished to them by western ignoramuses masquerading as international journalists and assume that everyone opposed to abberent sexual activity is motivated by religious belief. Gayism is not part of African culture, traditions and customs. For that reason, it will remain banned. No compromises.
@ Maazi
You really are a ‘little charmer’, aren’t you.
(Oh, and don’t start telling us you ‘love Jesus’, by the way … after what you’ve said your compatriot, telling us that you loved Jesus would be a disgusting travesty, and could bring condemnation upon yourself.)
i always get amused when people say stuff like ‘Gayism is not part of African culture, traditions and customs.’
well how about sacrificing twins? (African culture and customs… *face-palm*)
actually there is a word for gay in almost every local dialect in Uganda, which usually comes first? the act or the word? (mind you these are not new words!)..
Kabaka Mwanga has an interesting history, if you have ever bothered. the truth is the only thing being imported into Uganda from American Evangelicals and other xtian fundies is HOMOPHOBIA… the average Ugandan doesn’t really give a hoot who you sleep with and how you sleep with them, provided you keep it a private matter….(which it is, to start with…).
if you don’t like men who sleep with men, the solution is simple… DON’T SLEEP WITH THEM! …am straight and find it amusing why people are so afraid of gay people, they’re human beings just like you and me, only differing in a small way (sexual preference- which shouldn’t be a crime!)
i am Ugandan and I am appalled at the levels of homophobia ignorance in my country….
TUSWALA!
Uh….
Will Maazi send the police after me? Because I am a criminal, breaking the law of the country, in his view
Or Giles Muhame, knowing who I am, make sure I am hanged now… judicially of course?!
Maazi
You expressed to very different views with repsect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
At least we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Bye.
Maazi? Still with us? What’s your view on the WHO today?! (Sorry, I should have said ‘at this hour’, as your view changed dramatically WITHIN the same day last week.)
My view has never changed on any subject matter discussed in this blog. What you mistake for “dramatic changes” is probably the expression of my nuanced views on how gayism should be tackled. I do not wish to continue this particular thread anymore. Perhaps, you should now turn your attention to the new article on the upstart tabloid in Uganda which seems to be better read by you people in the West than the Ugandan people. Come to think of it——Warren has read the tabloid story ahead of me !!!!
Maazi
You expressed two very different views with respect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
(Apologies for the typos.)
My bowels are working wonderfully, by the way – never been better!
I will take your word for it.
Many gay people in UG are actually very ‘economically productive’, not contributing to the population explosion that worries some UG economists so much…..
Did you just make that up? I am sure that Ugandan economists do not hold sex deviants up as a solution to so-called “population explosion”. In any case, a large population can be an asset in terms of market size that can attract foreign investment or a liability in terms of the inability of the State to attend to the needs of its large citizenry. Population being an asset (as is the case of China) or a liability depends on the resourcefulness and visionary leadership of the government.
They could prove a great asset to western countries(paying taxes but not using social services) if forced to leave
You can have the sex deviants. I am sure they will add “colour” and diversity to the largely monochrome population of gay sex practitioners in the UK.
… like the UG Asians before them (whose departure was one reason for big drop in the per capita GDP of UG in the 1970s).
Many of the Ugandan Asians are back. In fact, one of them is currently a Member of Parliament. There is no basis for your comparison of a racial group with a group of individuals who insist on engaging in sex crimes.
Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for that.
You are welcome. Good Bye.
Maazi? Still with us? What’s your view on the WHO today?! (Sorry, I should have said ‘at this hour’, as your view changed dramatically WITHIN the same day last week.)
I see you’re now resorting to insults and pettiness … a sign that this dialogue is probably not worth continuing. My bowels are working wonderfully, by the way – never been better!
Many gay people in UG are actually very ‘economically productive’, not contributing to the population explosion that worries some UG economists so much, and not putting undue pressure on, for example, the school system by having overly-large families. They could prove a great asset to western countries(paying taxes but not using social services) if forced to leave … like the UG Asians before them (whose departure was one reason for big drop in the per capita GDP of UG in the 1970s).
I note that we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for that. Feel free to think about some of the things we’ve been saying. Over and out!
I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that, at 5.15am ET on 10 Nov., the WHO was cited as an authority, whereas at 4.12pm on the same day, it was contemptuously dismissed as ‘western’ by the same person!
Bahati gave ‘civilised humanity’ a wake-up call. And many people in UG and beyond have indeed ‘woken up’. Do not underestimate that!
Richard Willmer,
Not really. The crudity of the Bahati Bill handed the euro-american propagandist lobby a coup and allowed all sorts of Western ignoramuses who think Africa is a country to feel that they are entitled to dictate to the Ugandan people. These are the same ignoramuses who did not raise alarm when the law on sex crimes was amended in 1997 to allow for the extreme sentence of death for men who rape females. If gay sex practitioners who commit rape were included in that 1997 amendment, we would have heard all sorts of gayism-obsessed Western crazies denouncing a country they cannot even locate in a world map.
One of the things that many of my UG friends and contacts say is that they are fed up with the hypocrisy of those who are stirring up hatred of their fellow Ugandans. They feel that much of the anti-gay rhetoric is designed to deflect attention from the country’s real problems.
There are some Africans who believe that whatever comes out of the mouth of a westerner is supreme. So I am not surprised that there are those who would support gayism. May be 30–40 years down the line, when westerners have gotten round to decriminalizing bestiality, these same Ugandan friends of yours will be there to argue that sexual intercourse with a favourite pet is fine. These friends will cleverly argue that consent is not required since we never ask animals for consent before we hunt them for fun, kill them for their delicious meat or use them on racecourses, zoos and circuses for entertainment.
Many educated Ugandans know full well that most of this ‘child recruitment’ stuff is just cheap, dirty propaganda, and that the vast majority of those recruited into prostitution are female (as is the vast majority of victims of child abuse).
Well, I was educated both in Uganda and in Europe. I have also travelled widely in world from United States were I lived and worked for a while to the Middle-East and Northeast Asia and South-east Asia. With regards to “child recruitment” in Uganda, I do believe that militant gay sex practitioners are trying to swell their ranks by recruiting vulnerable young people who they claim are “confused about their sexuality”. In 2007, the Western-controlled gay militants in Uganda did distribute fliers in which they invited young people allegedly “confused with their sexuality” to contact them. This caused outrage among the Ugandan people. One must not forget the UNESCO boss who was expelled that same year for secret distribution of pro-gay literature in schools amidst parental outrage.
Perhaps the important point is that there is now an lively discussion on what was once a ‘taboo’. This is an encouraging development.
I agree completely that it is an encouraging development. But do not delude yourself that the Ugandan people are moving anywhere towards the liberal attitudes of the Westerners on this matter. Ugandans—young and old—are overwhelmingly conservative. So the idea that discussing “taboo” will lead to tolerance is complete nonsense. By the way, the lively discussion is actually between Westerners and their local proxies on one side and the rest of the Ugandan people on the other side.
Maazi
You expressed two very different views with respect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
(Apologies for the typos.)
Maazi
You expressed to very different views with repsect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
Maazi? Still with us? What’s your view on the WHO today?! (Sorry, I should have said ‘at this hour’, as your view changed dramatically WITHIN the same day last week.)
My view has never changed on any subject matter discussed in this blog. What you mistake for “dramatic changes” is probably the expression of my nuanced views on how gayism should be tackled. I do not wish to continue this particular thread anymore. Perhaps, you should now turn your attention to the new article on the upstart tabloid in Uganda which seems to be better read by you people in the West than the Ugandan people. Come to think of it——Warren has read the tabloid story ahead of me !!!!
Maazi? Still with us? What’s your view on the WHO today?! (Sorry, I should have said ‘at this hour’, as your view changed dramatically WITHIN the same day last week.)
I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that, at 5.15am ET on 10 Nov., the WHO was cited as an authority, whereas at 4.12pm on the same day, it was contemptuously dismissed as ‘western’ by the same person!
At least we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Bye.
My bowels are working wonderfully, by the way – never been better!
I will take your word for it.
Many gay people in UG are actually very ‘economically productive’, not contributing to the population explosion that worries some UG economists so much…..
Did you just make that up? I am sure that Ugandan economists do not hold sex deviants up as a solution to so-called “population explosion”. In any case, a large population can be an asset in terms of market size that can attract foreign investment or a liability in terms of the inability of the State to attend to the needs of its large citizenry. Population being an asset (as is the case of China) or a liability depends on the resourcefulness and visionary leadership of the government.
They could prove a great asset to western countries(paying taxes but not using social services) if forced to leave
You can have the sex deviants. I am sure they will add “colour” and diversity to the largely monochrome population of gay sex practitioners in the UK.
… like the UG Asians before them (whose departure was one reason for big drop in the per capita GDP of UG in the 1970s).
Many of the Ugandan Asians are back. In fact, one of them is currently a Member of Parliament. There is no basis for your comparison of a racial group with a group of individuals who insist on engaging in sex crimes.
Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for that.
You are welcome. Good Bye.
I see you’re now resorting to insults and pettiness … a sign that this dialogue is probably not worth continuing. My bowels are working wonderfully, by the way – never been better!
Many gay people in UG are actually very ‘economically productive’, not contributing to the population explosion that worries some UG economists so much, and not putting undue pressure on, for example, the school system by having overly-large families. They could prove a great asset to western countries(paying taxes but not using social services) if forced to leave … like the UG Asians before them (whose departure was one reason for big drop in the per capita GDP of UG in the 1970s).
I note that we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for that. Feel free to think about some of the things we’ve been saying. Over and out!
Richard Willmer,
All international organizations, where Westerners control decision-making, are opposed to criminalization of gay sex. There is nothing new about that. The WHO article reads like a propaganda piece written by a gay lobby group rather than a global health organization. Sample an excerpt from the WHO article—-
[Gays] want to contribute to society through their work and their spiritual lives. However, many feel that they need to hide their sexuality from their colleagues, friends and congregations.
Very pathetic !! Is this what a person is supposed to find on a health website?!! Did the authorities at WHO hire GayUganda to act as their chief press officer?
With regards to your question as to who is behind the upstart tabloid that have been giving you Western chaps irritable bowel syndrome, I will say this—-
It could be anybody. It could be Hillary Clinton, the late Ronnie Reagan or former President George Walker Bush or even the Euro-American gay lobby. It is entirely possible that the editor Giles Muhame is the person behind the tabloid called Rolling Stone.
Back to the WHO for a moment: they oppose the criminalisation of LGBT persons, as we all know.
Right … Rolling Stone: I’m all ears, Maazi! (I’m sure you’ve got interesting stuff to sya on this topic.)
Well, to summarise my view on HIV: an open, honest and fair-minded approach to issues in human sexuality is a vital component in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The WHO report you cite notwithstanding, I think the WHO would agree with me on this point (hence the concern they have expressed over the Bahati Bill).
On the story of Sodom & Gomorrah: it is of course (attempted) ‘gang rape’ that is cited as the ‘trigger’ for their destruction.
Moving on …
You are clearly intelligent and well read, and consider (maybe rightly) yourself well informed.
The CNN interview with GUg took place in the wake of the publication of the ‘Rolling Stone’. Would you like to give us your opinion on who was really behind the libellous article in that ‘newspaper’?
One more thing: I thought the HIV infection rate were starting to RISE again in UG … principally as a result of unfaithful husbands, it is suggested. (You’ve agreed with this suggestion already, by the way.)
Obviously, the change from ‘ABC’ to ‘AB’ (pushed by, among others, Martin Ssempa) may have contributed to the recent cited reversal in UG’s otherwise laudable achievement.
Another point: your use of the term ‘sodomite’ shows that you haven’t read and/or understood the story of Sodom & Gomorrah properly. Read it again, then ask yourself this question “it is truthful and just to call people like GUg a ‘sodomite’?”
Never mind … I was referring to your earlier comments to GUg telling him that wanted him to be ‘gone’, or whatever, and asking you to justify those.
Do I understand that, if the persecution of gay people in UG were stopped, you believe that many Ugandans would suddenly CHOOSE to be gay? (Hasn’t happened here in Britain since 1967, as far as anyone can tell.)
One of the most damaging ‘public health’ scenarios must surely be that in which a gay person is ‘forced’ to marry, but is having ‘random’ secret affairs on the side. Greater openness and honesty about human sexuality would help to avoid this. ‘Sexual secrecy’ and hypocrisy are two of HIV’s biggest allies, IMHO.
You’ve still not answered my question, which concerns how people should be treated.
As a matter-of-fact, I have. You just don’t want to listen. But you will be compelled to listen by the course of events in the near future.
Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Gayism is the greatest vector of HIV/AIDS in the West, hence the blood donation ban on sodomites in the otherwise gay-friendly West. A recent report from WHO praised Africa for declining infection rates while expressing concern about the rise in HIV infection rates among sodomites and intravenous drug users in the West. What I am saying is that the Ugandan State will not complicate the situation on the ground with regards to HIV/AIDS by allowing the growth of gayism which is guaranteed to cause an explosion in infection rates.
You’ve still not answered my question, which concerns how people should be treated.
As a matter-of-fact, I have. You just don’t want to listen. But you will be compelled to listen by the course of events in the near future.
Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Gayism is the greatest vector of HIV/AIDS in the West, hence the blood donation ban on sodomites in the otherwise gay-friendly West. A recent report from WHO praised Africa for declining infection rates while expressing concern about the rise in HIV infection rates among sodomites and intravenous drug users in the West. What I am saying is that the Ugandan State will not complicate the situation on the ground with regards to HIV/AIDS by allowing the growth of gayism which is guaranteed to cause an explosion in infection rates.
You’ve still not answered my question, which concerns how people should be treated.
Maybe tomorrow.
Bye for now.
I don’t think your answer is ‘objective’, as it cites ‘culture’, which is a relative and dynamic concept.
More importantly, you have not answered the question I asked you, which was a request for a moral justification of your proposed ‘treatment’ (which you have yet to specify, by the way, despite my request) of your gay compatriots.
(The question you answered was why you do not approve of homosexuality – but I didn’t ask that question, since I already know the answer to it.)
Your statement that ‘family counts for nothing’ in Britain is more cheap anti-western rhetoric. I could, at this point, make some observations of my own about ‘side-dishes’, but I won’t. Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.
Richard,
You are entitled to your opinions based on western culture. I am entitled to mine based on African culture and moral values. Gayism will not be permitted breathing space in our continent.
Anyway, Maazi – thank you for an interesting ‘contest’. I must get some sleep now, but I’m sure we will resume our dialogue in the near future.
Goodnight.
Just seen your latest post – glad to see that you too understand that ‘eradication’ of homosexulaity is not possible. I would go further, of course, and say that it was not desirable to attempt it.
I don’t think your answer is ‘objective’, as it cites ‘culture’, which is a relative and dynamic concept.
More importantly, you have not answered the question I asked you, which was a request for a moral justification of your proposed ‘treatment’ (which you have yet to specify, by the way, despite my request) of your gay compatriots.
(The question you answered was why you do not approve of homosexuality – but I didn’t ask that question, since I already know the answer to it.)
Your statement that ‘family counts for nothing’ in Britain is more cheap anti-western rhetoric. I could, at this point, make some observations of my own about ‘side-dishes’, but I won’t. Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.
By the way, what methods do you favour in your attempt to ‘eradicate’ homosexuality? You’ve said it will be done (that is a joke – albeit a sick one), but not said how
.
I never said anything about “eradication” of gayism. Please do not put words into my mouth. Like any other crime, gayism cannot be eradicated, it can only be discouraged or contained. Without further elaboration, a well-revised Bahati Bill will do just that.
The main point is, while you have said much, you have not given any kind of objective moral justification for your proposed treatment of people like GUg, your fellow Ugandan.
Gayism is incompatible with the culture and traditions of our communal society which is massively different from your highly individualistic society where everyone is encouraged to strictly mind their own business; where family is fragmented, chaotic and counts for nothing. It is also in the public health interest to keep sodomy properly banned to make sure HIV infection rates do not go exponential from the current 6% largely attributable to normal “man-and- woman” sexual relations. Even the NHS which bans sodomites from blood donation will probably understand our views on this matter.
You’ve not answered my question about the alleged ‘joke’. You’re simply repeating your assertion that you will be proved right.
By the way, what methods do you favour in your attempt to ‘eradicate’ homosexuality? You’ve said it will be done (that is a joke – albeit a sick one), but not said how.
The main point is, while you have said much, you have not given any kind of objective moral justification for your proposed treatment of people like GUg, your fellow Ugandan.
My contacts are in a position to know what’s happening; like you, they’re not stupid, nor are they starry-eyed optimists.Well, we’ll see … not least because we’ll keep watching closely!
Keep watching until your eyes strain. Let your contacts —or shall I say spies—continue watching as well. When the Ugandan State is ready, proper action against gayism will be taken as it was back in 2005 when “same-sex marriage” was dealt with decisively in the constitution despite howls of disapproval from Western NGOs and governments.
I think you’ve not understood the full implications of the Bahati Bill. Remember also that is easier to stop new unjust laws being enacted than it is to overturn existing ones, hence the interest in the Ugandan situation.
Why is the idea that some Ugandans oppose brutal and repressive treatment of their compatriots a joke? What are saying about Ugandans here? I think you may be becoming a little overexcited.
By the way, I stand by my statement that many people do not think that the eradication of homosexuality in UG is possible. Some kind of ‘covering up’ of the reality might be possible, I suppose … as has been the case in the past. Most of my UG friends and contacts think that any attempt to either ‘eradicate’ or ‘cover up’ would actually be undesirable, as it could undermine development towards a more established and stable civic society. ‘Eradication’ would certainly require the kinds of brutal methods, and /or lawlessness, that are simply not consistent with any kind of properly-functioning democracy.
What a joke….
The $64,000 question is what ‘different bill’ might be proposed, and how any new proposal might be viewed by donor countries such as Canada, Sweden, etc.
The revised Bahati Bill shall become law. Now, can I have the $64,000?
Your citing of ‘gayism’ as some kind of political movement or philosophy is frankly the stuff of cheap rhetoric.
It is a well-organized and well-funded movement. You know it and I know it. No need to lie about it.
Has it not occured to you that the kind of political context that spawns Bahati Bills [which are inherently totalitarian in nature] is not one in which free and fair elections are likely?
In other words, India was not a democracy prior to 2009 Delhi High Court decision on sodomy laws there (Well, the jury is still out on whether the high court verdict will be permanent since the Indian supreme court is yet to give final ruling on the matter.) Botswana and Ghana are not democracies because they criminalize gayism? Trinidad & Tobago is no longer democratic since buggery between two males is a criminal offence? China is now a democracy because gayism is legal activity there since 1997. Prior to 1967 legalization of sodomy, England was a totalitarian entity not a democracy? There is no correlation between democracy and tolerance of gayism.
What sets the situation in UG apart is that NEW, and almost uniquely savage, legislation was being proposed by Bahati, with the probable backing of his ‘political sugar daddy’, Buturo.
Nothing sets Uganda apart from other nations in other regions of the world that criminalize gayism except that it as an African nation. If United Arab Emirates which already punishes sodomy severely wrote a bill similar to that of Uganda with death penalty, nothing will happen beyond mere verbal condemnation from Western governments pursuing voters who engage in sodomy. Uganda is different because it is an Africa. Westerners perceive that it would be easier to bully and blackmail African nations.
By the way, I stand by my statement that many people do not think that the eradication of homosexuality in UG is possible. Some kind of ‘covering up’ of the reality might be possible, I suppose … as has been the case in the past. Most of my UG friends and contacts think that any attempt to either ‘eradicate’ or ‘cover up’ would actually be undesirable, as it could undermine development towards a more established and stable civic society. ‘Eradication’ would certainly require the kinds of brutal methods, and /or lawlessness, that are simply not consistent with any kind of properly-functioning democracy.
So what you’re really saying is that it won’t be the Bahati Bill at all that could (in your view) become law, but something very different (the Bahati Bill was designed to achieve the elimination [by execution, indefinite detention or ‘forced conversion’] of a section of he Ugandan population, namely gay people and anyone else who disagreed with him – Bahati has made that crystal clear). The $64,000 question is what ‘different bill’ might be proposed, and how any new proposal might be viewed by donor countries such as Canada, Sweden, etc..
(Incidentally, you mentioned two things of interest in you posts above. Firstly, you said you favoured free and fair elections in UG. Has it not occured to you that the kind of political context that spawns Bahati Bills [which are inherently totalitarian in nature] is not one in which free and fair elections are likely? Secondly, you quite correctly mentioned that many countries have unjust laws aimed at gay people. What sets the situation in UG apart is that NEW, and almost uniquely savage, legislation was being proposed by Bahati, with the probable backing of his ‘political sugar daddy’, Buturo.)
Noone here expects to see ‘gay marriages’ or ‘gay studies’ for children (neither of which we have in Britain, by the way!) in UG in the near future. Your citing of ‘gayism’ as some kind of political movement or philosophy is frankly the stuff of cheap rhetoric.
My contacts are in a position to know what’s happening; like you, they’re not stupid, nor are they starry-eyed optimists.
Well, we’ll see … not least because we’ll keep watching closely!
The UG Government committee that looked at the Bill in the spring threw out all but one of its clauses, and its conclusion were not dissimilar to those in the article I cited above (the main difference being the omission of the idea of decriminalising private sexual acts persuant to informed consent);
Did you really understand what the government committee recommended? Please separate your fantasies from reality.
The idea that homosexuality can be ‘eradicated’ in UG is losing credibility among many, and many now recognise that it has always been a reality in Africa, and will remain so … so the question that now arises in sober Ugandan minds is ‘how best should we accommodate this reality’.
Another figment of your imagination. You should fire all your sources if what you wrote above is what they have been feeding you. Even GayUganda will not make the mistake of dishing out such drivel as propaganda for his western fans. If you do not know how to make propaganda, please take tutorials from GayUganda. He is an authority in that field of endeavour.
Britain has an array of treaty obligations (e.g. in the EU Treaty) which it has to respect in the ‘national interest’ (e.g. we cannot employ the death penalty if we wish to retain full membership of the EU with all the economic advantages that brings
That has not stopped France from banning the Islamic veil. Has it? Has it stopped Belgium from thinking of doing the same? Of course, death penalty is a no go area for Europeans. I should know. I was partly educated there. This kind of reminds me of how Europeans view Americans as barbarians for insisting on retention of the death penalty. USA doesn’t care a damn what the Europeans think and neither should we—with regards to gayism.
As I’ve said before, I’ve been communicating with many many Ugandans … and not ones you think, either.
Please continue to “hope and pray” that whatever assurances your Ugandan sources are offering you that the bill will die is not wishful thinking and figments of their own imagination !!!
By the way, I have no doubt that there is a struggle ahead. A year ago, the Bahati Bill’s passage was pretty much a foregone conclusion, remember?
I am actually glad that the Bahati Bill as originally constituted was not passed. It was not properly written and had terrible provisions such as death penalty, prohibition of men holding hands (a sign of platonic friendship in most of Africa) and the laughable extradition of Ugandan gays abroad. Even the most socially conservative judge in Uganda would have declared the bill “unconstitutional” in its original format. Despite western pressure, it is still a forgone conclusion that a revised Bahati Bill will become law.
Oh, and your final comment makes clear that you seem not like the idea of people living happily!
The Ugandan people have no interest in seeing the legalization of gayism and the inevitable imposition of gay pride march, gay studies for children, same-sex “marriage” and European-style legal restrictions on people who reject gayism. Gay sex practitioners who feel that happiness can only flow from hedonism can emigrate to climes where such hedonistic behaviour is glorified.
Three more points, one specific, two general:-
1. The UG Government committee that looked at the Bill in the spring threw out all but one of its clauses, and its conclusion were not dissimilar to those in the article I cited above (the main difference being the omission of the idea of decriminalising private sexual acts persuant to informed consent);
2. Britain has an array of treaty obligations (e.g. in the EU Treaty) which it has to respect in the ‘national interest’ (e.g. we cannot employ the death penalty if we wish to retain full membership of the EU with all the economic advantages that brings);
3. (most importantly) The idea that homosexuality can be ‘eradicated’ in UG is losing credibility among many, and many now recognise that it has always been a reality in Africa, and will remain so … so the question that now arises in sober Ugandan minds is ‘how best should we accommodate this reality’.
Richard Willmer,
All international organizations, where Westerners control decision-making, are opposed to criminalization of gay sex. There is nothing new about that. The WHO article reads like a propaganda piece written by a gay lobby group rather than a global health organization. Sample an excerpt from the WHO article—-
Very pathetic !! Is this what a person is supposed to find on a health website?!! Did the authorities at WHO hire GayUganda to act as their chief press officer?
With regards to your question as to who is behind the upstart tabloid that have been giving you Western chaps irritable bowel syndrome, I will say this—-
It could be anybody. It could be Hillary Clinton, the late Ronnie Reagan or former President George Walker Bush or even the Euro-American gay lobby. It is entirely possible that the editor Giles Muhame is the person behind the tabloid called Rolling Stone.
Back to the WHO for a moment: they oppose the criminalisation of LGBT persons, as we all know.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/11/09-071175/en/index.html
Right … Rolling Stone: I’m all ears, Maazi! (I’m sure you’ve got interesting stuff to sya on this topic.)
Never mind … I was referring to your earlier comments to GUg telling him that wanted him to be ‘gone’, or whatever, and asking you to justify those.
Do I understand that, if the persecution of gay people in UG were stopped, you believe that many Ugandans would suddenly CHOOSE to be gay? (Hasn’t happened here in Britain since 1967, as far as anyone can tell.)
One of the most damaging ‘public health’ scenarios must surely be that in which a gay person is ‘forced’ to marry, but is having ‘random’ secret affairs on the side. Greater openness and honesty about human sexuality would help to avoid this. ‘Sexual secrecy’ and hypocrisy are two of HIV’s biggest allies, IMHO.
Richard,
You are entitled to your opinions based on western culture. I am entitled to mine based on African culture and moral values. Gayism will not be permitted breathing space in our continent.
One more thing: I thought the HIV infection rate were starting to RISE again in UG … principally as a result of unfaithful husbands, it is suggested. (You’ve agreed with this suggestion already, by the way.)
Obviously, the change from ‘ABC’ to ‘AB’ (pushed by, among others, Martin Ssempa) may have contributed to the recent cited reversal in UG’s otherwise laudable achievement.
Another point: your use of the term ‘sodomite’ shows that you haven’t read and/or understood the story of Sodom & Gomorrah properly. Read it again, then ask yourself this question “it is truthful and just to call people like GUg a ‘sodomite’?”
You’ve still not answered my question, which concerns how people should be treated.
Maybe tomorrow.
Bye for now.
Well, to summarise my view on HIV: an open, honest and fair-minded approach to issues in human sexuality is a vital component in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The WHO report you cite notwithstanding, I think the WHO would agree with me on this point (hence the concern they have expressed over the Bahati Bill).
On the story of Sodom & Gomorrah: it is of course (attempted) ‘gang rape’ that is cited as the ‘trigger’ for their destruction.
Moving on …
You are clearly intelligent and well read, and consider (maybe rightly) yourself well informed.
The CNN interview with GUg took place in the wake of the publication of the ‘Rolling Stone’. Would you like to give us your opinion on who was really behind the libellous article in that ‘newspaper’?
Richard –
I suggest you simply ignore Maazi! I promise you, you’re not going to change his mind. Neither will you receive any compassionate, logical or coherent prose from him. The rest of us learned this the hard way 😉 Good luck my friend, but srsly, just ignore him. I stopped reading his posts months ago. There are far better ways to carry on the fight than engaging this person 🙂
The main point is, while you have said much, you have not given any kind of objective moral justification for your proposed treatment of people like GUg, your fellow Ugandan.
Just seen your latest post – glad to see that you too understand that ‘eradication’ of homosexulaity is not possible. I would go further, of course, and say that it was not desirable to attempt it.
@ Maazi
We’ve looked at ‘culture’. Let’s now go to deeper (or ‘deeeeeeepah’, as Martin Ssempa might say!): MORALITY (which transcends culture).
Two points for you to consider:-
1. Yesterday, I received news (not from Frank M., etc., or Gug – but from another source) of an (alleged) attack on someone who had expressed opposition to the Bahati Bill, and whom his attackers believed was gay.
Do you consider such attacks as morally acceptable? YES or NO?
2. Martin Ssempa wants the Bahati Bill, but without the hangings (so he claims). He favours (or favoured – he might be starting to ‘change his tune’) 20 years imprisonment for those in consensual gay relationships. This would mean that two men in a long-term relationship would be sent to prison for a long time; HOWEVER, another man who sleeps with a different woman each night (and therefore constitutes a much greater public health risk) would not be sent to prison at all.
Do you think that this is a morally acceptable situation? YES or NO?
(By the way, on the subject of public health: according to a recent report [a copy of which I sent to Warren a couple of weeks ago] most current HIV transmission in UG seems to be from an unfaithful husband to his wife.)
Let’s ‘grow up’. Let’s stop using ‘culture’ as an excuse for unjust discrimination, and instead look at FACTS and MORAL PRINCIPLES.
*USED to SUPPORT Bahati …*
It may be a little off topic, but I wanted to say that, from all I have seen, gayuganda seems like a beautiful person — kind, intelligent and thoughtful. I could only wish for neighbors like him and his husband. I pray for your safety and piece of mind my friend. Please forgive us for any part our culture has played in disrupting your life and robbing you of your safety. It truly is a crime.
@ Maazi
I speak with Ugandans on daily basis. Almost without exception, they hate the anti-gay rhetoric of people like Ssempa and Bahati.
Dear GayUganda,
I am not bothered at all, but you should be.
Ha, ha, ha. You shouldn’t be concerned about me. You should be concerned about yourself and your standing with the law.
If this is an attempt at psycho-analyzing me, then you are a complete failure.
Ah, that’s good. You are beginning to see the reality. Your pro-gay views are only respected in liberal segments of Western society while mine are mainstream in Uganda and most of Africa. On a global scale, my views are mainstream in nearly 80 nations worldwide that criminalize sexual deviance and in many of the 112 nations where gayism is not explicitly outlawed, but is nevertheless legally restricted via bans on gay marriage, gay propaganda in schools, ban on gay blood donation and ban on gay military service. It goes without saying that in many of these 112 nations, gayism is overwhelmingly rejected by society.
@ Maazi
Actually, the people you list are not those with whom I am generally communicating (although I do know some of them). I won’t names names, but …
One of the things that many of my UG friends and contacts say is that they are fed up with the hypocrisy of those who are stirring up hatred of their fellow Ugandans. They feel that much of the anti-gay rhetoric is designed to deflect attention from the country’s real problems. Many educated Ugandans know full well that most of this ‘child recruitment’ stuff is just cheap, dirty propaganda, and that the vast majority of those recruited into prostitution are female (as is the vast majority of victims of child abuse).
Perhaps the important point is that there is now an lively discussion on what was once a ‘taboo’. This is an encouraging development.
Maazi is like Ssempa.
I think you both boast the same kind of ‘education’…. No, I am very poorly qualified to teach you English. You seem to know it better than me.
So, I will not point out your words and thoughts…. they seem too clear to all but you.
Have a good day, Maazi.
And, I do plan to stay in Uganda.
[If only to spite you…!]
Whatever floats your boat man. I see you are still pretending that anyone who is opposed to your deviant behaviour wants you dead. Anyway, its good propaganda and will keep your western fans entertained. Staying or leaving Uganda is your choice. I am only advising you to seek alternatives because gayism will NEVER be accepted by the Ugandan people.You are free to reject my advice. It is inevitable that the gaps in the sodomy laws will be closed at some point in the near future and there is nothing you can do about it apart from crying out to your western fans thousands of miles away. Now take that and mull over it
Maazi,
I am sorry but you are deluded.
I am not leaving Uganda. No way.
I love it. It is my country. It has my people. I am too in love with it.
Now, you will do your best to have me thrown out of the country. I promise to do my best to make sure that I stay.
We shall see, even if I do die, executed by the your legal means, but, I will die in my country, which is Uganda.
Now, take that, and mull over it.
gug
Please do not flatter yourself. Enjoy the limelight while it lasts. It is good you are playing fiddle to your western fans. In the future, you will certainly need their help to relocate overseas when the sodomy laws are strengthened to take care of gay militancy.
Its always funny how westerners pander to the nonsensical Africa stereotypes dished to them by western ignoramuses masquerading as international journalists and assume that everyone opposed to abberent sexual activity is motivated by religious belief. Gayism is not part of African culture, traditions and customs. For that reason, it will remain banned. No compromises.
@ Maazi
You really are a ‘little charmer’, aren’t you.
(Oh, and don’t start telling us you ‘love Jesus’, by the way … after what you’ve said your compatriot, telling us that you loved Jesus would be a disgusting travesty, and could bring condemnation upon yourself.)
i always get amused when people say stuff like ‘Gayism is not part of African culture, traditions and customs.’
well how about sacrificing twins? (African culture and customs… *face-palm*)
actually there is a word for gay in almost every local dialect in Uganda, which usually comes first? the act or the word? (mind you these are not new words!)..
Kabaka Mwanga has an interesting history, if you have ever bothered. the truth is the only thing being imported into Uganda from American Evangelicals and other xtian fundies is HOMOPHOBIA… the average Ugandan doesn’t really give a hoot who you sleep with and how you sleep with them, provided you keep it a private matter….(which it is, to start with…).
if you don’t like men who sleep with men, the solution is simple… DON’T SLEEP WITH THEM! …am straight and find it amusing why people are so afraid of gay people, they’re human beings just like you and me, only differing in a small way (sexual preference- which shouldn’t be a crime!)
i am Ugandan and I am appalled at the levels of
homophobiaignorance in my country….TUSWALA!
Uh….
Will Maazi send the police after me? Because I am a criminal, breaking the law of the country, in his view
Or Giles Muhame, knowing who I am, make sure I am hanged now… judicially of course?!
Maazi
You expressed to very different views with repsect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
At least we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Bye.
My view has never changed on any subject matter discussed in this blog. What you mistake for “dramatic changes” is probably the expression of my nuanced views on how gayism should be tackled. I do not wish to continue this particular thread anymore. Perhaps, you should now turn your attention to the new article on the upstart tabloid in Uganda which seems to be better read by you people in the West than the Ugandan people. Come to think of it——Warren has read the tabloid story ahead of me !!!!
Maazi
You expressed two very different views with respect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
(Apologies for the typos.)
I will take your word for it.
Did you just make that up? I am sure that Ugandan economists do not hold sex deviants up as a solution to so-called “population explosion”. In any case, a large population can be an asset in terms of market size that can attract foreign investment or a liability in terms of the inability of the State to attend to the needs of its large citizenry. Population being an asset (as is the case of China) or a liability depends on the resourcefulness and visionary leadership of the government.
You can have the sex deviants. I am sure they will add “colour” and diversity to the largely monochrome population of gay sex practitioners in the UK.
Many of the Ugandan Asians are back. In fact, one of them is currently a Member of Parliament. There is no basis for your comparison of a racial group with a group of individuals who insist on engaging in sex crimes.
You are welcome. Good Bye.
Maazi? Still with us? What’s your view on the WHO today?! (Sorry, I should have said ‘at this hour’, as your view changed dramatically WITHIN the same day last week.)
I see you’re now resorting to insults and pettiness … a sign that this dialogue is probably not worth continuing. My bowels are working wonderfully, by the way – never been better!
Many gay people in UG are actually very ‘economically productive’, not contributing to the population explosion that worries some UG economists so much, and not putting undue pressure on, for example, the school system by having overly-large families. They could prove a great asset to western countries(paying taxes but not using social services) if forced to leave … like the UG Asians before them (whose departure was one reason for big drop in the per capita GDP of UG in the 1970s).
I note that we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for that. Feel free to think about some of the things we’ve been saying. Over and out!
I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that, at 5.15am ET on 10 Nov., the WHO was cited as an authority, whereas at 4.12pm on the same day, it was contemptuously dismissed as ‘western’ by the same person!
Richard Willmer,
Not really. The crudity of the Bahati Bill handed the euro-american propagandist lobby a coup and allowed all sorts of Western ignoramuses who think Africa is a country to feel that they are entitled to dictate to the Ugandan people. These are the same ignoramuses who did not raise alarm when the law on sex crimes was amended in 1997 to allow for the extreme sentence of death for men who rape females. If gay sex practitioners who commit rape were included in that 1997 amendment, we would have heard all sorts of gayism-obsessed Western crazies denouncing a country they cannot even locate in a world map.
There are some Africans who believe that whatever comes out of the mouth of a westerner is supreme. So I am not surprised that there are those who would support gayism. May be 30–40 years down the line, when westerners have gotten round to decriminalizing bestiality, these same Ugandan friends of yours will be there to argue that sexual intercourse with a favourite pet is fine. These friends will cleverly argue that consent is not required since we never ask animals for consent before we hunt them for fun, kill them for their delicious meat or use them on racecourses, zoos and circuses for entertainment.
Well, I was educated both in Uganda and in Europe. I have also travelled widely in world from United States were I lived and worked for a while to the Middle-East and Northeast Asia and South-east Asia. With regards to “child recruitment” in Uganda, I do believe that militant gay sex practitioners are trying to swell their ranks by recruiting vulnerable young people who they claim are “confused about their sexuality”. In 2007, the Western-controlled gay militants in Uganda did distribute fliers in which they invited young people allegedly “confused with their sexuality” to contact them. This caused outrage among the Ugandan people. One must not forget the UNESCO boss who was expelled that same year for secret distribution of pro-gay literature in schools amidst parental outrage.
I agree completely that it is an encouraging development. But do not delude yourself that the Ugandan people are moving anywhere towards the liberal attitudes of the Westerners on this matter. Ugandans—young and old—are overwhelmingly conservative. So the idea that discussing “taboo” will lead to tolerance is complete nonsense. By the way, the lively discussion is actually between Westerners and their local proxies on one side and the rest of the Ugandan people on the other side.
Maazi
You expressed two very different views with respect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
(Apologies for the typos.)
Maazi
You expressed to very different views with repsect to the WHO. The record is perfectly clear on that.
My view has never changed on any subject matter discussed in this blog. What you mistake for “dramatic changes” is probably the expression of my nuanced views on how gayism should be tackled. I do not wish to continue this particular thread anymore. Perhaps, you should now turn your attention to the new article on the upstart tabloid in Uganda which seems to be better read by you people in the West than the Ugandan people. Come to think of it——Warren has read the tabloid story ahead of me !!!!
Maazi? Still with us? What’s your view on the WHO today?! (Sorry, I should have said ‘at this hour’, as your view changed dramatically WITHIN the same day last week.)
I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that, at 5.15am ET on 10 Nov., the WHO was cited as an authority, whereas at 4.12pm on the same day, it was contemptuously dismissed as ‘western’ by the same person!
At least we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Bye.
I will take your word for it.
Did you just make that up? I am sure that Ugandan economists do not hold sex deviants up as a solution to so-called “population explosion”. In any case, a large population can be an asset in terms of market size that can attract foreign investment or a liability in terms of the inability of the State to attend to the needs of its large citizenry. Population being an asset (as is the case of China) or a liability depends on the resourcefulness and visionary leadership of the government.
You can have the sex deviants. I am sure they will add “colour” and diversity to the largely monochrome population of gay sex practitioners in the UK.
Many of the Ugandan Asians are back. In fact, one of them is currently a Member of Parliament. There is no basis for your comparison of a racial group with a group of individuals who insist on engaging in sex crimes.
You are welcome. Good Bye.
I see you’re now resorting to insults and pettiness … a sign that this dialogue is probably not worth continuing. My bowels are working wonderfully, by the way – never been better!
Many gay people in UG are actually very ‘economically productive’, not contributing to the population explosion that worries some UG economists so much, and not putting undue pressure on, for example, the school system by having overly-large families. They could prove a great asset to western countries(paying taxes but not using social services) if forced to leave … like the UG Asians before them (whose departure was one reason for big drop in the per capita GDP of UG in the 1970s).
I note that we have agreed on two things:-
1. ‘eradicating’ homosexuality from UG is an unattainable goal (and, in my view, undesirable), and
2. the probable main cause of the recent rise in HIV transmission in UG is unfaithful husbands infecting their wives.
Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you for that. Feel free to think about some of the things we’ve been saying. Over and out!
Richard Willmer,
All international organizations, where Westerners control decision-making, are opposed to criminalization of gay sex. There is nothing new about that. The WHO article reads like a propaganda piece written by a gay lobby group rather than a global health organization. Sample an excerpt from the WHO article—-
Very pathetic !! Is this what a person is supposed to find on a health website?!! Did the authorities at WHO hire GayUganda to act as their chief press officer?
With regards to your question as to who is behind the upstart tabloid that have been giving you Western chaps irritable bowel syndrome, I will say this—-
It could be anybody. It could be Hillary Clinton, the late Ronnie Reagan or former President George Walker Bush or even the Euro-American gay lobby. It is entirely possible that the editor Giles Muhame is the person behind the tabloid called Rolling Stone.
Back to the WHO for a moment: they oppose the criminalisation of LGBT persons, as we all know.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/11/09-071175/en/index.html
Right … Rolling Stone: I’m all ears, Maazi! (I’m sure you’ve got interesting stuff to sya on this topic.)
Well, to summarise my view on HIV: an open, honest and fair-minded approach to issues in human sexuality is a vital component in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The WHO report you cite notwithstanding, I think the WHO would agree with me on this point (hence the concern they have expressed over the Bahati Bill).
On the story of Sodom & Gomorrah: it is of course (attempted) ‘gang rape’ that is cited as the ‘trigger’ for their destruction.
Moving on …
You are clearly intelligent and well read, and consider (maybe rightly) yourself well informed.
The CNN interview with GUg took place in the wake of the publication of the ‘Rolling Stone’. Would you like to give us your opinion on who was really behind the libellous article in that ‘newspaper’?
One more thing: I thought the HIV infection rate were starting to RISE again in UG … principally as a result of unfaithful husbands, it is suggested. (You’ve agreed with this suggestion already, by the way.)
Obviously, the change from ‘ABC’ to ‘AB’ (pushed by, among others, Martin Ssempa) may have contributed to the recent cited reversal in UG’s otherwise laudable achievement.
Another point: your use of the term ‘sodomite’ shows that you haven’t read and/or understood the story of Sodom & Gomorrah properly. Read it again, then ask yourself this question “it is truthful and just to call people like GUg a ‘sodomite’?”
Never mind … I was referring to your earlier comments to GUg telling him that wanted him to be ‘gone’, or whatever, and asking you to justify those.
Do I understand that, if the persecution of gay people in UG were stopped, you believe that many Ugandans would suddenly CHOOSE to be gay? (Hasn’t happened here in Britain since 1967, as far as anyone can tell.)
One of the most damaging ‘public health’ scenarios must surely be that in which a gay person is ‘forced’ to marry, but is having ‘random’ secret affairs on the side. Greater openness and honesty about human sexuality would help to avoid this. ‘Sexual secrecy’ and hypocrisy are two of HIV’s biggest allies, IMHO.
As a matter-of-fact, I have. You just don’t want to listen. But you will be compelled to listen by the course of events in the near future.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Gayism is the greatest vector of HIV/AIDS in the West, hence the blood donation ban on sodomites in the otherwise gay-friendly West. A recent report from WHO praised Africa for declining infection rates while expressing concern about the rise in HIV infection rates among sodomites and intravenous drug users in the West. What I am saying is that the Ugandan State will not complicate the situation on the ground with regards to HIV/AIDS by allowing the growth of gayism which is guaranteed to cause an explosion in infection rates.
As a matter-of-fact, I have. You just don’t want to listen. But you will be compelled to listen by the course of events in the near future.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Gayism is the greatest vector of HIV/AIDS in the West, hence the blood donation ban on sodomites in the otherwise gay-friendly West. A recent report from WHO praised Africa for declining infection rates while expressing concern about the rise in HIV infection rates among sodomites and intravenous drug users in the West. What I am saying is that the Ugandan State will not complicate the situation on the ground with regards to HIV/AIDS by allowing the growth of gayism which is guaranteed to cause an explosion in infection rates.
You’ve still not answered my question, which concerns how people should be treated.
Maybe tomorrow.
Bye for now.
Richard,
You are entitled to your opinions based on western culture. I am entitled to mine based on African culture and moral values. Gayism will not be permitted breathing space in our continent.
Anyway, Maazi – thank you for an interesting ‘contest’. I must get some sleep now, but I’m sure we will resume our dialogue in the near future.
Goodnight.
Just seen your latest post – glad to see that you too understand that ‘eradication’ of homosexulaity is not possible. I would go further, of course, and say that it was not desirable to attempt it.
I don’t think your answer is ‘objective’, as it cites ‘culture’, which is a relative and dynamic concept.
More importantly, you have not answered the question I asked you, which was a request for a moral justification of your proposed ‘treatment’ (which you have yet to specify, by the way, despite my request) of your gay compatriots.
(The question you answered was why you do not approve of homosexuality – but I didn’t ask that question, since I already know the answer to it.)
Your statement that ‘family counts for nothing’ in Britain is more cheap anti-western rhetoric. I could, at this point, make some observations of my own about ‘side-dishes’, but I won’t. Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.
.
I never said anything about “eradication” of gayism. Please do not put words into my mouth. Like any other crime, gayism cannot be eradicated, it can only be discouraged or contained. Without further elaboration, a well-revised Bahati Bill will do just that.
Gayism is incompatible with the culture and traditions of our communal society which is massively different from your highly individualistic society where everyone is encouraged to strictly mind their own business; where family is fragmented, chaotic and counts for nothing. It is also in the public health interest to keep sodomy properly banned to make sure HIV infection rates do not go exponential from the current 6% largely attributable to normal “man-and- woman” sexual relations. Even the NHS which bans sodomites from blood donation will probably understand our views on this matter.
You’ve not answered my question about the alleged ‘joke’. You’re simply repeating your assertion that you will be proved right.
By the way, what methods do you favour in your attempt to ‘eradicate’ homosexuality? You’ve said it will be done (that is a joke – albeit a sick one), but not said how.
The main point is, while you have said much, you have not given any kind of objective moral justification for your proposed treatment of people like GUg, your fellow Ugandan.
Keep watching until your eyes strain. Let your contacts —or shall I say spies—continue watching as well. When the Ugandan State is ready, proper action against gayism will be taken as it was back in 2005 when “same-sex marriage” was dealt with decisively in the constitution despite howls of disapproval from Western NGOs and governments.
I think you’ve not understood the full implications of the Bahati Bill. Remember also that is easier to stop new unjust laws being enacted than it is to overturn existing ones, hence the interest in the Ugandan situation.
Why is the idea that some Ugandans oppose brutal and repressive treatment of their compatriots a joke? What are saying about Ugandans here? I think you may be becoming a little overexcited.
What a joke….
The revised Bahati Bill shall become law. Now, can I have the $64,000?
It is a well-organized and well-funded movement. You know it and I know it. No need to lie about it.
In other words, India was not a democracy prior to 2009 Delhi High Court decision on sodomy laws there (Well, the jury is still out on whether the high court verdict will be permanent since the Indian supreme court is yet to give final ruling on the matter.) Botswana and Ghana are not democracies because they criminalize gayism? Trinidad & Tobago is no longer democratic since buggery between two males is a criminal offence? China is now a democracy because gayism is legal activity there since 1997. Prior to 1967 legalization of sodomy, England was a totalitarian entity not a democracy? There is no correlation between democracy and tolerance of gayism.
Nothing sets Uganda apart from other nations in other regions of the world that criminalize gayism except that it as an African nation. If United Arab Emirates which already punishes sodomy severely wrote a bill similar to that of Uganda with death penalty, nothing will happen beyond mere verbal condemnation from Western governments pursuing voters who engage in sodomy. Uganda is different because it is an Africa. Westerners perceive that it would be easier to bully and blackmail African nations.
By the way, I stand by my statement that many people do not think that the eradication of homosexuality in UG is possible. Some kind of ‘covering up’ of the reality might be possible, I suppose … as has been the case in the past. Most of my UG friends and contacts think that any attempt to either ‘eradicate’ or ‘cover up’ would actually be undesirable, as it could undermine development towards a more established and stable civic society. ‘Eradication’ would certainly require the kinds of brutal methods, and /or lawlessness, that are simply not consistent with any kind of properly-functioning democracy.
So what you’re really saying is that it won’t be the Bahati Bill at all that could (in your view) become law, but something very different (the Bahati Bill was designed to achieve the elimination [by execution, indefinite detention or ‘forced conversion’] of a section of he Ugandan population, namely gay people and anyone else who disagreed with him – Bahati has made that crystal clear). The $64,000 question is what ‘different bill’ might be proposed, and how any new proposal might be viewed by donor countries such as Canada, Sweden, etc..
(Incidentally, you mentioned two things of interest in you posts above. Firstly, you said you favoured free and fair elections in UG. Has it not occured to you that the kind of political context that spawns Bahati Bills [which are inherently totalitarian in nature] is not one in which free and fair elections are likely? Secondly, you quite correctly mentioned that many countries have unjust laws aimed at gay people. What sets the situation in UG apart is that NEW, and almost uniquely savage, legislation was being proposed by Bahati, with the probable backing of his ‘political sugar daddy’, Buturo.)
Noone here expects to see ‘gay marriages’ or ‘gay studies’ for children (neither of which we have in Britain, by the way!) in UG in the near future. Your citing of ‘gayism’ as some kind of political movement or philosophy is frankly the stuff of cheap rhetoric.
My contacts are in a position to know what’s happening; like you, they’re not stupid, nor are they starry-eyed optimists.
Well, we’ll see … not least because we’ll keep watching closely!
Did you really understand what the government committee recommended? Please separate your fantasies from reality.
Another figment of your imagination. You should fire all your sources if what you wrote above is what they have been feeding you. Even GayUganda will not make the mistake of dishing out such drivel as propaganda for his western fans. If you do not know how to make propaganda, please take tutorials from GayUganda. He is an authority in that field of endeavour.
That has not stopped France from banning the Islamic veil. Has it? Has it stopped Belgium from thinking of doing the same? Of course, death penalty is a no go area for Europeans. I should know. I was partly educated there. This kind of reminds me of how Europeans view Americans as barbarians for insisting on retention of the death penalty. USA doesn’t care a damn what the Europeans think and neither should we—with regards to gayism.
Please continue to “hope and pray” that whatever assurances your Ugandan sources are offering you that the bill will die is not wishful thinking and figments of their own imagination !!!
I am actually glad that the Bahati Bill as originally constituted was not passed. It was not properly written and had terrible provisions such as death penalty, prohibition of men holding hands (a sign of platonic friendship in most of Africa) and the laughable extradition of Ugandan gays abroad. Even the most socially conservative judge in Uganda would have declared the bill “unconstitutional” in its original format. Despite western pressure, it is still a forgone conclusion that a revised Bahati Bill will become law.
The Ugandan people have no interest in seeing the legalization of gayism and the inevitable imposition of gay pride march, gay studies for children, same-sex “marriage” and European-style legal restrictions on people who reject gayism. Gay sex practitioners who feel that happiness can only flow from hedonism can emigrate to climes where such hedonistic behaviour is glorified.
Three more points, one specific, two general:-
1. The UG Government committee that looked at the Bill in the spring threw out all but one of its clauses, and its conclusion were not dissimilar to those in the article I cited above (the main difference being the omission of the idea of decriminalising private sexual acts persuant to informed consent);
2. Britain has an array of treaty obligations (e.g. in the EU Treaty) which it has to respect in the ‘national interest’ (e.g. we cannot employ the death penalty if we wish to retain full membership of the EU with all the economic advantages that brings);
3. (most importantly) The idea that homosexuality can be ‘eradicated’ in UG is losing credibility among many, and many now recognise that it has always been a reality in Africa, and will remain so … so the question that now arises in sober Ugandan minds is ‘how best should we accommodate this reality’.