January 2011 – Page 8 – Warren Throckmorton

Candidates defect to Uganda’s ruling party; Bahati rival cites safety concerns

Sometimes, politicians in the US change party affiliation (e.g., Arlen Spector’s switch from the GOP to Dem), but this is not common. In Uganda, it seems to be happening more frequently as the elections approach. This report notes that three politicians associated with the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) have either dropped out or changed parties.

President Museveni’s recent campaigns in parts of western Uganda herald doom for the opposition’s prospects of winning in an area that has previously overwhelmingly voted for the ruling party. The President last week campaigned in Bushenyi, Kisoro, Kabale, Kanungu, Buhweju, Mitooma, Rubirizi, Kiruhura and Mbarara, and while the IPC flag bearer, Dr Kizza Besigye, is yet to campaign here, the picture isn’t rosy for his coalition.

President Museveni has always convincingly won in western Uganda, but it was hoped that Besigye would make inroads in the area that is also his home.

During Museveni’s campaigns, at least three FDC parliamentary aspirants withdrew from the race, ensuring easy victory for Beatrice Rusaniya (Kiruhura district woman), Flavia Rwabuhoro (Kyegegwa woman), Atwaib Katooto (Katerera constituency), and David Bahati (Ndorwa West).

Citing concerns over his safety, Bahati’s rival, Serapio Biryaba, claimed he couldn’t continue in the race.

At a Museveni rally in Katerera, FDC’s Vereriano Tukahebwa withdrew in favour of Katooto, saying he had found it hard to canvass for Besigye’s support in the area.

“People were giving me support but I could not convince the masses to vote for Besigye. I realised that if I continued with FDC, all my programmes would not kick off,” he said.

Rusaniya also sailed through after FDC’s Dorcus Mpinda renounced her membership of the FDC at another rally in Kiruhura district.

It is not clear, nor have I heard through the grapevine why Bahati’s opponent was scared from the campaign.

Speaking of David Bahati, the author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, here is another report regarding Bahati’s business dealings.

He is known as the young vibrant Christian legislator who proposed tough laws against homosexuality in the Ugandan parliament and he is loathed by many international human rights groups for exactly those proposals. He is David Bahati, Member of Parliament for Ndorwa West county. Yet, famous as he is for the anti-homosexuality bill, not many people knew that Bahati is also an extremely rich man who does business worth millions of dollars. That is, until the troubles of the Ugandan businessmen in Southern Sudan surfaced.

Since 2008, many Ugandan businessmen have been supplying different types of produce – mainly grain – to the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), with the understanding that they would be paid back by the Southern Sudanese Ministry of Finance. But, so far, GOSS has defaulted on those obligations. Consequently, many Ugandan businessmen have been forced out of business. Their only recourse has been to appeal to the Ugandan government to apply diplomatic pressure to the GOSS to ensure that the businessmen are repaid for their investments. Documents show that Bahati is among these businessmen.

However, the whole affair grew more intriguing after the Ugandan Government got involved. Under an apparent agreement, the Ugandan government undertook to pay the traders and will collect the money from GOSS at a later date.

In total, record show that there are seventy-one companies and individuals owed money from GOSS, but of these, only 16 companies are said to have been paid by the Ugandan authorities. And of these 16 companies, three of them, Kalmart Enterprises, Jam Jang Company Limited and Nile Side Company Limited, belong to MP David Bahati. The three companies are reported to have been repaid $2.6 million for supplying grain to Southern Sudan by the Ugandan government.

The article then tells a story of unpaid grain transactions involving Southern Sudan and leaving some traders homeless as the result of lack of payment. To his credit, Bahati at least spoke to the Kampala Dispatch about the matter, whereas the others involved refused. Perhaps Mr. Bahati can leave his antigay efforts for awhile and help these homeless traders get their compensation.

Blood libel? Death panels?

Sarah Palin issued a statement which responds to critics who assigned various degrees of responsibility to her for the shootings in Arizona. Here is her video:

The full statement is here. I want to focus on these words:

If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

When I first heard her describe the accusations against her as a “blood libel,” I cringed because the term historically relates to a horrendous anti-Semitic accusation that Jews kill Christian children for their blood. Not surprising to me, a controversy has arisen over her use of the term. Just a bit ago, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement condemning the use of the phrase.

It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

I agree with the ADL on this matter. Rep. Giffords is Jewish and it is insensitive at best for evangelical Palin to use a term which is offensive to Jews in this situation. Not only is it insensitive, the use of the term obscures the expressions of sympathy and the accurate aspects of her analysis.

Another consequence is that the judgment by which she judges will now be used to judge her rhetoric. For instance, Sarah Palin and the far right have invoked the term “death panels” as a way of accusing supporters of the health care bill of favoring the deaths of older people in order to cut costs. This would be a kind of blood libel, wouldn’t it? Accusing someone of creating a means to bring death to old people via legislation is a serious allegation and one that is simply false. In light of the currently toxic public square, evangelicals and social conservatives should just speak in plain and descriptive language rather than invent defamatory terms to describe ideological opponents.

MassResistance links to Anti-Homosexuality Bill then misleads readers about it

Earlier today, anti-gay group MassResistance posted a link to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and then misled their readers about what is in it. In a message to supporters, MassResistance said this about the Ugandan bill:

* The proposed Ugandan law that has liberals here in America so incensed proposed harsh punishments for those who knowingly expose people to AIDS and adults who seduce children or people with mental disabilities into homosexual sex acts. It’s not far out of line with most people’s sensibilities. But nevertheless, Lively did not propose the law; he simply told Ugandans his observations of the homosexual agenda.

Guess I’m a liberal.

I wonder if many of their readers will click through and read the bill. If they do, they will find that, in addition to the behaviors noted by MassResistance, people engaging in consensual adult homosexuality would receive the death penalty if they were repeat offenders or had HIV (even if unknown to them). They would also find this section of the bill:

2. The offence of homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

Apparently MassResistance does not view life in prison for two consenting adults intimately touching each other to be a harsh penalty. In addition, MassResistance does not tell readers that the bill would criminalize free speech and freedom of assembly, and would provide criminal penalties for failure to turn in gay people to the authorities.

MassResistance also tells readers that the Pink Swastika is well researched. Well, I would say it differently. It seems to me that Lively and Abrams had to work very hard to read some of their sources and overlook the material which disconfirmed what they believed. Their selective citations were meticulous in some cases (see this one for example). For more on the book, see this page.

MassResistance refers readers to the WorldNetDaily tribute to the Pink Swastika but fails to tell their supporters that references to the Pink Swastika were removed from websites hosted by Campus Crusade for Christ, Exodus International, and the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. WorldNetDaily also told their readers that the only people who dislike the book are gays. I suspect CCC, Exodus and NARTH will be surprised to learn that they are liberal gay organizations?

MassResistance also wants you to believe Scott Lively got a raw deal from the Boston Globe. Given the couple of things I have pointed out, you should check it out for yourself.

Some folks just shouldn’t have guns

This Reuters’ analysis raises some excellent policy questions regarding gun posession and schizophrenia.

There are complications of course in the implementation of any policy, but I would like to see public policy reflect public safety over individual rights to own a firearm.

Passage of that bill to strengthen the background check system was prompted when a deranged gunman killed himself and 32 others in April 2007 at Virginia Tech University — the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history.

It turned out that the Virginia Tech shooter, university student Seung-Hui Cho, had been judged an “imminent danger” to himself and others. But that court finding was not submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Since the 2008 measure to bolster the system became law, the number of records entered in the FBI registry of people deemed by courts to be dangerously mentally ill has more than doubled to about 1 million.

But that tally is still less than half of the total number of people — over 2 million — estimated to have been so adjudicated in the United States, the Brady Campaign says.

Arizona, for example, has submitted more than 4,400 names of persons ineligible to buy guns due to mental illness since 2008, a fraction of the nearly 122,000 estimated to have been officially judged dangerously mentally ill in the state since 1989, according to figures compiled by the Brady Campaign.

Reporters say anti-gay bill has been shelved – Ugandan politicians disagree

Yesterday, the author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, David Bahati, told me via email that he remains confident that his bill will be considered by Parliament before May. I asked him about a report in the Observer which implied the bill would not be passed. Bahati said in response:

My comment is the same as I gave you before. We are committed to ensuring that this legislation passes.

Wondering if Bahati’s optimism was misplaced, I today called Stephen Tashobya, the chair of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee. This committee must act on the bill if it is to see action in Parliament. I first spoke with Mr. Tashobya in December, 2010. Today, Mr. Tashobya told me that nothing had changed regarding the time table for considering the bill. He said the Parliament will reconvene very soon after the February 18 elections and consider the remaining bills, including the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I asked him specifically about his reaction to press reports that the bill had been shelved. He answered,

No. I think I can say with some authority that this is not true, because I would be one of the first to know this because it is before my committee.

Just last week the AP said the bill had been “shelved” and the Christian Science Monitor said the bill had “fizzled.” Note that these reports do not cite sources; the statement is made without attribution. As far as I can recollect, none of the reports saying the AHB has been withdrawn provide any sourcing. On the other hand, those who report that the bill is alive provide sources and interview those who are closest to the bill, as I have today.

Here is an example from the Christian Science Monitor writing about the recent court ruling barring the Rolling Stone from outing gays. Reporter Ioannis Gatsiounis said this about the AHB:

Homosexuality emerged as a hot-button issue in Uganda this year after a draft bill called for the death penalty for some homosexual offenders.

That bill fizzled amid significant pressure from the international community, but critics of the new antipornography bill say it, too, could be used as a pretext to target homosexuals.

Note that the reporter gives no source for the claim.

On the other hand, Jeff Sharlet reported a conversation with Bahati on the matter. CNN interviewed David Bahati who said clearly that the bill would be considered. In November, Bahati told me that the bill would be considered before the Parliament ended in May. He confirmed that again to Rachel Maddow in December when he was in the US. Finally, Stephen Tashobya, the chair of the Ugandan committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, told me that the Anti-Homosexuality would be considered after the nation holds elections in February. Today, he said nothing has changed.

Back in January, 2010, President Yoweri Museveni told his party members that the supporters of the bill needed to work with the Europeans and Americans on the issue; he did not say to shelve it – at least in public. Some sources have told me on the condition of anonymity that Museveni has assured the US that the bill will be vetoed. However, he has not to my knowledge said that publicly. Mr. Tashobya told me that the President has not indicated any position on the situation to him. Tashobya also told me he has no reason to think that the President will not allow the bill to become law, with possible amendments.

At least one prediction about the bill has not come true. In May, the New York Times reported that a government minister, Adolf Mwesige believed the bill would be voted down within weeks. Perhaps, this report has been taken as the end of the matter. However, the bill was not voted down, it remains before committee with the chair saying he intends to consider all bills before May.

The picture is complicated with some evidence that the bill might not pass. However, writing that the AHB has been shelved or not in play is not accurate reporting.

UPDATE: Here is a pretty accurate report… Also note that the opposition to Museveni does not favor criminalization of homosexuality.