Last week, BBC reporter Scott Mills said he felt threatened by Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill author, David Bahati. Mills interviewed Bahati in Uganda for the program, The World’s Worst Places to be Gay. After the interview, Mills says he revealed his gay orienation to Bahati and then according to Mills:
The 36-year-old was filming a show called The World’s Worst Place to be Gay? (on BBC3, of course), when he confessed his sexual orientation to British-educated politician David Bahati – who Scott said “went mental”.
He explained: “He was scary. He ordered us to cut the cameras then brought a security guard.
“We ran off and he rang one of our guys saying, ‘Where are they staying? What are the registration plates? I want them arrested. They won’t get far’.”
Fortunately Scott’s colleague lied about their location, and armed police arrived at the Sheraton – where they had been falsely told the team were staying.
The DJ continued: “I’d heard horror stories about people getting arrested and roughed up and who knows what. I was scared.”
I wrote David Bahati and asked for his version of the events and he sent back the following message:
…the most important thing to me at the moment is to ensure that my president and party win elections on 18th feb but not to engage in immaterial issues of a journalist trying to make ends meet.
In this interview (click the link), Bahati says he would not have done the interview for the documentary if he knew Mills was gay.
On one other occasion, MP Bahati scared a gay BBC journalist who was filming a documentary. While I cannot reveal the identity of the journalist, I have independent confirmation of the fact that Bahati considered police intervention when a reporter revealed his sexual orientation.
Here is a brief clip of Mills with Solomon Male.
And then his witchdoctor treatment:
As Bahati noted, Ugandan elections are this coming Friday. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is one of many bills slated to be considered after the elections.
I wonder if Bahati’s been told to ‘shut up’ – hence his ‘answer’ to your question?
In response to your first comment:-
No, darling – Mills didn’t have the armed guard – it was your boy that called out the cavalry!
As for the UG High Commission’s decision to grant a visa: well, ask them.
Rather embarrassing for you, I admit – you like to try to appear reasonable, but then up pops a loony and blows your cover.
Anyway … on the matter of ‘being reasonable’: how do YOU (in your habitual capacity as an anti-gay propagandist) justify punishing gay people for activities (such as consensual* sex outside of marriage) for which straight people are not to be punished? What jurisprudential principles do you cite for doing so?
In response to your second comment:-
I suspect that the Saudi authorities would not grant visas for people to go and film a documentary on this subject. One must assume that the UG authorities did, for whatever reason, allow this.
Thanks for the additional info and fact-checking, btw!
You mean this article, don’t you, ‘Maazi’?
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/703994/homosexuality
I wouldn’t call it exactly PRO-gay (more like ‘anti-machete-waving-lunacy’) … but I can see that it might be rather too sensible for people like you.
I didn’t read the NV in those days! But you have to admit, ‘Maazi’, it is unusual to have such ‘tolerance’ (which I know you deplore!) should be mentioned two weeks running in the government organ.
I don’t think your rudeness is a figment of anyone’s imagination!
Anyway, sweetheart, you haven’t answered my earlier question, so here it is again:-
How do YOU (in your habitual capacity as an anti-gay propagandist) justify punishing gay people for activities (such as consensual sex outside of marriage) for which straight people are not to be punished? What jurisprudential principles do you cite for doing so?
Actually, your statement is false. John Nagenda published an article in the New Vision newspaper advocating tolerance for gayism in December 2009. I am surprised that your Ugandan “contacts” (i.e. spies) failed to tell you of this and get you newspaper cuttings of it.
Another figment of your imagination. 😀
You mean this article, don’t you, ‘Maazi’?
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/703994/homosexuality
I wouldn’t call it exactly PRO-gay (more like ‘anti-machete-waving-lunacy’) … but I can see that it might be rather too sensible for people like you.
Anyway, honey, you haven’t answered my earlier question, so here it is again:-
How do YOU (in your habitual capacity as an anti-gay propagandist) justify punishing gay people for activities (such as consensual* sex outside of marriage) for which straight people are not to be punished? What jurisprudential principles do you cite for doing so?
If you say so, dear! But it is the first time that such statements have been printed in the New Vision. All previous mentions of ‘homosexuality’ in the NV have, without exception, been in a ‘negative’ or ‘defamatory’ context.
Nice to know that there are presidential advisers who hold sensible views. I hadn’t realised that Nagenda advised M7.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have made such a comment based SOLELY on NV articles, by the way …
I also take some comfort from your rudeness – it suggests that I might just have hit a ‘raw nerve’!!!
I didn’t read the NV in those days! But you have to admit, ‘Maazi’, it is unusual to have such ‘tolerance’ (which I know you deplore!) should be mentioned two weeks running in the government organ.
I don’t think your rudeness is a figment of anyone’s imagination!
Anyway, sweetheart, you haven’t answered my earlier question, so here it is again:-
How do YOU (in your habitual capacity as an anti-gay propagandist) justify punishing gay people for activities (such as consensual sex outside of marriage) for which straight people are not to be punished? What jurisprudential principles do you cite for doing so?
Actually, your statement is false. John Nagenda published an article in the New Vision newspaper advocating tolerance for gayism in December 2009. I am surprised that your Ugandan “contacts” (i.e. spies) failed to tell you of this and get you newspaper cuttings of it.
Another figment of your imagination. 😀
Anyway, honey, you haven’t answered my earlier question, so here it is again:-
How do YOU (in your habitual capacity as an anti-gay propagandist) justify punishing gay people for activities (such as consensual* sex outside of marriage) for which straight people are not to be punished? What jurisprudential principles do you cite for doing so?
If you say so, dear! But it is the first time that such statements have been printed in the New Vision. All previous mentions of ‘homosexuality’ in the NV have, without exception, been in a ‘negative’ or ‘defamatory’ context.
Nice to know that there are presidential advisers who hold sensible views. I hadn’t realised that Nagenda advised M7.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have made such a comment based SOLELY on NV articles, by the way …
I also take some comfort from your rudeness – it suggests that I might just have hit a ‘raw nerve’!!!
Presidential adviser Mr. John Nagenda is well-known for his libertarian opinions on sexual deviance and has not been shy to make them clear in newspaper articles since mid-2009. Without further elaboration, I will simply say that the pathetic conclusion you reached from these New Vision articles shows you have little understanding of the way government works in Uganda.
Maybe Mills turned him down??!!
Presidential adviser Mr. John Nagenda is well-known for his libertarian opinions on sexual deviance and has not been shy to make them clear in newspaper articles since mid-2009. Without further elaboration, I will simply say that the pathetic conclusion you reached from these New Vision articles shows you have little understanding of the way government works in Uganda.
Maybe Mills turned him down??!!
Wow… Bahati sure is a drama queen. If he was the cool-headed politician he wants to be he would have chosen an opportune time, stood up and said, ‘I’m sorry this interview is over’ – walk away and just be done with it. However, Bahati shows a definite lack of composure. I hope he doesn’t have designs on being anywhere near President of Uganda – and not just because he is one of the bigger homophobic drama queens ever.
I think that there is something of a ‘divide’ within the ruling class in UG on the issue of consensual same-sex relationships. In the government organ, the New Vision, a couple of ‘surprising’ statements appeared recently:-
– on Friday 4 February:
“My views on homosexuality are well known, namely to leave consenting adults to do what they want, preferably in the privacy of their own homes.”
– and the day before yesterday (11/02/11):
“… adult same-sex lovers should be left to their own devices.”
Both of these comments featured in one of the ‘sub-editorials’.
The implication is that is some ‘at the top’ take the view that it is NOT in UG’s interest to ‘indulge’ in ‘extremist’ politics.
Maazi, darling, then stop taking OUR MONEY.
In response to your first comment:-
No, darling – Mills didn’t have the armed guard – it was your boy that called out the cavalry!
As for the UG High Commission’s decision to grant a visa: well, ask them.
Rather embarrassing for you, I admit – you like to try to appear reasonable, but then up pops a loony and blows your cover.
Anyway … on the matter of ‘being reasonable’: how do YOU (in your habitual capacity as an anti-gay propagandist) justify punishing gay people for activities (such as consensual* sex outside of marriage) for which straight people are not to be punished? What jurisprudential principles do you cite for doing so?
In response to your second comment:-
I suspect that the Saudi authorities would not grant visas for people to go and film a documentary on this subject. One must assume that the UG authorities did, for whatever reason, allow this.
Why not the BBC Journalist visit the pro-Western Saudi Arabia royal family and ask them why gayism is punishable by death there?
I think it is a shame that we allow into our nation foreigners who do not wish us well. Why on earth did the Ugandan High Commission in London issue a visa to that agent provocateur? I do not blame David Bahati for reacting the way he did. Why should an English gay sex propagandist come all the way from the UK to harass a parliamentarian in Uganda?
Wow… Bahati sure is a drama queen. If he was the cool-headed politician he wants to be he would have chosen an opportune time, stood up and said, ‘I’m sorry this interview is over’ – walk away and just be done with it. However, Bahati shows a definite lack of composure. I hope he doesn’t have designs on being anywhere near President of Uganda – and not just because he is one of the bigger homophobic drama queens ever.
I think that there is something of a ‘divide’ within the ruling class in UG on the issue of consensual same-sex relationships. In the government organ, the New Vision, a couple of ‘surprising’ statements appeared recently:-
– on Friday 4 February:
“My views on homosexuality are well known, namely to leave consenting adults to do what they want, preferably in the privacy of their own homes.”
– and the day before yesterday (11/02/11):
“… adult same-sex lovers should be left to their own devices.”
Both of these comments featured in one of the ‘sub-editorials’.
The implication is that is some ‘at the top’ take the view that it is NOT in UG’s interest to ‘indulge’ in ‘extremist’ politics.
Maazi, darling, then stop taking OUR MONEY.
I wonder if Bahati’s been told to ‘shut up’ – hence his ‘answer’ to your question?
Why not the BBC Journalist visit the pro-Western Saudi Arabia royal family and ask them why gayism is punishable by death there?
I think it is a shame that we allow into our nation foreigners who do not wish us well. Why on earth did the Ugandan High Commission in London issue a visa to that agent provocateur? I do not blame David Bahati for reacting the way he did. Why should an English gay sex propagandist come all the way from the UK to harass a parliamentarian in Uganda?
Now here is a moment of clarity–Bahati is busy working for ¨his president¨ and ¨political party¨ for their upcoming election (I can hear the sucking-up sound from here)– a military dictatorship, complete with vertical corruption, Christian(?) greedy religious accomplices and rampant fear-hatemongering tabloid publishers all directed against LGBTI fellow citizens– demonizing that has been initiated by President Museveni, Janet Museveni, Anglican Archbishop Orombi (David Bahati´s ¨spiritual advisor¨), Martin Ssempa ,of intentionally/disturbing sexual/mental falsehoods, and a screaching/non-ethical ¨Ethics Minister¨ who is a rumored former witchdoctor—all the while leading prayer groups at the Parliament. David Bahati is quite the energetic little spiller of bile/blood–I think the Ugandan people are eventually going to have an ¨Egyptian Moment¨ with these sour dudes when they finally figure out they´ve been taken for a one-way ride to living in Hell and this time it´s not about Idi Amin.
Thanks for the additional info and fact-checking, btw!
I guess this suggests that Bahati’s antipathy toward gay people is quite genuinely (and strongly) felt and not just some sort of demagogic self-promotion. Even so, his response is pretty extreme. As draconian as it is, I don’t think even Bahati’s bill would outlaw the mere admission that you’re gay, would it?
Now here is a moment of clarity–Bahati is busy working for ¨his president¨ and ¨political party¨ for their upcoming election (I can hear the sucking-up sound from here)– a military dictatorship, complete with vertical corruption, Christian(?) greedy religious accomplices and rampant fear-hatemongering tabloid publishers all directed against LGBTI fellow citizens– demonizing that has been initiated by President Museveni, Janet Museveni, Anglican Archbishop Orombi (David Bahati´s ¨spiritual advisor¨), Martin Ssempa ,of intentionally/disturbing sexual/mental falsehoods, and a screaching/non-ethical ¨Ethics Minister¨ who is a rumored former witchdoctor—all the while leading prayer groups at the Parliament. David Bahati is quite the energetic little spiller of bile/blood–I think the Ugandan people are eventually going to have an ¨Egyptian Moment¨ with these sour dudes when they finally figure out they´ve been taken for a one-way ride to living in Hell and this time it´s not about Idi Amin.
I guess this suggests that Bahati’s antipathy toward gay people is quite genuinely (and strongly) felt and not just some sort of demagogic self-promotion. Even so, his response is pretty extreme. As draconian as it is, I don’t think even Bahati’s bill would outlaw the mere admission that you’re gay, would it?