Read my concise rendering of today’s events and those leading up to today at Huffington Post.
For details, read on…
Despite being called to business today by Speaker Edward Ssekandi, Uganda’s parliamentary session has been stalled today and may adjourn (it did adjourn, see update below) without taking any action on pending legislation, including the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. According to parliamentary spokeswoman, Helen Kawesa, Parliament is stalled on a “technicality.” She said there is no Cabinet in place because it was dissolved in preparation for the end of the 8th Parliament in advance of yesterday’s Presidential inauguration. It is unclear who raised the issue of the necessity for Cabinet to be place for business to be conducted. However the effect is that the session is winding up, with members discussing how to proceed before the end of the 8th Parliament on 18th.
According to this report, Speaker Ssekandi ordered Ministers on Monday to “vacate their seats” yesterday, the same day as the inauguration of President Museveni. However, at that time, the Speaker seemed to indicate that business could be conducted.
He said the directive to vacate the front bench seats which are only a reserve for government ministers and shadow ministers (opposition) does not mean affected members should stop attending and transacting parliament work.
He said the Eighth parliament runs till May 15, a day before the members of the Ninth parliament’s swearing-in-ceremony commences. The ruling NRM ministers and shadow ministers known occupy front bench seats in the parliament chambers while transacting parliament business.
The order paper on the Parliament website shows no bills on the agenda which indicates that the matter of the missing Cabinet must have come up prior to convening the session. The fate of the AHB is still not clear and may not be resolved until the last day of Parliament. Ms. Kawesa said the MPs were discussing a motion to continue all business until the next Parliament perhaps next week, when a new Cabinet is in place.
UPDATE: Apparently, there will be no more business but it is unclear whether a motion to continue was entertained. This announcement just appeared on the Parliament website:
Emotional farewells as Eighth Parliament closes
The term of office for Members of Parliament elected to the Eighth Parliament of Uganda has come to an end. Speaker of Parliament Rt.Hon.Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi announced to MPs, in an emmotional (sic) sitting , the end of the term of the Eighth parliament urging MPs to appreciate and embrace the multiparty political system.
“This Parliament was different from all parliaments before it. But my assessment is that people still long for the movement political system other than the multiparty system. The two systems are different and what you must know is that under multiparty system, Mps on the government side came with one manifesto that the executive is trying to implement,” he told MPs.
Speaker Ssekandi announced that the official proclamation for the end of the Eighth Parliament had already been signed and would be gazetted on May 18, the day the ninth Parliament would commence.
If he was quoted properly by the Uganda Razor, he said earlier in the week that the Eighth Parliament went to the 15th and business could be conducted without a Cabinet. Today, at a session that he called, he said business could not be conducted and announced that the proclamation ending the Parliament had been signed.
UPDATE: I have confirmed with Helen Kawesa that Parliament was adjourned sine die, meaning that the Speaker could call the members back to session if needed. In this way, there is always a legislative body, even when not in session. The proclamation to close the Parliament is signed but will only go into effect on the 18th.
When I asked spokeswoman Kawesa whether or not the AHB could come up next Parliament without the continuing motion, she said she knew of no means, but would not rule it out. I also asked her why the Speaker called the members back to session knowing that there was no Cabinet. Kawesa said she did not know.
As is stands, with no further action, Bahati will have to ask Parliament permission to move AHB-II as a private member’s bill. If they give him that permission then he can introduce the same bill or a modified one and the process will begin again. Today, however, is a good day for freedom of conscience.
The AP has a report on the matter…
Speaker of Parliament Edward Ssekandi Kiwanuk said there is no time to take up the bill this session, which ends Wednesday, leaving the bill’s future uncertain. Kiwanuk adjourned the parliament Friday and set no date for the body to return.
what a relief!! how do i even begin thanking each person who… *overwhelmed*
this is an empty victory with uncertainty clouding the air in africa… what next? i live in africa and can confirm that this is not a good sign of the times, you have to fight to the teeth to uphold your civil rights at all times or be trampled on!
Richard,
I don’t know why this is addressed to me.
Warren,
There seems to be a common person at the posting repeatedly at the threads you decided to end…
“Nonetheless, he knew that
the tale he had to tell could
not be one of a final victory.
It could only be the record of
what had had to be done,
and what assuredly would
have to be done again in the
never-ending fight against
terror and its relentless
onslaughts, despite their
personal afflictions, by all
who, while unable to be
saints but refusing to bow
down to pestilences, strive
their utmost to be healers. ”
— Albert Camus
The extremities of the original Bahati Bill made it irredeemably “radioactive” for our people occupying the executive branch of the government, who have to engage in the thankless and dirty work of buttering up to our foreign blackmailer-friends. I think David Bahati has achieved the debate he wanted so I strongly doubt there would be any bill like the original 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill ever presented before parliament again.
I am sure the domestic agents of the foreign gay lobbies will take a break from provoking the Ugandan masses for a couple of months (or perhaps several months) to celebrate the end of what they may want to call “parliamentary sabre-rattling”.
We are happy that the executive branch understands that certain NGO activities will eventually throw up serious social stability issues if not contained and limited. For that reason, an alternative approach fully coordinated with the executive branch will be followed up in the new parliament at a time of our choosing. So Warren you have your work cut out for you from today to year 2016. Happy reporting !!!
And we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the overall situation in UG remains tense and complex, and that the human rights of many people (gay and straight) are being compromised.
Maazi – You sound like an incoming MP. Even privately to me, I wish you would identify yourself.
At any rate, you are correct about the courts. I think the AHB would have been challenged immediately on several grounds.
And what is XXXXXXX?
Returning to the ‘paedophilia’ claims by ‘WUG’: here’s a fairly substantial review of the various studies that have been carried out: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Here is the conclusion of the review:-
“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”
@ Warren : Do you have any comments you feel should be made on this? Is it a fair and balanced assessment?
@ WUG
You miss the point … again. (And anyway, I don’t believe those statistics – they are 25 years old, and are – I daresay – based on all kinds of ‘assumptions’.)
If people abuse children, then there should be sanctions against them. If someone rapes another person, the rapist should be held to account. But Bahati wants to kill people who have done neither of these things (see Clause 3 of the Bill and his comments to Jeff Sharlet). If you support his bill, then you are effectively saying that you want the same thing. How does that fit with ‘reaching out in compassion’?
And what has that Daily Mail article got to do with homosexuality? Homosexuality is not mentioned. (If that’s the best you can do …)
You could start by reading your own newspapers:
And clearly the law enforcement has not been spared the disease:
250,000+ paedophiles in the U.K.
Now I wonder perhaps you need to make your laws more stringent and bring them closer to our own Anti-homosexuality bill which I also add is a prudent public health measure for those among us who have not realized the anus is the sewer line of the digestive system.
Moreover, the widespread access to the internet makes it easier for these beasts, for there is no more polite a word than that, to get access to our children.
If this is what you call freedom, we don’t want to be besieged by it!
As to the other matters, I see no need of repeating myself.
@ WUG
I doubt if the statistics you cite are correct (they are rather old, for one thing). Who wrote the report, by the way?
HOWEVER, let us, for a moment, assume for the sake of argument that they are correct, and that 19 out of 20 gay men are not ‘paedophiles’. Why then does Bahati want to kill all gay people, including lesbians (who appear, at least from UK statistics, to be the least likely to molest children).
Obviously, there are isolated cases of teachers who sexually abuse or exploit underage persons, just as there are 50 police officers who, pursuant to the largest investigation ever of its kind, namely Operation Ore (which has been being conducted for some time), are under suspicion of procuring child pornography. Deplorable – and I am very relieved that such outrages are being dealt with. It is also a very good thing that there is proper openness about these matters, and that things are, by and large, not ‘swept under the carpet’.
(I could attach several reports of sexual abuse cases from the UG press, despite that it is felt by many that such things are generally underreported. But I won’t.)
You have not made any credible point regarding Bahitler’s desired ‘slaughter programme’ (see Clause 3 of the Bill, and his comments to Jeff Sharlet). I will repeat myself: you know perfectly well that what we are saying about the Bill is entirely true; you just won’t admit it.
So you’re off to ‘stoke the flames’? Aren’t there already enough ‘flames’ in UG at the moment?
Ever the guesser.
Did you read that?
Ugandan will not become a homosexual colony forget about that?
If you still need to be told what the difference is between the digestive system and the reproductive system, Ugandans are not going to teach you that!
Am not out to win an argument with you. I have made my point and I think you are now faced with the grim reality of living in a paedophilia country with teachers who groom their male pupils for sex for decades (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7129509/Paedophile-teacher-jailed-for-grooming-male-pupils-for-sex-with-sweets-and-computer-games.html)…
“Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor” (Psychological Reports, 1986)
Every 1 in 20 homosexuals is potentially a paedophile… That we shall not allow in Uganda.
Okay my point is made. Now back to stoking the flames into this bill. It must pass soon.
@ Kato’s death meant to say hate crime!
David : I was under the impression that such ‘harsh’ terms were not to your taste. Neither are they to mine, if I’m honest, but sometimes … On another point you made earlier: infidelity (the major HIV risk factor in UG) was actually recently decriminalised in UG; as for promiscuity … well, modesty forbids saying any more about that (except that, in and of itself, it is not a criminal offence in UG)!
On the Bill, the BBC is now reporting that is has been ‘shelved’. This is perhaps a view that should be regarded as being at the ‘optimistic’ end of the spectrum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13392723
‘Celebrations of victory’ are certainly premature, but a little ‘sign of relief’ may be in order, especially as it gives the international community time to ‘get its ducks in a row’.
@ WUg
Two questions for you:-
1. What do you mean by the term ‘sodomy’?
2. If there were lies being told about, and hatred directed being directed at, you, would you feel at all unhappy, worried or depressed?
(Anyway, I thought you’d gone.)
@ Ken
Cameron P., Proctor K., Coburn W., Forde.N, Larson H., Cameron K. (1986). Child Molestation and Homesexuality. Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
Satisfied?
I know about men being just friends with their buddies. The single differentiating score for homosexual “relationships” is the sexual attraction as expressed in the desire to achieve pleasure by the usage of the anus as an artifice for pleasure otherwise homosexuality would just be friendship BUT for the anal sex…
Ok. You will know by now that Homosexuality had been considered a mental disorder for more than 20 years before ’73 by the APA’s DSM. But starting 1970 homosexual activists starting interrupting APA conventions. San Francisco first in ’70, then Washington in ’71 and also in ’72.
The News:
“But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, [1970-71] gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movement’s most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 homosexual militant activists broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,” shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured! Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us…We’re rejecting you all as our owners. You may take this as our declaration of war!'” (Newsweek, 1971)
Bayer, a gay sympathizer, writes : “Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed” [R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p.105-6.]
Bayer adds, “Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times” [R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p.102.]
The history is available for all who are willing to see the wanton intimidation and threats that characterized the removal of this mental disorder from the DSM.
Now that you bring Evelyn’s Research, the question begs, was it scientific?
Let’s see about that:
1. Her sample (was it homogeneous or biased?)
a. She recruited Mattachine society members (a gay group) who in turn recruited other homosexuals, who were aware of her intentions, and thus easily identified the kind of homosexuals who would fit the description “normal” just like Kinsey had done…
b. She had only 60 subjects who were not randomly selected. And she admitted as much, in her report, that her sole aim was to find a single homosexual “without” pathological traits in order to disprove that homosexuality is a symptom of pathology! This immediately alludes to the limitation of the study as a conclusive especially in light of the inherent bias among the homosexuals studied (not to forget Hookers friendship with homosexuals upon whose urging she did the study). It was at the urging of Sam From (a homosexual) that she undertook this study. He said, “Now we have let you see us as we are, it is your scientific duty to do a study of people like us.” (Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34 )
Hooker, herself, notes that she could not conclude whether the sexual activities of homosexuals are not pathological in nature.
Further to that her results suffer from the Rosenthal effect since her gay cohorts knew very well what she wanted and gave it to her true to projective techniques lol.
When it came to the other tests (MAPS and TAT), the homosexual subjects did not display the ability to control their homosexual fantasies and compulsively indulged in narrating them…
In relation to this Hooker said that pathology of homosexuality may only occur in an erotic situation and that the homosexual can function well in non-erotic situations such as the Rorschach, TAT, and MAPS. Thus, it could be argued that homosexuality is symptomatic of pathology, but that the pathology is confined to one sector of behavior, namely, the erotic. But the tests were administered in a non-erotic set-up so she inadvertently admitted homosexuality is a pathology– but that was the fine print. In addition, Hooker herself offered, “the psychological defect of homosexuals may lie in a weakness of ego-function and control and that this cannot be adequately diagnosed from projective test protocols.”
About the subjects’ histories she should have released to us what she had found out about how long they held down relationships and how many partners they had but she could only comment, “the life history data from the two groups will differ: namely, in the love relationships. Comparisons between the number and duration of love relationships, cruising patterns, and degree of satisfaction with sexual pattern and the love partner will certainly show clear-cut differences.”
This has been offered by other research as I showed above already. Let me repeat here:
70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
-The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men.” New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38. ).
I say that is a sign of pathology!
Hookers “findings” have been deliberately misquoted and politicized to push the homosexual cart but the substantive analysis shows Hooker never showed that Homosexuality is not a pathology. It was impossible with her sample and bias which compromised her methods. This study has been long discredited! 30 homosexuals from a sample of 60 respondents cannot possibly determine the course of destiny for more than 6 billion people on earth! It is ridiculous!
It is telling that 5 years after the APA vote, psychiatrists still considered homosexuality a pathology.
Time magazine summarized the results of its poll: “Of those answering, 69% said they believed ‘homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,’ 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals’ problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large.”
(“Sick Again? Psychiatrists Vote on Gays,” Time, 20 February 1978, 102.)
Thus, homosexuals have always been a danger to themselves before anything else. The addition and legalization of homosexuality usually merely compounds the problem.
@ WUg
1. I suggest you read the story of Sodom & Gomorrah.
2. I don’t recall Warren threatening Ssempa. Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite an example of this. I also think it is a rather hypocritical for supporters of the Bahati Bill to complain about ‘intimidation’ by others.
(I bet you haven’t gone now. I was finding you rather entertaining – in a morbid kind of way.)
WakefulUgandan# ~ May 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm
hmm. somehow I missed this posted (perhaps it got stuck in moderation).
@ Ken
” “and yes, I saw your claim about 1 in 20 homosexuals being child molesters.”
Cameron P., Proctor K., Coburn W., Forde.N, Larson H., Cameron K. (1986). Child Molestation and Homesexuality. Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
Satisfied?”
yes. except that this article doesn’t say what you claim it does (that 1 in 20 homosexuals are child molesters). In fact given how the data is collected (surveying adults about 1st sexual experiences) it would not be possible to determine that. You can get the summary here: Child molestation and homosexuality
However, to quote from this article (p. 333):
(note the Now that you bring Evelyn’s Research, the question begs, was it scientific?percentages were 39.2% (bi/homo) to 44.5% (hetero) from the table on p. 334).
Although, I thought NARTH removed all its references to Cameron’s work. You might want to do a bit of research on Cameron before you cite him again. And you might want to reconsider using NARTH as a source of info. Or at the very least, read the citations yourself before parroting what they say.
“Now that you bring Evelyn’s Research, the question begs, was it scientific?”
Yes, it was. It wasn’t perfect (no study is), nor, as I said, was it the only paper, it was merely the start. Now if you’d like to get into the specifics of the studies (and the significance of Dr. Hooker’s paper), I’d be wiling to do so. However, are you now willing to admit that your claim that there was “no scientific evidence” was wrong?
“gay sex practitioner”
Goodness, you make it seem so professional.
Perhaps I should, at this point, make absolutely clear that I would consider it deeply regrettable if it were ever deemed ‘necessary’ to apply sanctions, whether on account of the Bahati Bill, or because of other human rights concerns. After all, I have several friends* in Uganda, and they could suffer from things like further rises in prices as a result.
* My personal friends in UG are not (as far as I know) ‘gay sex practitioners’ (to use your happy phrase), so no need to get all excited, ‘Maazi’!
Ah stray mouse clicks messed up my quote from the Cameron article it should read:
However, to quote from this article (p. 333):
(note the percentages were 39.2% (bi/homo) to 44.5% (hetero) from the table on p. 334).
‘Maazi’
Are you going to take up my invitation to challenge the truthfulness of things I have said on this blog? Or did I ‘call your bluff’?
(I understand your [implied] point about realpolitik; but may I remind you that it is not only Britain that is subject to its limitations? The British national interest is not well served by the apparent deteriorating human rights situation in Uganda.)
@Timothy – If one gets a certification in GSP, then the designation CGSP after one’s name would be appropriate. I suppose, as in some states for therapists, eventually licensing might be required, leading to the LGSP designation. With extra training and experience, one could become a Diplomate of the Academy of Gay Sex Practitioners (DAGSP). Probably that would be the top of the line, right there.
to clarify. the 39.2% and 44.5% numbers are for the “pre-18-yr.-old” interest.
Wakeful Ugandan, you may be surprised to know that Warren was once into the american ex-gay movement gig before he defected to the winning pro-gay side of the US cultural civil war. The man sure knows when to abandon a sinking boat !! Because of his earlier ex-gay gigs , I strongly doubt that Warren is himself a gay sex practitioner. Most definitely, Richard, Anteros, Timothy and Ken are the ones who are gay sex practitioners on this forum.
Congratulations for having a great political antennae. However, the question you have never asked yourself is how sustainable would it be for Her Majesty’s government to use the executive branch of the Ugandan government as a kind of buffer against the popular demands made by the Ugandan people as represented by their MPs? More importantly, have the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had the courage to admit to you that realpolitik will limit their actions when push comes to shove?
You forget what Clause 3 actually defines as ‘aggravated homosexuality’, WUg.
I won’t post the full text of Clause 3 here, as Warren has done so on numerous occasions.
It’s no good, WUg – the provisions of the Bill are clear, and no amount of sophistry on your part will convince anyone who can read.
(Note also that the segment you cite relates to a financial penalty that is in addition to imprisonment of death. In other words, if the court cites ‘harm’, the defendent woulf have to pay a fine before being imprisoned or hanged. Presumably, the Bill is intended to ‘reach out in compassion’ to the defendent’s bank account as well as to the defendent him/herself! LOL!)
WakefulUgandan# ~ May 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“I think am done here.”
So you aren’t going to answer my question about the source(s) of your quotes and other claims?
Whoops! I’ve just noticed a ‘stray negative’. I meant to say that neither ‘Maazi NCO’ nor ‘WUg’ have been able to demonstrate that I have not been truthful.
As I have already admitted, I have not always been courteous; I would have been rather more courteous if the aforementioned interlocutors of mine had used their real names, so I make no apology for any discourtesy shown to them thus far.
I am no expert on the matter of child sexual abuse and the true reasons for this horrible phenomenon. As far as general issues of human sexuality are concerned: I have a fairly comprehensive ‘lay person’s’ knowledge. With regard to the particular issue of the Bahati Bill: I would see myself as something of an expert; those whom I have briefed on this issue (in, for example, the UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs) seem to take a similar view, as far as I can tell. My politcal antennae are pretty efficient; the contents of assessments – based on things I have seen on the internet in the course of my research, and/or on the words of supporters of the Bill with whom I have engaged in dialogue – sent to the FCO have, almost without exception, been confirmed – often subsequently – by the British High Commission in Kampala.
Richard,
I think many people will take issue with your comment about being “truthful” and Wakeful Ugandan has made statements which you and your friend Ken have not being able to challenge successfully.
Warren,
Ken and Richard are presenting patchwork of papers which support their own biases. Anyway, the most important realities that informs my own convictions and that of many Ugandans are the following:
(A) There is no CREDIBLE scientific evidence that gayism is genetic, in-born or even immutable. It is not enough to release “scientific” papers claiming that gayism feels normal for some people and that certain parts of their brains respond to certain feelings. Of course certain parts of our brains respond to both learned and instinctive behaviour. So what?
(B) Persons who engage in sodomy are predominantly gay sex practitioners and they face incredible health challenges that people who engage in normal “man-to-woman” sexual relations do not face. From a public health perspective, Uganda is not willing to spend its meagre resources on strange sexual diseases that can simply be avoided or at least minimized by discouraging gayism. I say this regardless of the false propaganda that decriminalization of gayism will suddenly improve the tackling of HIV/AIDS since most gay sex practitioners will suddenly come out in the open to receive medicare which Uganda may not even be able to afford.
( C ) In the long term, gayism will eventually subvert our traditional and cultural system by super-imposing distorted institutions such as same-sex marriage and gay adoption rights in the name of “pan-sexual equality”. This has already happened in South Africa where the legalization of gay sex in 1994 spawned a gay movement that eventually compelled the South African goverment to reluctantly institute same-sex marriages in 2005 and enact other ridiculous European-style pro-gay laws thereafter.
(D) In their life time, most adult Ugandans do not want to witness their children engaging in gay pride marches on the streets of Kampala or getting married to a person of the same sex. Yes, we are well aware that the struggle today is for decriminalization of gay sex in the name of “privacy of the bedroom”. But tommorrow, it will evolve from “privacy of the bedroom” to going out to the streets for gay pride marches and campaigning for same-sex marriages and gay adoption rights in the name of “equality for all” .
(E) For all the reasons mentioned from (A) to (D), gayism will never be legalized in Uganda and while some of us are still alive, we need to ensure that the legal framework is modernized to meet the challenges posed by foreign gay sex lobbies and their domestic agents in Uganda.
‘Maazi’
You claim I have been untruthful. Very well; feel free to do the following:-
1. identify specific things I have said that are not truthful;
2. for each instance of untruthfulness you cite, explain why it is not truthful, giving evidence to support your explanation.
I will then respond appropriately.
If you choose to take up this offer, then I suggest that you number your points (keeping them brief and, if you are capable of so doing, to the point); I will then (using your numebring system)
EITHER
1. refute your claim of untruthfulness (if your claim is self-evidently invalid), citing evidence as appropriate
OR
2. explain why I might have been labouring under a misapprehension (if your claim is valid),
OR
3. make clear that what I was saying was a ‘contention’ (or question) rather than something that I was claiming to be a ‘statement of fact’.
I look forward to hearing from you.
@ ‘WUg’
Thank you and good evening.
Now going onto the 5% you are really trying to milk, let’s use a hypothetical figure of 10000 men, Britons say.
If 3% of them are gay that will mean 300 men including Wilmer like to have anal sex ok?
Now that leaves us with 9700 men who do their thing straight.
So the probability that there will be a paedophile is 1/20 so of the 300 homosexual men 15 are paedophiles.
The probability that there will be a paedophile in the 9700 is 1/490 so that means 20 (rounded off) heterosexual men are paedophiles.
So the total number of paedophiles is 35 men (both heterosexual and homosexual). Ok?
So let’s find out the ratios and see what that means so 15: 20 give us 3:4
which is 1:1.3 which is really 1:1
So that means even when they comprise only 3 % of the population, homosexuals still match the number of paedophiles produced by the larger population of 97 %.
That is like saying if human beings were portions and paedophiles are poisons, 3 tea spoonfuls of homosexuality are as poisonous as 97 tea spoonfuls of heterosexuality.
That means, homosexuality is 32 times more destructive as a manifestation of paedophilia as heterosexuality.
Now you tell me if you want more homosexuality or less heterosexuality in a community with children.
Not mentioning the proportion of STDs that all the 3 % are responsible for.
In Uganda no one is going about looking at some body with a long nose or short nose and then calling them gay. No. Uganda is saying there is no way to expressly know that you are gay until you engage in Anal Sex. We have prudently assessed the statistics and looked through the research and picked apart the politicking and come to the conclusion that homosexuality (the desire to use the anus in the same way as a vagina) is a self-evident psychopathology. We have refused to embrace studies that are funded by gay-money to push the gay cart and instead opted to endorse studies that are disinterested in the politicking.
Fortunately, they support our view that anal sex is self-evidently an aberration and a shameful blot on our identity and courage as a nation. To that effect we have chosen to institute legislation that will preclude the free operation of a group of deviants which has potential to be 32 times as destructive to our children as the destructive deviants we are dealing with already.
For this reason, Uganda has increased the opportunity cost for Anal Sex I repeat.
WakefulUgandan# ~ May 18, 2011 at 11:00 am
“@ Ken, it is not my problem if you are fixated on the idea that I am “prejudiced”…. I can say the same of you. You are all prejudiced against our Nation for the simple reason that we will not legalize ANAL SEX.”
You can say what ever you like, that doesn’t make it true. For example I’m not prejudiced against Uganda. I’ve haven’t even mentioned it here. This is just another false, unsubstantiated accusation you have made.
whereas my comments about you are based on your own specific statements. For example, you continuous attempt to equate homosexuality with anal intercourse, shows you know little about same-sex relationships.
“You get me a scientific evidence for that & we shall discuss it back and forth to see its merits and see whether it was done for science or as a scape goat for the eventual vote.”
I already mentioned the work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker, the most famous was “The adjustment of the male overt homosexual,” Journal of Projective Techniques, vol. 21 (1957), pp. 18-31.
The “NIMH Task for Report on Homosexuality” contains a bibliography of hers and other research on sexual orientation. The task force report was originally release in 1969, but the final report wasn’t published until 1972. The report recommended a “Center for the Study of Sexual behavior” be established. That didn’t happen but as I recall there were some other NIMH grants to study homosexuality . However, it was Dr. Hooker’s 1957 work that is considered (correctly in my opinion) to be the catalyst for the eventual change understanding about homosexuality and sexual orientation in general.
“And not forgetting the intimidation and the threats that cowed those within the APA who objected to the removal from the DSM. ”
who, specifically, was intimidated in the APA? What is your source for this claim?
and yes, I saw your claim about 1 in 20 homosexuals being child molesters. However, I still haven’t seen you give a source for that. You say “Psychological Reports” 1986, but you give no title or author or any other way of verifying what you said was in the study. Further, I suspect you didn’t actually read the original article did you? Rather you got it off of some other unnamed web site.
I am flattered that you have heard a laugh however wrongly sourced. You seem to be a man full of fears, self-doubt, bitterness and acidic fire. Given the documented medicinal attributes of laughter, I am glad you are having some of it. I am sure it takes you closer to wholesomeness and probably one day you will choose to stop viewing the anus as a source of pleasure and let it rightfully do its purpose as the sewerage management entity in human anatomy.
Coming back to the present, Anal Sex remains a punishable crime in the republic of Uganda and homosexuality (the desire to use the anus as a vagina) is widely condemned and disdained in our country.
Blah blah blah! @ ‘Maazi NCO’ and ‘WUg’.
As to the definition of Aggravated Homosexuality I think this part puts context to Aggravated so clearly (see below):
Keyword – Harm!
Perhaps I should just clarify the last phrase of my comment above. All human relationships have ‘power’ aspects in them. I would say that healthy human relationships require a ‘balance of power’ between the ‘high contracting/consenting parties’; abusive ones arise where there is a serious imbalance.
WakefulUgandan – Can you tell me the source for the studies you have listed there? In other words, from what person or organization have you gotten these references?
@ Ken
On the matter of the sexual abuse of minors: you summarise it very well when you say
“… while I agree that the majority of child molestation is perpetrated by men, that does not mean the men are homosexual, nor does it prove that homosexuals have a higher rate of child molestation than heterosexuals. It only shows that men have a higher rate than women.”
The whole issue is a very complex one, of course. We see this also with rape, where many men who rape other men actually present as heterosexual.
Both child sexual abuse and rape are, IMHO, really about the abuse of power, and not a function of ‘sexuality’ at all. I suspect that this is a generally held view in ‘informed’ societies. When he condemned the Bahati Bill, the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, made the point that the proposed legislation confused ‘sexuality’ with ‘aggravated sexuality’ – the latter being essentially about power.
You must understand that your beloved Dr. Herek is a well-known gay apologist (and I think he is a gay man too) who has received over 5 million dollars in research grants. Knowing how much money Kinsey received in grants, it is no wonder researchers have learnt to “research” the things that attract the money.
The link you have put up above continues with Kinsey’s flawed idea that sexuality is a “mind thing” and not an objective reality confirmed in the distinction between male and female.
He also fronts the Kinsey idea that sexuality is “fluid” & continues to buttress his subsequent criticism using the idea. [We shouldn’t forget Kinsey’s experiments included timings for orgasm for babies who were only a couple of months old]
Let get some excerpts below.
Here:
He also labours hard to blur the line between paedophilia and homosexuality by conjuring categories that make it seem more sensible for homosexuals to have anax sex with boys in later teenage years but not early teens or lower. That forms the theoretical basis for his argument but the whole idea of orientation is a farce in the first place anyhow, see below:
Hey so coming up with another orientation yet again huh? Mr inventor?
Am sure NAMBLA would nod their heads to that. It is a journey towards their goal.
Yeah, of course NAMBLA would nod to this too. You are eroding the protections for the children slowly by slowly.
Compare to this:
Excerpts from the 1990 Journal of Homosexuality special double issue devoted to adult-child sex. It was entitled “Male Intergenerational Intimacy” :
1. “Many pedophiles believe they are born that way and cannot change” (p. 133).
2. “A man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve ‘miracles… not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them.’ The loving pedophile can offer a “companionship, security and protection” which neither peers nor parents can provide” (p. l62).
3. “Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son ‘not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home…’ (p. 164).
4. “Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed.” (p.323)
That means paedophiles can be psychologically “normal” now!!
I wish Herek would also show us this side of the story… but he only concludes,
It is just an opinion steeped in gay apology that is all.
And by the way, I guess now you see why I ignored your flimsy retort that “my statistics were old”…
-70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
-The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men.” New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38. ).
The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
-Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (“Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.” Lancet, April 25, 1987). This from a group that consists of only 1-3% of the population.
-Homosexuals account for a the following volume of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA.)
What am I trying to say?
I am saying that the evidence from the gay life-style is a good reflection of the mental state of homosexuals in general.
Tell, you what I don’t want paedophiles near my children.
And I will not let some theoretical lies about the fluidity of sexuality dupe me (sexuality is self-evident and a matter of common sense) into forgetting that for every 26 times a heterosexual teacher won’t be likely to harm my child the homosexual teacher will be likely to do so 25 times!
I meant to say your “right”… to have UNFETTERED ANAL SEX..
Sorry about the usage of the word fetter but I didn’t mean to alude to the nebulous “arts” of ANAL SEX…
It’s demonstrable & has always been written in gay literature that homosexuals have a high propensity for ANAL SEX with minors, long for it & glamourize it.
Fortunately, the dangers of paedophilia are known to every parent. See homosexuals never having families or children of their own don’t have an idea what it is to be a parent.
No wonder, they write in their journals that paedophilia is a parenting tool.
Question: Why didn’t those catholic priests go for minor females?
Answer: They were inclined (orientated) towards ANAL SEX.
As it stands, Richard, if you come to Uganda and commit Aggravated Homosexuality thereby extorting your sexual pleasures from the digestive system of any of the victims listed (the disabled, the little boys who maybe under your charge, etc), I would gladly love to personally command the police unit that comes to arrest you and collect all the evidence the prosecution needs to punish to the fullest extent of the law.
PLUS we continue to say NO to more STDs…
“In this country (the UK), we have a strong system of checks that help to avoid horrible situations such as the 40,000+ female victims of abuse in 2008.”
Just to clarify: this is the situation (in UG) which I cited earlier. Instances of defilement by teachers in the UK is mercifully rare.