Yesterday, I cited reports that Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill had been postponed. Today, Parliamentary spokeswoman Helen Kawesa was unable to confirm that report. She cited a possible “mix-up of information” and said that she was unaware of any meeting to set an agenda for bills to be debated after the budget process is finished.
Noting that Speaker of the House and Business committee chair, Rebecca Kadaga was out of the country yesterday, Kawesa expressed doubts that the Business committee met to set any final agenda for upcoming debate. Kadaga returned this morning and was presiding over the budget discussions.
Ms. Kawesa said that she had no knowledge of a decision to require MP David Bahati to request permission from Parliament to reintroduce the anti-gay measure. As of now, she said, “the bill was tabled in the House and the committee report has not been presented.” The next step will be for the bill to be read a second time with amendments possible at that time. However, she added, “As far as I know, no agenda has been set for that bill.”
There were reports that a meeting had been set for yesterday to set an agenda. Apparently the postponement was the meeting and not specifically the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
4 thoughts on “No change of status for Uganda's anti-gay bill”
Comments are closed.
Warren—You know very well that your blog serves as the central news agency for nearly all the propagandist websites run by the Euro-American Gay Lobby. I have to say that being a reservoir of “original” information (regardless of its quality 😀 ) imposes upon you a “heavy responsibility”. You are failing in your duty to serve as a fine “fountain of knowledge” for the gay sex militants
You report that there is no change in the status of the bill, but you fail to specify the nature of the “status” to the desperate owners of the gay sex propagandist website who depend heavily on you. What is the nature of the “status? Is it “unshelved bill status” or “shelved bill status” or “re-shelved bill status” or a combination of all three? These are important information that the foreign propagandists would need in order to instruct their paid-up Uganda-based puppet activists.
I would say that Warren’s blog usefully complements what others get from other sources. It should be remembered that Warren’s sources lie in ‘christian’ and parliamentary circles, while others may have ‘government’ contacts or sources in human rights fraternity.
As for the ‘status’ of the Bill: it was unclear a week ago, and is still unclear now – hence no change (as Warren says)! We know the Government doesn’t want it (for essentially economic reasons) and that some MPs definitely do want it. We also know that at two least opposition leaders are very much opposed to Bahati’s proposed slaughter-fest. We suspect that support may be declining in the Parliament, and this is why Langa feels the need to make threatening noises to MPs.
I would say that Warren’s blog usefully complements what others get from other sources. It should be remembered that Warren’s sources lie in ‘christian’ and parliamentary circles, while others may have ‘government’ contacts or sources in human rights fraternity.
As for the ‘status’ of the Bill: it was unclear a week ago, and is still unclear now – hence no change (as Warren says)! We know the Government doesn’t want it (for essentially economic reasons) and that some MPs definitely do want it. We also know that at two least opposition leaders are very much opposed to Bahati’s proposed slaughter-fest. We suspect that support may be declining in the Parliament, and this is why Langa feels the need to make threatening noises to MPs.
Warren—You know very well that your blog serves as the central news agency for nearly all the propagandist websites run by the Euro-American Gay Lobby. I have to say that being a reservoir of “original” information (regardless of its quality 😀 ) imposes upon you a “heavy responsibility”. You are failing in your duty to serve as a fine “fountain of knowledge” for the gay sex militants
You report that there is no change in the status of the bill, but you fail to specify the nature of the “status” to the desperate owners of the gay sex propagandist website who depend heavily on you. What is the nature of the “status? Is it “unshelved bill status” or “shelved bill status” or “re-shelved bill status” or a combination of all three? These are important information that the foreign propagandists would need in order to instruct their paid-up Uganda-based puppet activists.