This thing is never far from the surface.
Top religious leaders from across the country have asked Parliament to speed-up the process of enacting the Anti-Homosexuality law to prevent what they called “an attack on the Bible and the institution of marriage”.
I don’t think the committee chair in charge of the bill (Stephen Tashobya) wants to deal with the bill. Several months ago, he told me his committee has much more important business. However, he told me something similar during the last Parliament when the bill languished until the last month and then began to move.
The bill will eventually be passed. It is a matter of “WHEN” not “IF”. Doc Warren and his band of gay sex practitioners can continue crying until the cows come home from grazing. Gayism has no place in Uganda and its practitioners shall eventually be compelled by force of legislation to remove their anti-social behaviour from the public view. Gay propaganda and promoting deviant sexual behaviour in public; on radio; TV and other domestic media can NEVER be tolerated in the Ugandan State. Unlike the 8th parliament, this current (9th) parliament has sufficient time to do what is necessary to preserve the culture of our ancestors.
Anyway, whatever ‘Maazi’ might say, the ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’ is currently considering the 2009 Bill: /2012/02/10/current-official-text-of-anti-homosexuality-bill-2009/
The ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’ says so.
Dealing with ‘Maazi NCO’s’ ‘economies with the truth’ is akin to a ‘turkey shoot’! It’s almost embarrassing …
(By the way, the Vatican’s line on the Bahati Bill is not ‘nuanced’ in the least – the Vatican is opposed to Bahati Bill, and to criminal penalties for consensual same-sex relations. In fact, the opposition to the arbitrary criminalization of gay people originated at the Second Vatican Council, which convened some years BEFORE many ‘western’ countries, including the United Kingdom, decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. On this matter, the UG bishops seem to have ‘broken ranks’ with the Holy See.)
Report of another police raid on a peaceful meeting: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/ugandan-police-raid-gay-rights-meeting/story-fn3dxity-1226400619594
(I’ve also heard about this from contacts.)
Report of another police raid on a peaceful meeting: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/ugandan-police-raid-gay-rights-meeting/story-fn3dxity-1226400619594
(I’ve also heard about this from contacts.)
Dealing with ‘Maazi NCO’s’ ‘economies with the truth’ is akin to a ‘turkey shoot’! It’s almost embarrassing …
Here’s the Order Paper for Tuesday 7 February 2012 (just in case anyone is in any doubt): /wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Order-Paper-parliament-feb072012.jpg
On it are the words ‘ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL 2009’.
It really couldn’t be clearer, could it? (Is ‘Maazi’ in deep denial for some reason? Perhaps he is more embarrassed by the ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’ than he lets on?)
Anyway, whatever ‘Maazi’ might say, the ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’ is currently considering the 2009 Bill: /2012/02/10/current-official-text-of-anti-homosexuality-bill-2009/
The ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’ says so.
(And let us not forget that, even without the death penalty, the Bahati Bill is a peculiarly vicious and draconian proposal.)
I thought you were leaving us!
Since you’re back, I’ll respond to your first point (you know what I meant by ‘breaking ranks’, so no need to deal with that).
THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE ORIGINAL 2009 DRAFT. Minor changes (that LEFT ‘DEATH BY HANGING’ IN PLACE for consenting adults with HIV and so-called ‘serial offenders’) were proposed in May 2011, but never formally adopted, or even discussed, by the ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’.
If there is a new ‘Maaz’i’ (as opposed to ‘Bahati’) Bill, then where is the text?
Sorry – we’re not stupid! We’re not going to fall for your ‘it’s-nothing-like-as-bad-as-you-think’ nonsense!
Here’s the Order Paper for Tuesday 7 February 2012 (just in case anyone is in any doubt): /wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Order-Paper-parliament-feb072012.jpg
On it are the words ‘ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL 2009’.
It really couldn’t be clearer, could it? (Is ‘Maazi’ in deep denial for some reason? Perhaps he is more embarrassed by the ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’ than he lets on?)
(And let us not forget that, even without the death penalty, the Bahati Bill is a peculiarly vicious and draconian proposal.)
I thought you were leaving us!
Since you’re back, I’ll respond to your first point (you know what I meant by ‘breaking ranks’, so no need to deal with that).
THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE ORIGINAL 2009 DRAFT. Minor changes (that LEFT ‘DEATH BY HANGING’ IN PLACE for consenting adults with HIV and so-called ‘serial offenders’) were proposed in May 2011, but never formally adopted, or even discussed, by the ‘sovereign Parliament of Uganda’.
If there is a new ‘Maaz’i’ (as opposed to ‘Bahati’) Bill, then where is the text?
Sorry – we’re not stupid! We’re not going to fall for your ‘it’s-nothing-like-as-bad-as-you-think’ nonsense!
POINT OF CORRECTION :
Define “breaking ranks”? As far as I am CONCERNED I can see the Ugandan Catholic Church is not in a schism with the Holy See. Gayism is a local matter in Uganda which shall be dealt with appropriately by legislative branch of the Ugandan State.
We are obviously not talking of the same version of the Bahati Bill. Richard, I think you are still stuck in the 2009 time warp along with other gay propagandists.
Define “breaking ranks”? As far as I am I can see the Ugandan Catholic Church is not in a schism with the Holy See. Gayism is a local matter in Uganda which shall be dealt with appropriately by legislative branch of the Ugandan State.
POINT OF CORRECTION :
Define “breaking ranks”? As far as I am CONCERNED I can see the Ugandan Catholic Church is not in a schism with the Holy See. Gayism is a local matter in Uganda which shall be dealt with appropriately by legislative branch of the Ugandan State.
We are obviously not talking of the same version of the Bahati Bill. Richard, I think you are still stuck in the 2009 time warp along with other gay propagandists.
Define “breaking ranks”? As far as I am I can see the Ugandan Catholic Church is not in a schism with the Holy See. Gayism is a local matter in Uganda which shall be dealt with appropriately by legislative branch of the Ugandan State.
(By the way, the Vatican’s line on the Bahati Bill is not ‘nuanced’ in the least – the Vatican is opposed to Bahati Bill, and to criminal penalties for consensual same-sex relations. In fact, the opposition to the arbitrary criminalization of gay people originated at the Second Vatican Council, which convened some years BEFORE many ‘western’ countries, including the United Kingdom, decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. On this matter, the UG bishops seem to have ‘broken ranks’ with the Holy See.)
But, ‘Maazi’, the current draft of the Bill is crystal clear: those who are ‘caught’ (as a results of being – maybe untruthfully – informed against?) having PRIVATE CONSENSUAL RELATIONS are liable to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, with DEATH BY HANGING for so-called ‘serial offenders’ and those who are HIV+, regardless of whether transmission takes places, precautions are taken or full disclosure given. The ‘serial offenders’ provision also applies to other so-called ‘offences’ cited in the Bill.
Even those who repeatedly call for what they would argue is ‘fair treatment’ of gay people could hanged, according to the Bill as drafted.
Your ‘we-don’t-intend-to-kill-anyone’ statements simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Noone able to read is convinced by them (not even ‘anti-gay sympathizers’ like Scott Lively, who is under no illusions as to what the Bill actually says) – noone!
Perhaps you are talking about a different draft bill? Who knows? We’re talking about the one proposed by Bahati, by the way … (just in case you’ve lost the plot’)
Ultimately, the Uganda State can do as it pleases, I suppose; but the same goes for other states – if ‘donor countries’ are not happy with what the Ugandan State does, then they have the freedom to respond as they see fit. I personally would not wish to see aid cuts, but some ‘refocusing of resources’ to help those Ugandans being unfairly treated would strike me as entirely appropriate.
Just before I leave this blog to engage in more productive ventures, Let me reiterate that the Bill will not send anyone to the gallows for exhibiting deviant behaviour. However, there shall be tough penalties for anyone trying to promote such an abhorrent sexual behaviour in the public arena. Gay sex propagandists shall not have any legal space to sell their wares in public anywhere within the Ugandan State. This is the most important thing and this is what the parliament is pursuing. That is the endgame. Good morning !
I think I have spoken about this issue of Vatican last year. The fact is simple. We in Uganda do not accept the unnecessary politicized nuanced view of the Vatican on this matter. I am a Catholic by upbringing (but I am barely religious these days). Even the Bishops here don’t accept those politicized nuances, (but they are unable to publicly contradict the official Holy See position for obvious reasons). The way we see it in Uganda is quite simple— Vatican is stranded and suffocated amidst agnostic/athetistic European countries that are hyper-obssessed with gayism. So Vatican devised a nuanced position to permit itself breathing space to operate in a tough neighbourhood of hedonistic European States. Uganda is not in a neighbourhood of gayism-obssessed nations and therefore there is absolutely no need for the sort of ludicrous nuances that the Vatican offers up. Even the viscerally Catholicphobic Euro-American Gay Lobbyists do not accept such ludicrous nuances from Vatican, so why should Ugandans?
The bill will eventually be passed. It is a matter of “WHEN” not “IF”. Doc Warren and his band of gay sex practitioners can continue crying until the cows come home from grazing. Gayism has no place in Uganda and its practitioners shall eventually be compelled by force of legislation to remove their anti-social behaviour from the public view. Gay propaganda and promoting deviant sexual behaviour in public; on radio; TV and other domestic media can NEVER be tolerated in the Ugandan State. Unlike the 8th parliament, this current (9th) parliament has sufficient time to do what is necessary to preserve the culture of our ancestors.
But, ‘Maazi’, the current draft of the Bill is crystal clear: those who are ‘caught’ (as a results of being – maybe untruthfully – informed against?) having PRIVATE CONSENSUAL RELATIONS are liable to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, with DEATH BY HANGING for so-called ‘serial offenders’ and those who are HIV+, regardless of whether transmission takes places, precautions are taken or full disclosure given. The ‘serial offenders’ provision also applies to other so-called ‘offences’ cited in the Bill.
Even those who repeatedly call for what they would argue is ‘fair treatment’ of gay people could hanged, according to the Bill as drafted.
Your ‘we-don’t-intend-to-kill-anyone’ statements simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Noone able to read is convinced by them (not even ‘anti-gay sympathizers’ like Scott Lively, who is under no illusions as to what the Bill actually says) – noone!
Perhaps you are talking about a different draft bill? Who knows? We’re talking about the one proposed by Bahati, by the way … (just in case you’ve lost the plot’)
Ultimately, the Uganda State can do as it pleases, I suppose; but the same goes for other states – if ‘donor countries’ are not happy with what the Ugandan State does, then they have the freedom to respond as they see fit. I personally would not wish to see aid cuts, but some ‘refocusing of resources’ to help those Ugandans being unfairly treated would strike me as entirely appropriate.
Just before I leave this blog to engage in more productive ventures, Let me reiterate that the Bill will not send anyone to the gallows for exhibiting deviant behaviour. However, there shall be tough penalties for anyone trying to promote such an abhorrent sexual behaviour in the public arena. Gay sex propagandists shall not have any legal space to sell their wares in public anywhere within the Ugandan State. This is the most important thing and this is what the parliament is pursuing. That is the endgame. Good morning !
I think I have spoken about this issue of Vatican last year. The fact is simple. We in Uganda do not accept the unnecessary politicized nuanced view of the Vatican on this matter. I am a Catholic by upbringing (but I am barely religious these days). Even the Bishops here don’t accept those politicized nuances, (but they are unable to publicly contradict the official Holy See position for obvious reasons). The way we see it in Uganda is quite simple— Vatican is stranded and suffocated amidst agnostic/athetistic European countries that are hyper-obssessed with gayism. So Vatican devised a nuanced position to permit itself breathing space to operate in a tough neighbourhood of hedonistic European States. Uganda is not in a neighbourhood of gayism-obssessed nations and therefore there is absolutely no need for the sort of ludicrous nuances that the Vatican offers up. Even the viscerally Catholicphobic Euro-American Gay Lobbyists do not accept such ludicrous nuances from Vatican, so why should Ugandans?
Well it’s finally got to RD: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/petermontgomery/6065/ugandan_bishops_push_notorious_anti-gay_bill/
Well it’s finally got to RD: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/petermontgomery/6065/ugandan_bishops_push_notorious_anti-gay_bill/
Meanwhile, here in England …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17796511
(This is technically not relevant to the Bahati Bill, of course, which has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, which is currently not legal in UG, despite the rhetoric from the Bill’s apologists.)
I really do wonder if the Anglican Communion should now split; I cannot see how we Anglicans can go on pretending to be ‘one outfit’. Wouldn’t it be better if reactionary GAFCON (Orombi, Akinola, et al) and the progressives – whom I would support if I had to make a choice – face up to reality and go their separate ways?
Meanwhile, here in England …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17796511
(This is technically not relevant to the Bahati Bill, of course, which has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, which is currently not legal in UG, despite the rhetoric from the Bill’s apologists.)
I really do wonder if the Anglican Communion should now split; I cannot see how we Anglicans can go on pretending to be ‘one outfit’. Wouldn’t it be better if reactionary GAFCON (Orombi, Akinola, et al) and the progressives – whom I would support if I had to make a choice – face up to reality and go their separate ways?
Times change though. The USCCB used to be neutral on the subject of discrimination against LGBTs in employment. Now they’re for it.
There has been a succession of increasingly conservative popes since Vatican II, and we don’t know where the shift will end. These things come in cycles, but the pendulum appears to be still swinging this way.
Times change though. The USCCB used to be neutral on the subject of discrimination against LGBTs in employment. Now they’re for it.
There has been a succession of increasingly conservative popes since Vatican II, and we don’t know where the shift will end. These things come in cycles, but the pendulum appears to be still swinging this way.
I suppose that part of the problem here is the ‘confusion’ of two distinct issues: [1] the legal recognition of same-sex unions (which the Vatican opposes), and [2] the decriminalization of consensual homosexual relations (with which the Vatican agrees, on grounds of ‘conscience’, ‘tolerance’ and opposition to ‘unjust discrimination’, and has done so for much the greater part of the last fifty years – to the considerable chagrin of some catholic ‘reactionaries’, I might add, some of whom use such choice phrases as ‘sodomite rot’ and ‘cesspools of homosexuality’ with regard to their own church [!] … the kind of dirty and dishonest anti-gay rhetoric with which we are so depressingly familiar).
Despite the ‘pro-family’ rhetoric from the Bill’s apologists, the Bahati Bill is exclusively about the second issue, which is, I suspect, why the Vatican opposed it in the first place.
Yes – it is will be interesting to see how the Vatican responds (although I suspect that what it will do will be done behind the scenes).
I suppose that part of the problem here is the ‘confusion’ of two distinct issues: [1] the legal recognition of same-sex unions (which the Vatican opposes), and [2] the decriminalization of consensual homosexual relations (with which the Vatican agrees, on grounds of ‘conscience’, ‘tolerance’ and opposition to ‘unjust discrimination’, and has done so for much the greater part of the last fifty years – to the considerable chagrin of some catholic ‘reactionaries’, I might add, some of whom use such choice phrases as ‘sodomite rot’ and ‘cesspools of homosexuality’ with regard to their own church [!] … the kind of dirty and dishonest anti-gay rhetoric with which we are so depressingly familiar).
Despite the ‘pro-family’ rhetoric from the Bill’s apologists, the Bahati Bill is exclusively about the second issue, which is, I suspect, why the Vatican opposed it in the first place.
Yes – it is will be interesting to see how the Vatican responds (although I suspect that what it will do will be done behind the scenes).
Yes, Richard, it appears the Catholics have joined in support of the bill after first stating their oppositions some 2 or more years ago. If so, they are going against the directives of the Catholic Church.
Yes, Richard, it appears the Catholics have joined in support of the bill after first stating their oppositions some 2 or more years ago. If so, they are going against the directives of the Catholic Church.
And while podgy bishops bash gays, certain ‘pastors’ continue to refuse to admit that they were out to bash a fellow pastor: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kayanja+s+conspiracy+case+goes+to+High+Court/-/688334/1424240/-/9ssah0/-/index.html
(Is this really the ‘Christian nirvana’ so admired by the likes of Lively? If it is, I might consider changing my religion!)
And while podgy bishops bash gays, certain ‘pastors’ continue to refuse to admit that they were out to bash a fellow pastor: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kayanja+s+conspiracy+case+goes+to+High+Court/-/688334/1424240/-/9ssah0/-/index.html
(Is this really the ‘Christian nirvana’ so admired by the likes of Lively? If it is, I might consider changing my religion!)
A little ‘theological’ reflection (to go with Lynn’s socio-political one): is it right to (allegedly) ‘defend the Bible’ by arbitrarily attacking creatures in God’s image?
The big problem is that Uganda Catholics have now joined the bad guys. This is very serious.
As for the committee handling the Bill: according to the Monitor report, these plump men (the bishops) want the ‘Gender Committee’ to decide the extent (and method – quick [the gallows] or slow [imprisonment]) of the slaughter.
Since when do governments which guarantee freedom of religion also guarantee that such a religion cannot be questioned – or as they put it, attacked?
A little ‘theological’ reflection (to go with Lynn’s socio-political one): is it right to (allegedly) ‘defend the Bible’ by arbitrarily attacking creatures in God’s image?
The big problem is that Uganda Catholics have now joined the bad guys. This is very serious.
As for the committee handling the Bill: according to the Monitor report, these plump men (the bishops) want the ‘Gender Committee’ to decide the extent (and method – quick [the gallows] or slow [imprisonment]) of the slaughter.
Since when do governments which guarantee freedom of religion also guarantee that such a religion cannot be questioned – or as they put it, attacked?