Which part of this post’s headline do you believe?
Here is the link to the AP article in the Washington Post.
Simon Lokodo appears to be in a bit of trouble now that he has broken up a couple of legal meetings of LGBT people. It appears that Lokodo had the green light to harass gays but now he is on his own.
I am aware that Stephen Tashobya, the committee chair of the committee where the bill sits thinks there are better things to do than mess with the anti-gay bill. However, it is just wrong, as the AP article says, to say that the bill has been shelved. Why do so many reporters rush to do something with the bill that the Parliament has not done?
In short, I don’t believe either part of my headline.
Here is a link to the Government statement.
On the Statement itself: Penal Code 145 is cited, and this is discriminatory penal legislation. Consensual same-sex relations remain ‘criminal offences’, while those who engage in the kind of (consensual) heterosexual shenanigans for which places like Uganda are famous get off ‘scott free’. That’s discrimination, pure and simple.
It’s perfectly legal for people to have multiple (consensual) sexual partners in the UK – it’s just that the state does not give all the ‘relationships’ simultaneous recognition as ‘marriages’. So the ‘polygamy argument’ cannot be used to justify gay bashing.
I knew that my comment about ‘opposition disarray’ would be a little painful for you, ‘Maazi’! The ‘opposition’ must really be ‘in a fix’ over all this: the Bahati Bill is a real ‘tar baby’ for them – support it, and they can wave goodbye to ‘western good will’; oppose it, and Bahati (and the NRM generally?) will use that against them.
Meaningless comment ! # Pardon the harsh tone #
I think cabinet minister Adolf .K. Mwesige has been repeatedly shelving, unshelving and re-shelving his copy of the Bahati Bill. So you are right that the bill has been “shelved”, but I think you need to qualify who is doing the shelving….
I am sorry to say that you scored an “F” in your submitted homework. In case, you are wondering, “F” means you failed woefully. Go and do the homework again and return it for re-marking.
.
Thats your opinion. I could argue—from an African point of view— that the criminalization of polygamy across the Northern Hemisphere is a great affront to “human rights” of polygamists such as dissident Mormons in Utah under siege everywhere from FBI agents. I could argue that Holocaust Denial Laws in European nations (which I personally support) criminalize freedom of speech. In Uganda, gayism is abominable and the sex crime laws will eventually be updated to tackle new challenges brought on by Euro-American Gay Propagandists who now have Africa in their sights.
It’s perfectly legal for people to have multiple (consensual) sexual partners in the UK – it’s just that the state does not give all the ‘relationships’ simultaneous recognition as ‘marriages’. So the ‘polygamy argument’ cannot be used to justify gay bashing.
I knew that my comment about ‘opposition disarray’ would be a little painful for you, ‘Maazi’! The ‘opposition’ must really be ‘in a fix’ over all this: the Bahati Bill is a real ‘tar baby’ for them – support it, and they can wave goodbye to ‘western good will’; oppose it, and Bahati (and the NRM generally?) will use that against them.
Meaningless comment ! # Pardon the harsh tone #
I think cabinet minister Adolf .K. Mwesige has been repeatedly shelving, unshelving and re-shelving his copy of the Bahati Bill. So you are right that the bill has been “shelved”, but I think you need to qualify who is doing the shelving….
I am sorry to say that you scored an “F” in your submitted homework. In case, you are wondering, “F” means you failed woefully. Go and do the homework again and return it for re-marking.
.
Thats your opinion. I could argue—from an African point of view— that the criminalization of polygamy across the Northern Hemisphere is a great affront to “human rights” of polygamists such as dissident Mormons in Utah under siege everywhere from FBI agents. I could argue that Holocaust Denial Laws in European nations (which I personally support) criminalize freedom of speech. In Uganda, gayism is abominable and the sex crime laws will eventually be updated to tackle new challenges brought on by Euro-American Gay Propagandists who now have Africa in their sights.
On the Statement itself: Penal Code 145 is cited, and this is discriminatory penal legislation. Consensual same-sex relations remain ‘criminal offences’, while those who engage in the kind of (consensual) heterosexual shenanigans for which places like Uganda are famous get off ‘scott free’. That’s discrimination, pure and simple.
Perhaps are they simply ‘thrashing around’, not sure what to do?
Was the Bill ever really ‘shelved’? I pretty certain so (I have my very strong reasons for thinking this, but cannot go into details), but it certainly ISN’T shelved now.
Ironically, the Ugandan political opposition’s disarray over the Bill could be a factor here (those of us who have ‘done our homework’ know well that some leading opposition politicians are aroused by Bahati’s proposals while others are appalled by them – though the ‘aroused’ ones make more noise, of course); perhaps the making of less ‘anti-gay noises’ is the product of some kind ‘political calculation’ on M7’s part?
Perhaps are they simply ‘thrashing around’, not sure what to do?
Was the Bill ever really ‘shelved’? I pretty certain so (I have my very strong reasons for thinking this, but cannot go into details), but it certainly ISN’T shelved now.
Ironically, the Ugandan political opposition’s disarray over the Bill could be a factor here (those of us who have ‘done our homework’ know well that some leading opposition politicians are aroused by Bahati’s proposals while others are appalled by them – though the ‘aroused’ ones make more noise, of course); perhaps the making of less ‘anti-gay noises’ is the product of some kind ‘political calculation’ on M7’s part?
I think they are terrible liars about almost everything we’ve heard on this issue. The part I believe is “Uganda now says” the rest is highly questionable.
I think they are terrible liars about almost everything we’ve heard on this issue. The part I believe is “Uganda now says” the rest is highly questionable.
The bill was shelved at one time, but not now. The reporter used the wrong verb tense. He should have said “had.” That is the impression I took from the article. But then I am versed in the subject and someone who new little about the subject would certainly accept the present tense meaning.
I wonder who the “official” was. Could that person have said the bill was shelved? Or given that impression to the reporter?
The bill was shelved at one time, but not now. The reporter used the wrong verb tense. He should have said “had.” That is the impression I took from the article. But then I am versed in the subject and someone who new little about the subject would certainly accept the present tense meaning.
I wonder who the “official” was. Could that person have said the bill was shelved? Or given that impression to the reporter?