I would still say that Bahati simply cannot be trusted. He and his ilk are PROVEN LIARS. Anyway, the ‘formal’ death penalty is not the issue: it essentially makes not a dime of difference whether or not it is there.

The other ‘school’ is what I would term the ‘grind it down to nothing’ approach. This would take time, and keep the discussion going (which is, I appreciate, perhaps a ‘mixed blessing’ for those who would be most affected by Bahati’s evil designs).

Whatever happens over the next few weeks, we must work for a long term solution. Fortunately, one keeps hearing from various quarters that ordinary Ugandans are becoming less and less interested in this vicious and stupid bill. It really is the work of a relatively small clique of extremists who are backed by Americans who are frustrated because they are losing the ‘culture war’ in their own country.

Good to see comments like those of Hon Krispus Ayena. I’m sure there are those outside the committee who share similar concerns.

Personally, I don’t believe a word that Bahati says regarding ‘amendments’ to the Bill; we should probably just ‘wait and see’ now – assuming the Bill ever sees the light of day. Isn’t it funny that, whenever the bill is about to make it to the floor, ‘something’ happens?! This time it was ‘pub brawl’ (but not in a pub on this occasion), in which Dodgy Dave himself was apparently involved: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Top-ministers-caught-on-film-in-House-chaos/-/688334/1633018/-/iqqkfz/-/index.html

There is a body of opinion that says, “now is the time to get this resolved one way or another.” Fortunately, things like the Bahati Bill are difficult to enforce (evidence is usually the problem – made more difficult still in the case of consensual relations by the false dichotomy of ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ set out in the Bill); anyway, passage through the ‘car cash’ parliament would not by itself make the Bill into a law. Nevertheless, I tend to share Warren’s view that ‘delay and depletion’ is the optimal outcome.

Interestingly, Barclays are using a (black) gay couple in one of their latest advertisements here in the UK! The couple looks very happy! I wish them “all the very best” in their life together!

Back to Hon Ayena. He’s absolutely right about both privacy and enforceability. And it is deeply ironic that one sometimes hears, from within Ugandan ‘political circles’, that certain ANTI-GAY MPs might possibly have some things in their own lives that they themselves would prefer were ‘kept private’. I’m talking of ‘side dishes’ – of course!

By contrast, as long as it still around, the Bahati Bill is simply a ‘lose-lose’ deal for UG. (For those of us outside UG who campaign for LGBT rights, the existence/continuance of the Bill is a ‘win-win’ – it’s fabulous from a publicity point of view: an all purpose weapon against ‘homophobes disunited’. But we should be concerned about UG’s well being first and foremost, of course.)

(I’ve actually met Frank in person: IMHO a very nice guy … very personable, thoughtful and sensible – a credit to his country.)

(I’ve actually met Frank in person: IMHO a very nice guy … very personable, thoughtful and sensible – a credit to his country.)

(It’s interesting what’s happened with the UK ‘suspension’: it was originally a sum equal to the grant to the Office of the Prime Minister, but was then, two weeks later and without any public explanation, suddenly increased to include all grants to all political bodies. I do very much hope that the money will be used to help Ugandans via other conduits, and not just cut from the overall spend.)

BTW, I assume that you meant “its ILlegality to be established once and for all.”

(Not sure how Ssempa ‘wins’ from the Bill’s continuance; being a ‘Ssempa donor’ is not exactly a ‘badge of honour’ just now! It might be rather better for him if ‘donors’ felt more inclined to bankroll him – which they probably would with no bill around. Just a thought.)