The campaign in Uganda is heating up and Martin Ssempa is calling on all candidates to bash gays in advance of the elections on February 18. Watch Ssempa’s call for opposition candidate Dr. Kiiza Besigye to re-con-si-der his view that prosecuting homosexuals is a waste of state resources.
Category: politics
Bryan Fischer asks and Tim Pawlenty tells. Why?
It is all over that likely 2012 GOP presidential contender Tim Pawlenty supports the reinstatement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. While this is interesting in itself, I want to echo Ron Hill, a columnist at the Frum Forum this morning who asks: “Why’s Pawlenty Courting the Anti-Gay Right?”
Good question. More from Mr. Hill:
Pawlenty made his statement on the radio program of Bryan Fischer from the American Family Association, a smart choice if you want to sell a book to social conservatives. Unfortunately Bryan Fischer also has a long track record of inflammatory and untrue statements. Here is just one claim Bryan Fischer made in a column on May 27, 2010 during the DADT debate:
Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it’s time for Congress to learn a lesson from history.
Mr. Fischer has also argued that Muslims “should be treated just like neo-Nazis’”, that American Muslims should be deported, and that no Muslim should be able to immigrate to the U.S.
I am more concerned about Pawlenty’s judgment in going on Bryan Fischer’s program than I am his call for reinstatement of DADT. If Bryan Fischer had made racist or anti-Semitic statements then no respectable Republican would have appeared on his show. How is this any different?
Like Hill, I am mystified at the poor judgment demonstrated by Pawlenty’s appearance on the show of someone who uses the Holocaust as a way to slander his ideological opponents. I suspect (hope) Bryan Fischer’s fiction will come up in a Q & A somewhere on Pawlenty’s campaign trail.
Candidates defect to Uganda’s ruling party; Bahati rival cites safety concerns
Sometimes, politicians in the US change party affiliation (e.g., Arlen Spector’s switch from the GOP to Dem), but this is not common. In Uganda, it seems to be happening more frequently as the elections approach. This report notes that three politicians associated with the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) have either dropped out or changed parties.
President Museveni’s recent campaigns in parts of western Uganda herald doom for the opposition’s prospects of winning in an area that has previously overwhelmingly voted for the ruling party. The President last week campaigned in Bushenyi, Kisoro, Kabale, Kanungu, Buhweju, Mitooma, Rubirizi, Kiruhura and Mbarara, and while the IPC flag bearer, Dr Kizza Besigye, is yet to campaign here, the picture isn’t rosy for his coalition.
President Museveni has always convincingly won in western Uganda, but it was hoped that Besigye would make inroads in the area that is also his home.
During Museveni’s campaigns, at least three FDC parliamentary aspirants withdrew from the race, ensuring easy victory for Beatrice Rusaniya (Kiruhura district woman), Flavia Rwabuhoro (Kyegegwa woman), Atwaib Katooto (Katerera constituency), and David Bahati (Ndorwa West).
Citing concerns over his safety, Bahati’s rival, Serapio Biryaba, claimed he couldn’t continue in the race.
At a Museveni rally in Katerera, FDC’s Vereriano Tukahebwa withdrew in favour of Katooto, saying he had found it hard to canvass for Besigye’s support in the area.
“People were giving me support but I could not convince the masses to vote for Besigye. I realised that if I continued with FDC, all my programmes would not kick off,” he said.
Rusaniya also sailed through after FDC’s Dorcus Mpinda renounced her membership of the FDC at another rally in Kiruhura district.
It is not clear, nor have I heard through the grapevine why Bahati’s opponent was scared from the campaign.
Speaking of David Bahati, the author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, here is another report regarding Bahati’s business dealings.
He is known as the young vibrant Christian legislator who proposed tough laws against homosexuality in the Ugandan parliament and he is loathed by many international human rights groups for exactly those proposals. He is David Bahati, Member of Parliament for Ndorwa West county. Yet, famous as he is for the anti-homosexuality bill, not many people knew that Bahati is also an extremely rich man who does business worth millions of dollars. That is, until the troubles of the Ugandan businessmen in Southern Sudan surfaced.
Since 2008, many Ugandan businessmen have been supplying different types of produce – mainly grain – to the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), with the understanding that they would be paid back by the Southern Sudanese Ministry of Finance. But, so far, GOSS has defaulted on those obligations. Consequently, many Ugandan businessmen have been forced out of business. Their only recourse has been to appeal to the Ugandan government to apply diplomatic pressure to the GOSS to ensure that the businessmen are repaid for their investments. Documents show that Bahati is among these businessmen.
However, the whole affair grew more intriguing after the Ugandan Government got involved. Under an apparent agreement, the Ugandan government undertook to pay the traders and will collect the money from GOSS at a later date.
In total, record show that there are seventy-one companies and individuals owed money from GOSS, but of these, only 16 companies are said to have been paid by the Ugandan authorities. And of these 16 companies, three of them, Kalmart Enterprises, Jam Jang Company Limited and Nile Side Company Limited, belong to MP David Bahati. The three companies are reported to have been repaid $2.6 million for supplying grain to Southern Sudan by the Ugandan government.
The article then tells a story of unpaid grain transactions involving Southern Sudan and leaving some traders homeless as the result of lack of payment. To his credit, Bahati at least spoke to the Kampala Dispatch about the matter, whereas the others involved refused. Perhaps Mr. Bahati can leave his antigay efforts for awhile and help these homeless traders get their compensation.
Blood libel? Death panels?
Sarah Palin issued a statement which responds to critics who assigned various degrees of responsibility to her for the shootings in Arizona. Here is her video:
The full statement is here. I want to focus on these words:
If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
When I first heard her describe the accusations against her as a “blood libel,” I cringed because the term historically relates to a horrendous anti-Semitic accusation that Jews kill Christian children for their blood. Not surprising to me, a controversy has arisen over her use of the term. Just a bit ago, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement condemning the use of the phrase.
It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.
It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.
I agree with the ADL on this matter. Rep. Giffords is Jewish and it is insensitive at best for evangelical Palin to use a term which is offensive to Jews in this situation. Not only is it insensitive, the use of the term obscures the expressions of sympathy and the accurate aspects of her analysis.
Another consequence is that the judgment by which she judges will now be used to judge her rhetoric. For instance, Sarah Palin and the far right have invoked the term “death panels” as a way of accusing supporters of the health care bill of favoring the deaths of older people in order to cut costs. This would be a kind of blood libel, wouldn’t it? Accusing someone of creating a means to bring death to old people via legislation is a serious allegation and one that is simply false. In light of the currently toxic public square, evangelicals and social conservatives should just speak in plain and descriptive language rather than invent defamatory terms to describe ideological opponents.
Situation worsens in Pakistan; security increased for Asia Bibi
The assasination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer has made political instability even more likely in Pakistan. Never far from collapse, the current government is facing multiple challenges from ongoing flood cleanup and relief to survivors to threats of violence from emboldened Islamic extremists.
New developments include:
500 Islamic “scholars” lauded the murder of Salman Taseer and praise his killer.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The increasing radicalization of Pakistani society was laid bare Wednesday when the nation’s mainstream religious organizations applauded the murder of provincial governor Salman Taseer earlier this week, while his killer was showered with rose petals as he appeared in court.
Taseer, 66, the governor of Punjab, the country’s most heavily populated province, was assassinated Tuesday by one of his police bodyguards after Taseer had campaigned to ease Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Religious groups threatened to kill others who questioned the blasphemy statute, which is designed to protect Islam and the Prophet Muhammad from “insult.”
Security around Asia Bibi has been increased due to fears that a suicide bomber will take out the prison.
The death of Taseer has not mobilized moderates and civil society. If anything, according to Pakistani observer Fareed Zakaria , the situation is worsening in the direction of the extremists and Taliban.
Zakaria: This is a huge event in Pakistan. First of all it’s important to understand what Punjab is in Pakistan. Punjab is the most populous part of Pakistan, it is the most prosperous part of Pakistan, it’s also the heart and soul of Pakistan’s governing class. The officer corps of Pakistan’s military is largely Punjabi, there are some accounts that suggest as much as 80% of the officers corps comes from Punjab.
This man, Salman Taseer, was probably the most prominent liberal or progressive politician in Pakistan today. He was a very close ally of Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani politician who was assassinated three years ago. He was a very powerful man in his own right and was famous as a crusading liberal — in particular against the forces of extremism and militant Islam.
Zakaria sums up why this issue is critical to our mission in the region.
CNN: Why is this of concern to the United States?
Zakaria: For the United States, this issue is actually at the center of whether or not it will be able to succeed in Afghanistan. Let’s remember, the strategy in Afghanistan cannot succeed as long as there are sanctuaries for the Taliban and al Qaeda in neighboring Pakistan.
Right now what happens is the Taliban crosses the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan, regroups, gains support, logistics, resources in Pakistan, and then comes back to fight the U.S. forces or Afghan government forces. This has been the key to their ability to survive and thrive, so unless you can deal with the sanctuaries in Pakistan, you’re not going to make any headway in Afghanistan.
The entire leadership of al Qaeda and the leadership of the worst elements of the Taliban are all in Pakistan now. In order to deal with that, to destroy those terrorist groups, the Pakistani army has to be willing to go into the areas where these various groups have their strongholds, mostly in a part of Pakistan called North Waziristan.
So far, the Pakistani army has refused to do so. The most important reason is that they fear a backlash within Pakistan. They’re too nervous about the political consequences of having this frontal struggle against Islamic extremism. So if you can’t confront Islamic extremism with things like the blasphemy law, what hope is there that they actually go ahead and mount large-scale military operations in North Waziristan?
I suspect this line of thinking informs the Obama administration and may explain why the White House has made only general statements about blasphemy laws and to my knowledge not publicly condemned the plight of Asia Bibi. In some of the Pakistani rallies in favor of the blasphemy laws, “death to America” is also a rally cry.
We also have a multi-billion dollar investment in Pakistan but the elements which oppose us don’t care if we remove it – at least this is my take on it at this point. I suspect there are Islamic governments that would be happy to supply extremists with funds if they were in charge of the country. We have few carrots and seem reluctant to use our sticks.
And finally, here is an article with citations from my new British friend, Raza Anjum. Raza has been in Pakistan for weeks attempting to see Asia Bibi and win her release. I also provided his assessment of the situation with quotes from Taseer Salman just days before he was murdered.