In a statement dated February 18, but widely available just today (e.g., the Observer), Uganda’s President Museveni seems to leave open the door that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill could be put on hold while he seeks additional input from researchers and scientists. Here is Museveni’s statement in full:
According to a Reuter’s report, the president’s spokesperson said the bill was on hold pending more research.
As I noted earlier this evening, one of the committee member’s of the Ministry of Health ad hoc committee is raising questions about how the committee’s work has been misused.
According to Museveni’s statement, he wants the U.S. government to work with Uganda’s scientific community.
Category: psychology
African Media Watchdog: NRM Caucus Misinterpreted Ministry of Health Report on Homosexuality
Earlier this week, Peter Mwesige of the African Centre for Media Excellence scrutinized the way the Ugandan press handled the facts surrounding President Museveni’s decision to sign the Anti-Homosexuality based on a report by an ad hoc committee of the Ministry of Health. In his article on the matter, Mwesige points out that the president’s political party caucus distorted the committee report by saying homosexuality was “an abnormal behavior.” Significantly, Mwesige quoted one of the committee members, psychologist Paul Bangirana. Bangirana accused the caucus of leaving out vital information which influenced many media reports.
While there are problems with the committee report, Mwesige is correct that the NRM press release did not accurately portray the report. Mwesige ends his article by pointing out that Uganda’s press should have included input from those who will feel the effects of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill:
And [balanced] factual or accurate reporting would also include journalists not ignoring the human rights-based argument that the gay community invokes in defending their sexuality.
Uganda's President Museveni Misuses Letter from Scientists and Researchers
I don’t know how President Museveni came up with the conclusion he did but it is obvious that he misread our letter about scientific consensus on sexual orientation. On the website of Uganda’s State Department, the following was posted yesterday:
While attending the NRM Parliamentary Caucus Retreat at the National Leadership Institute (6th -16th February 2014), President Museveni promised to circulate a letter in response to his request to rule out a possibility that some human beings are genetically born homosexual.
The President partially read out the response by over 200 international experts on the science of homosexuality written to him on the 5th of February 2014 before he said he would sign the anti-homosexuality bill on grounds that no evidence was adduced to the effect that there are human beings homosexual by genetics, by both the international experts and the department of genetics of Makerere University Medical School.
The letter states clearly that “While it is unlikely that there is one simple biological or genetic cause for homosexuality in all people, there are neural, cognitive and personality differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals which appear to have at least some basis in biology.”
Elsewhere in the letter, we were clear that choice plays no role in the onset of sexual attractions:
For the vast majority of people, homosexual and heterosexual, sexual attractions emerge spontaneously without any prior sexual experience, exposure or recruitment. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.
There was risk involved in writing the letter and engaging in this process. However, we felt it important to go on record in the manner we did. The signers of our letter are united in condemnation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and it is completely false to imply otherwise. After getting the Ugandan Ministry of Health report, President Museveni expressed his desire to pass the buck to others for his decision. However, the world is watching, and if Mr. Museveni signs that bill, history will record that he is responsible for that action.
Note to One News Now: The New Genetics Study Replicated Xq28
When I read the recent One News Now blurb attempting to attack the reports of the linkage study involving gay brothers, I thought of Inigo Montoya:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube]
Replication refers to finding the same or similar results in a research study. Peter LaBarbera says lack of replication is a problem for genetics studies of homosexuality. Inconvenient for LaBarbera is the fact that the new study, which he claims to know something about, replicates the finding of linkage at Xq28. While it is true that prior efforts have been mixed regarding Xq28, there has been prior support for the region and this study found linkage there. Thus, this study replicated prior studies, including the work of Dean Hamer.
I would be willing to bet Mr. LaBarbera has not read the study. If he had, he would know that he told ONN something opposite of the truth.
Association of Christian Counsellors (UK) Statement Prohibiting Reparative Therapy
Monday, the UK Guardian reported that the Association of Christian Counsellors* prohibited reparative therapy for their members. The statement backing up this action sounds very much like the sexual identity therapy framework. Here is the AAC statement in full:
An ACC statement to its members January 2014
In December 2012, ACC made a statement to its members supporting and clarifying our ethical framework. The Board has continued to discuss and reflect on the area specifically relating to work with clients who present with same sex attraction issues and is now updating our guidance to counsellors, supervisors and members.
For the purpose of clarity below is the first part of the original statement mentioned above:
“All counsellors are required with due diligence to provide safe practice on behalf of their clients. This requires the counsellor to practice fully within the Ethics and Practice framework they are using with each client. The client is to be aware of the Framework being used as essential information during contracting and guidance given as to which complaints procedure is in
operation.
The particular ethical considerations taken from the ACC Ethics and Practice are:
(From’ Ethics for Members of the Association of Christian Counsellors’ section)
5.1 “Members should be trustworthy…maintain confidentiality…”
5.2 “Members should respect their clients’ right to take decisions for and to act for themselves.”
5.3 “Members should be committed to securing the client’s best interests.”.
5.5. “Members should avoid any action which might cause harm to a client. One of the most important aspects in counselling is client autonomy.”
In addition ACC has now reflected on the following (from ‘ACC Good Practice in Christian Counselling and related fields’ section 5) and its application including how it relates to the Equality Act 2010:
Good Practice in Christian Counselling and related fields states 5.1.1.12. Members should not allow any personal views they may hold about lifestyle, gender, age, disability, race, sexual orientation, beliefs or culture to prejudice their professional relationships with clients. The Equality Act 2010 requires that discrimination does not occur on the following protected grounds: age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
As counsellors working in the UK, ACC members are expected to adhere to both ACC Code of Ethics and Good Practice and to UK Law, which means adhering to both of the statements made above. It is clear that in some instances the ‘protected grounds’’, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, of one individual may appear to be contrary to that of another (or indeed may be in conflict within an individual) i.e. the religious beliefs of a counsellor and the sexual orientation of a counsellee. In such instances ACC would expect our members to act without discrimination towards all and uphold the rights of the protected characteristics enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. In addition the essential characteristics of a therapeutic relationship are genuineness, congruence, unconditional positive regard, empathy and understanding (being non-judgmental, warm and empathic) thus providing a safe environment for the client to explore their feelings and concerns. It is clear that in protecting client autonomy it is important for counsellors not to impose themselves or their beliefs on anyone who comes for therapy, either by implying that a particular outcome is possible or expecting the client to come into alignment with their own belief system or understanding on certain approaches to life. Such actions would be unethical and so ACC would expect any member to consider the therapeutic model that they are using to be in-line with these principles and characteristics. ACC has therefore expanded on the original statement that reflects more clearly its view on therapy in relation to same sex attraction.
There are certain guiding principles arising from ACC Ethics and Practice framework. These guiding principles apply when deciding what is appropriate in practice or for any therapeutic model. Namely that …
a) Counsellors / therapists do not make assumptions that the client is looking for a particular outcome
b) Do not allow counsellors/ therapists to suggest, impose, advertise that therapy would achieve a particular outcome / change etc.
c) Counsellors / therapists do not make the achievement of a particular outcome (determined by the counsellor/therapist), be the measure by which success / failure of the therapy is determined
d) Counsellors / therapists do not impose a particular moral standpoint or belief system on the client.
We have considered Reparative (or Conversion) Therapy by these principles and have decided that it does not fit the above criteria for the following reasons:
(i) Its language implies that sexuality can be ‘repaired’ and so introduces the idea of treatment or cure.
(ii) Where it is proposed, advertised, or practiced as a therapy, it suggests that a specific outcome is possible and appears to make an a-priori assumption that it should happen. This would not fit any of the above guiding principles.
(iii) It is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.
For this reason, we do not endorse Reparative or Conversion Therapy or any model that implies a predetermined direction of outcome of counselling at the outset. We recognize that such models have the potential to impose situational demands on the client at a time of vulnerability with the potential to create harm and therefore view them as incompatible within the ethos of counselling.
Members who are considering using this model of therapy should neither commence nor continue to use it and any advertising or promotional material should be replaced immediately, or at least removed from current use. This includes the ACC “Find a counsellor” facility on our website.
We recognize that this is not the view of some of our members but in the interests of public safety we have decided to make clear what is expected by those who choose to be part of ACC.
*No relationship with American Association of Christian Counselors