Religion and sexuality – Page 111

A view inside Martin Ssempa’s anti-gay campaign

Since October of last year, Uganda has been the focus of international attention due to a proposal in their Parliament which would ban homosexual behavior of any kind via the death penalty for HIV people who engage in homosexual behavior and life in prison for others who attempt such behavior. One of the chief supporters of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been Martin Ssempa, a pastor in Uganda’s capital city of Kampala and well-known among Western evangelicals. Rev. Ssempa this week has called for a “million man march” which he hopes will bring large crowds out to support the harsh legislation. In addition, Ssempa has organized several news conferences in order to rally support among Ugandans for the bill. On such conference was reported in Uganda’s Daily Monitor. Reporter Rodney Muhumuza described the scene.

Pastor Martin Ssempa on Tuesday plumbed the depths of notoriety when he offered graphic images of gay sex as proof of the need for tough penalties against homosexuals.

The images were disturbing enough that an American college group visiting in Kampala, left in the middle of his presentation.

But midway through his presentation, saved on a computer, most of his audience walked out, some visibly disturbed, leaving him to wonder if he had done anything wrong. The cleric seemed genuinely rattled when he asked: “Why should I be traumatised?”

One man, who was part of a group of American students invited to the press conference by Rubaga North MP Beti Kamya, was seen crying, his colleagues consoling him as the group left the National Theatre.

The college group was from Pacific Lutheran University studying in Kampala. One student, Kelsey Hartsell, was in the presentation and gave me a brief description of the slide show.

Pastor Ssempa also crossed a line when he decided to display pornographic pictures of two white men from about the 70’s doing what he considered to be dangerous acts in the bedroom as to why homosexuality is dangerous.

In other presentations like this, Ssempa has shown pornographic images of men engaged in various sadomasochistic activities, while alleging that all gays do the activities depicted. He also accused gays of raping boys in order to turn them into homosexuals. Ms. Hartsell continued:

Pastor Ssempa’s main argument was that homosexual cults were kidnapping children and raping them and drugging them to brainwash them and turn them gay. He also used the words sodomy and rape as if they were equal. He accused same sex boarding schools and promoting homosexuality. As far as I know the cults have never been found or proven to exist.

I have asked Hon. Bahati and Pastor Ssempa for evidence of these allegations but nothing has materialized. Even if they were true, the gay advocacy groups agree with all others everywhere that any such cults or activities should be aggressively prosecuted. Ssempa’s rhetoric had a very negative effect on Ms. Hartsell and her classmates. She said,

I can’t speak for everyone, except that everyone was upset and for all different reasons. Regardless of my position on homosexuality and/or the [Anti-Homosexuality] bill I can tell you what upset me was that ‘Pastor’ Ssempa was preaching against people encouraging hate and intolerance. He shamed himself as a pastor by disregarding what he thought of as sin as an action, and turned the people doing what he calls the sin into something less than human. From where I stand a pastor should be teaching forgiveness because no person as the right to judge another so even if he disagreed with their actions that doesn’t disqualify them from humanity.

Rev. Ssempa did not reply to my inquiries about the news conference. When the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was first introduced, he told me,

I am in total support of the bill and would be most grateful if it did pass.

It is very clear that Pastor Ssempa endorses the harsh tenets of Ugandan proposal. What is not clear is how it furthers the Gospel for ministers to demonize homosexuals. Such stereotypes are rarely ever correct, and are harmful because they hinder an engagement of others as humans bearing the image of God. To at least one American student, Pastor Ssempa’s campaign backfired.

Here is another eyewitness account from a student on the PLU trip.

And another…

Now he has taken his show and tell program to church.

Ssempa’s “million man march” halted – UPDATED

UPDATE: A “hundreds person march” was held in Jinza. Video is at the end of the post and the Daily Monitor has an article about it.

It may be temporary but the Uganda version of the “million man march” on Kampala may be off. The Daily Monitor reports:

On Sunday, Police moved to halt a planned demonstration in support of the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Bill saying that the government is still sorting ‘issues out’ as pro-gay activists under the Unitarian Universalist Church of Kampala secretly met to condemn the same bill.

“It is true Gen. Kayihura sent us a text message that he hasn’t cleared the demonstration. He said we should meet him on Tuesday to forge a way forward,” Pastor Ssempa said.

Pastor Martin Ssempa, one of the organisers of the demonstration confirmed that the Inspector of Police Major General Kale kayihura had contacted them and proposed a meeting on Tuesday before the Wednesday demo.

Meanwhile a Tulsa, OK MCC pastor was in Kampala to support those targeted by the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

The Unitarian Universalist Church of Kampala, one of the few religious organizations in Uganda that is supporting the gay community held a conference on Sunday to ‘highlight the need for an end to discriminatory treatment of the gay population in uganda.

According their website, Reverend Marlin Lavanhar, President of Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry and senior minister at All Souls Unitarian Church, arrived in Uganda on Thursday last week to launch a campaign against the Bill.

Be careful, pastor, you might get an advanced taste of the AHB:

However, Gen. Kayihura said he was not aware of the meeting and vowed to arrest them. “I am not aware of this meeting. But if we get them, we shall arrest them,” he said.

UPDATED: He moved it to Jinja, another large city about 100 km from Kampala.

Christianity Today stands somewhere on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

In a “Where We Stand” editorial, Christianity Today urged readers to “Listen, then Speak.”

Overall, I am disappointed and puzzled by the editorial. The closest the writer gets to telling us where CT stands is near the end of the article:

We join many other American voices in our concern over the way the proposed legislation can hamper ministry and harm children of God. But we are also grateful for the African voices who are calling us to pay attention to how Western society may be undermining our own zeal for preserving God’s gift of sexuality.

I am unclear how the Ugandans are calling us to see sexuality God’s way when they swallow the camel of polygamy and strain at the gnat of homosexuality. Perhaps this way of ending the article seemed balanced to the writer; give a little here, take a little there, but I am unclear what the writer thinks we can learn from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

To get to the conclusion, the article meanders through some thoughts on cultural relativism, pointing out some conflicting possible reactions from Western Christians.

Now Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill has put Western Christian leaders in a bind:

(1) The leaders’ commitment to human rights (based on the Golden Rule and the image of God) leads them to oppose harsh penalties for consensual adult homosexual activity; (2) their belief in the traditional family leads them to support Ugandan Christian resistance to sexual liberation movements imported from the United States and Europe; (3) their belief that churches need to minister to homosexuals leads them to oppose legal penalties for those who don’t report homosexual activity; (4) their belief that the fight against HIV/AIDS requires confidential testing leads them to oppose laws that could expose HIV-positive people to harsh penalties; (5) their belief in the ability of African churches to make mature decisions prompts them to remain silent on legislation that African churches are still pondering; (6) their commitment to ongoing engagement in missions and social service with African churches makes them extremely cautious to interfere in general.

I suspect these possible reactions do seem confusing for many evangelicals. However, it is clearly possible to respect the Ugandan’s right of self-determination while at the same time, disagreeing with the proposal before their Parliament. I also take issue with what is listed as the first possible response and would say it this way:

The leaders’ commitment to human rights (based on the Golden Rule and the image of God) leads them to oppose harsh any penalties for consensual adult homosexual activity.

Responding to the Ugandan bill, I believe Rick Warren had it absolutely correct when he wrote about criminalization of homosexuality:

I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God. Since God gives us that freedom, we must protect it for all, even when we disagree with their choices.

We know where Rick Warren stands. Where does CT stand on criminalization? To me, it is not clear.

The editorial continues:

For American Christian leaders, both silence and open condemnation end up violating important missional and human-rights principles. There is no escaping this dilemma, but several points are worth reflection.

What missional and human rights principles? I don’t think it is difficult to say that the sentence of a life time in jail for touching “another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality” is wrong. What missional or human rights’s principles are violated by saying what Rick Warren said to his Ugandan brothers and sisters?

Then adding insult to injury, the CT writer uncritically invokes Scott Lively’s reckless charge of racism toward those who found fault with the Americans who spoke at the March anti-gay conference in Kampala.

First, when American media reported on the proposed legislation, they assumed an inordinate amount of American influence. Media outlets tried to “expose” the power of American evangelicals who had spoken about gay issues in Uganda. Such assumptions were racist, said Scott Lively, one of the speakers. If anything, Ugandan legislators did not follow his advice: He had urged them to favor rehabilitation rather than imprisonment in crafting a new law on homosexuality.

If I understand CT here, I think this is more a criticism of the reporting by American media than a vindication of the March, 2009 ex-gay conference in Uganda. However, as presented, that distinction is vague. One could interpret this paragraph as agreement with Scott Lively’s charge of racism, obfuscating the Americans’ responsibility for what was presented at the conference. This, of course, is offensive and fails to confront the substance of Scott Lively’s remarks to the 10,000 or so people he claims to have addressed. Yes, Lively advised rehabilitation (as if that is an enlightened option) in the context of continued criminalization, but in no particular order, he also said that

Nazi atrocities were animated by homosexuality,
amoral homosexuals were probably responsible for the Rwandan holocaust, and
homosexuals prey on vulnerable children.

Hearing this, it is not a surprise that the Ugandans did not heed his call for rehabilitation. Nor is it a surprise that Christians are horrified that such slander was presented in the name of Christ.

CT’s advice is much less specific:

We counsel patience as Ugandan leaders sort out among themselves the best way to preserve their culture’s sexual mores. We also caution them against punitive strategies, as we believe that capital punishment for homosexual behavior goes well beyond the limit.

The reference to capital punishment is pretty safe since even proponents of the bill suggested the removal of the death penalty in December, 2009. However, is life in prison a “punitive strategy?” What is the limit? I think it is, but from this article, I cannot tell where CT stands.

I know where I stand.

Bahati says law is silent about defilement of boys; 2007 law says otherwise

There seems to be confusion among Uganda parliamentarians about what their law says regarding defilement of children.

Speaking about the perceived need for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, David Bahati is quoted in the Independent as saying the following:

Trying to justify the necessity of passing the bill into law he added, “In the Defilement Act 2009, the law says that if someone (man) defiles a minor (girl child), the maximum punishment is death, but if a man defiles a boy, the law is silent about it.”

I can find no mention of a “Defilement Act 2009” on the website of the Ugandan Parliament or in any news reports. However, note this 2007 report of a bill passed in Uganda which covers boys and girls.

KAMPALA, 19 April 2007 (PlusNews) – According to a new law passed by Uganda’s parliament on Wednesday, an HIV-positive person who wilfully infects a minor through sexual intercourse will face the death penalty.

According to the new Penal Code Amendment Bill, an individual who is aware of their HIV-positive status and has sex with a child under the age of 14, with or without their consent, is guilty of “aggravated defilement” and, on conviction in the High Court, “liable to suffer death”. The crime of defilement is defined as sex with a person under the age of 14.

Parliament unanimously passed the bill, first tabled in August 2006, but parliamentary spokeswoman Helen Kawesa said it needed presidential assent to become law, which usually takes about 30 days.

The proposed legislation seeks to amend the existing penal code, which has been criticised for being too lenient with HIV-positive people who rape children. Capital punishment has been the penalty for anyone found guilty of rape or defilement since 1996, but has never been implemented.

This article seems to be referring to the passage of the same law referred to here in these April 18 minutes of the Ugandan Parliament.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, JUSTICE (Mr Fred Ruhindi): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill entitled the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 2007 be read for the third time and do pass.

(Question put and agreed to.)

A Bill for an Act entitled “The Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 2007”

There is a lengthy discussion of the bill which references a Parliament committee report making clear that the bill refers to both boys and girls.

2. Defilement:

a) The proposed amendment on section 129 defines a sexual act to involve the offence on either a male and a female child. The offence of defilement is a felony and an offence punishable by life imprisonment and therefore triable and bailable by Chief Magistrate.

The amendment intends to punish persons for sexual acts committed against all children – both male and female.

Indeed, as far as I can tell from the Parliament’s minutes, the amendments remained intact and the law covers both male and female children.

To those in the know in Uganda: Which is it? We have been hearing for months from proponents of the bill that the boy child was not covered but this law passed by Parliament appears to include both males and females. The 2007 law is on the books and should be quite sufficient, if I read it corrently, to cover any defilement of minors.

UPDATE: In this document published by the Refugee Law Project, I located the text of the Penal Code Amendment Act.

THE PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2006 (2007)

An Act to amend the Penal Code Act

BE IT ENACTED by Parliament as follows:

1. Abolition of corporal punishment

(1) Corporal punishment is abolished and accordingly, all references to corporal punishment in the Penal Code Act in this Act referred to as the principal Act, are repealed.

(2) Without prejudice to the general effect of subsection (1) of this section, Section 125, subsection (2) of section 129 and section 205 of the Penal Code Act, are amended by the repeal of the words “with or without corporal punishment”.

2. Section 129 of the Penal Code Act replaced

The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 129 the following new sections—

“Defilement of persons under eighteen years of age

129. (1) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.

(2) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years.

(3) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.

(4) The circumstances referred to in subsection (3) are as follows—

(a) where the person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of fourteen years;

(b) where the offender to his or her knowledge, is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS);

(c) where the offender is a parent or guardian of or a person in authority over, the person against whom the offence is committed; or

(d) where the offender is a serial offender.

(5) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4), commits an offence and is liable on conviction, to imprisonment for life.

(6) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—

“serial offender” means a person who has a previous conviction for the offence of defilement or aggravated defilement;

“sexual act” means penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus, however slight, of any person by a sexual organ or the use of any object or organ by a person on another person’s sexual organ

“sexual organ” includes a vagina or penis.

Makerere University Law School Dean, Sylvia Tamale, refers to these amendments in this analysis of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Sexual crimes against children are already criminalised under Ugandan law. Section 129 of the Ugandan penal code provides that ‘any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of 18 years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.’24 This section also provides for the offence of ‘aggravated defilement’ punishable by death.[25]

Existing provisions on ‘defilement’ and ‘aggravated defilement’ under the penal code do not differentiate between same-sex and heterosexual sexual abuse. Hence it is not clear what the proposed offence of ‘aggravated homosexuality’ under the Anti-Homosexuality bill aims to achieve.

Not clear, indeed. When David Bahati and Martin Ssempa says that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill aims to extend existing protections to the “boy child,” I can only assume that they are unaware of the Penal Code Amendment Act of 2007. The stated reason for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill disappears when one examines the current law.

Jan Mickelson Show WHO on at 11:00am

I will be on the Jan Mickelson Show WHO Des Moines at 11:00am (est). We will be discussing Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. You can listen live here. If that doesn’t work, go to Mickelson’s website and click the Listen Live link.