Category: reparative therapy

Parliament Spokeswoman: Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill Has Passed (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Parliament issued a statement regarding the Anti-Homosexuality Bill which is provided in full at the end of this post.
……..
Helen Kawesa, spokeswoman for Uganda’s Parliament, told me this morning that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was affirmed by the lawmakers in Kampala during today’s session. “Yes, it has been passed,” she said, speaking about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
The bill is not on the agenda posted on Parliament’s website, but Kawesa said it was on the paper she had.
The Parliament passed the Anti-Pornography Bill yesterday. However, according to Kawesa, the bill passed today is the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. Kawesa indicated that she would send a copy of the revised AHB via email.
The parliament has come close to considering the bill several times since 2009. See this link for my prior coverage of the bill.
Developing, watch for updates.
UPDATE: The BBC is now reporting the same thing. So is Uganda’s Monitor. No comment as yet from the country’s president Yowari Museveni. Museveni had indicated in the past that he did not favor the bill. However, Museveni can only delay the bill; he cannot stop it under Uganda’s constitution.
According to the BBC, the prime minister opposed the action on procedural grounds saying there was not a quorum.
Ugandan civil rights leader Frank Mugisha issued this statement to me this morning:

I am outraged and disappointed that our MPs [members of Parliament]  have expressed ignorance and passed the bill; but we shall challenge it in all avenues. It won’t be law.

A protest is planned today in London at the Uganda House.
This report of the Legal and Parliamentary committee contains alterations in the original bill which may be in the bill passed earlier today. The full text of the original bill can be viewed here.
Ugandan minister Martin Ssempa is glowing this morning after the passage of his pet project. Remember when he tweeted his friend Matt Barber that I was the “chief of falsified news?”


UPDATE: Uganda’s New Vision is reporting that the Parliament rejected a call to reduce sentences for homosexual behavior to 14 years, instead making the penalty life in prison. Uganda’s prime minister Amama Mbabazi told the New Vision that “consultations” would be held among executive members of the government. The copy of the bill in the NV article is the original version, and may not represent what was passed earlier today.
I spoke again to Parliament spokeswoman Helen Kawesa who said the position of the speaker is that there was a quorum when the bill was passed.  Kawesa also indicated that government was aware of the plans to address the anti-gay bill.
Here is the minority report which was not incorporated by Parliament. Although I have yet to see the bill language, Uganda’s Parliament Watch is reporting that the death penalty was removed with life in prison replacing it.
Parliament’s statement:

Parliament has finally passed the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Bill, criminalizing, outlawing and providing harsh jail terms for same sex relationships in the country.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009, a Private Members’ Bill, was first presented to Parliament by Hon. David Bahati (NRM, Ndorwa West) in October 2009. It was one of the pending bills not considered at the end of the 8th Parliament, but saved and re-introduced for consideration by the 9th Parliament.
The Bill was then referred to the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, which received submissions from among others the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda Law Reform Commission, Uganda Human Rights Commission, Uganda Prisons Service, Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda.
Hon. Benson Obua Ogwal (UPC, Moroto), was excited as he moved the Bill for its Second Reading.
“Ugandans have been anxiously waiting for this Bill. This day will be good day for all Ugandans,” he said.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009 seeks to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places through or with the support of any government entity in Uganda or any other non governmental organization inside or outside the country.
The Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs said in its Report, “The Bill aims at strengthening the nation’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family.”
The Committee also said that there is need to protect the children and youth of Uganda who are vulnerable to sexual abuse and deviations as a result of cultural changes, uncensored information technologies, parentless child development settings and increasing attempts by homosexuals to raise children in homosexual relationships through adoption and foster care.
The Anti Homosexuality Bill provides a fourteen year jail term for one convicted for the offence of homosexuality; and imprisonment for life for the offence of aggravated homosexuality.
However, two Independent Hon. Sam Otada (Kibanda) and Fox Odoi (West Budama North) differed from their colleagues on the Committee arguing that the Bill is discriminatory and that homosexuality was already prohibited in other existing laws.
“What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom should not be the business of this Parliament. It is not right to have the state allowed in the bedrooms of people,” they stated in their Minority Report.
The Prime Minister and Leader of Government Business, Rt. Hon. Amama Mbabazi, who also sought to defer the consideration of the Bill, argued that government was involved in negotiations over the proposed legislation.
“I was not aware that this Bill was coming up for debate. There are some issues on which we are still consulting,” he said adding, “This is an important Bill that we need to pass with a quorum in Parliament.”
The Bill, having been passed by Parliament, will be forwarded to the President for his assent before it can become law in Uganda.

Advocacy efforts against the bill should now be directed toward president Yowari Museveni.

PFOX Plays The Victim; Wants To Fix One Problem By Causing Another

Today, the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays dropped a news release criticizing Virginia’s public universities for failing to distribute their literature to students. In the release, PFOX claims discrimination based on religion and ex-gayness is what motivates the lack of ex-gay literature.
While I don’t doubt that some of those counseling center staffers have problems with conservative religion, I submit that they are correct in their decision not to provide PFOX literature to students.  Much of what PFOX and related groups (e.g., International Healing Foundation, Voice of the Voiceless) promote is scientifically questionable and should be avoided for that reason alone.
The irony is that the group who conducted the undercover investigation accuse the university centers of suppressing accurate information when it is the ex-gay groups which (also?) do this. They know there is no peer reviewed research on therapeutic change that supports them. They also know that at least one of their therapeutic methods (i.e., cartharsis) has been evaluated via research and found to be harmful in some instances. They also know that their narrative regarding homosexuality (i.e., failures in the parent-child relationship) is scientifically dubious and yet they continue to promote this view as if it is supported by research and experience.
It may be that the counseling center directors favor gay affirming religion over non-affirming religion. If so, this would be problematic if the centers are publicly funded. However, any such finding of fact would not be reason to hand out erroneous literature to students. If there are non-affirming groups on campus or in the community (e.g., Andrew Marin’s groups or some other religious group which does not promote debunked theories and methods) then information about those groups should be made available to religious students. Therapeutically neutral approaches should be taught to center counselors to help them avoid establishing an approved religious stance on the subject in a public university. However, PFOX and Voice of the Voiceless should not be allowed to use religious discrimination as a basis to promote their problematic materials.

BBC's Stephen Fry Interviews Joseph Nicolosi

Stephen Fry of the BBC interviews Jospeh Nicolosi and a former patient (Dan Gonzales).
Nicolosi: “We resolve the conflicts behind the homosexual attractions, that’s what we do.”
Nicolosi covers familiar ground in that he claims homosexuality is the result of psychological trauma with the parents, particularly the father.
He still insists without any evidence that one-third are not cured, one-third gets some improvement and one-third experience significant change.
Sixty percent of his clients are teens.
Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.
Metrosexual?

NARTH Complains About Lack of Research in Statement on Reorientation Therapy Court Cases

After the 9th Circuit court upheld CA’s law banning reorientation therapy for minors, NARTH issued a statement in response. For context, I reproduce the entire statement with comments to follow:

NARTH finds today’s ruling by the court to be disappointing and plans to appeal this decision. If left standing, this ruling will constitute a serious intrusion by government on the freedom of minors and their families to choose their desired form of psychological care.
At a time when adolescents who experience themselves as being the wrong biological sex are allowed to pursue sexual reassignment surgery, licensed therapists who are willing to assist youth with unwanted same-sex attraction and behaviors will be prohibited from even talking to minors in a manner that could be construed as promoting the pursuit of change. 
Politicians and non-elected judges have seen fit to approve of such encroachments on personal and professional freedoms in spite of the fact that the American Psychological Association admits the exact causes of same-sex attractions are not known, virtually no research exists directly addressing the modification of same-sex behaviors and attractions with minors, and the prevalence of harm from such change efforts is unknown and has therefore not been established as being any greater than the rates of harm documented for psychotherapy in general.  Furthermore, much research has documented that fluidity in sexual attractions and identity often occurs naturally and is particularly pronounced in adolescence and early adulthood, which suggests the viability of therapeutic change efforts for some youth.
These facts make it clear that science is not at the forefront of this effort to restrict freedoms.  If that were the case, gaps in our knowledge of this area would be addressed through a bipartisan program of research, not by the heavy hand of government squelching professional practice in order to appease powerful interests of activists within professional associations and lobbying groups.  NARTH sincerely hopes that these crucial facts will be considered by a more receptive judicial audience in the future.

Strong point of the statement: They are correct that more research is needed on minors who are in conflict over their attractions to the same sex.
Given the concerns over safety and effectiveness, it seems reasonable to take seriously adult reports about when they were minors. In one sense, retrospective (but still inadequate) research has been done by asking adults about their experiences while teens.
Weak point of the statement: Spontaneous developmental change in attractions does not “suggest the viability of therapeutic change efforts for some youth.”
Being situationally or temporarily attracted to the same sex is not the same experience as exclusive attraction to the same sex throughout adolescence.  The CA law allows therapists to discuss sexual orientation issues and engage in self-discovery. However, when a youth declares a gay orientation, a therapist is not allowed to engage in therapeutic techniques designed to change orientation.
Weakest point of the statement: The hypocrisy of NARTH whining about research.
Opponents of reorientation therapy are reacting to many stories of youth and young adults who felt harmed by being dragged to the conversion therapist and asked to do something they couldn’t do. There are some studies that link parental lack of acceptance (one manifestation of which is forced attendance at conversion therapy sessions) with mental health adjustment in GLBT youth. Surely those studies are relevant and are unanswered by NARTH.
It is just as accurate to say “science is not at the forefront” of NARTH’s effort to maintain access to conversion therapy.  “If that were the case (science at the forefront), gaps in our knowledge of this area would be addressed through” a program of research led by NARTH. However, this has never been the case. Despite numerous calls for such research from various sources, NARTH has done just one survey of adults since the organization was founded in 1992.
The lack of research complaint is a dodge. While I haven’t been on the inside for quite awhile, I was at one point. I actually did some research on the subject and attempted to address concerns of both sides. I did it on my own dime and worked to get it published. However, where has NARTH been? It is my settled opinion that the defense of conversion therapy is not based on science because if it was, there would be some NARTH-generated science to talk about.
Perhaps those who defend NARTH should ask why NARTH has not tested it’s claims. And perhaps NARTH should stop talking about science until it has some to talk about. If NARTH’s leaders were serious about research, they would channel all of their funds and efforts into a large multi-year study of their efforts designed by legitimate scholars instead of legal fees.

Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Upheld in California

In an opinion handed down today, the 9th Circuit Court upheld California’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
The staff summary of the opinion begins:

Reversing an order granting preliminary injunctive relief in Welch v. Brown, 13-15023, and affirming the denial of preliminary injunctive relief in Pickup v. Brown, 12-17681, the panel held that California Senate Bill 1172, which bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in “sexual orientation change efforts” with patients under 18 years of age, does not violate the free speech rights of practitioners or minor patients, is neither vague nor overbroad, and does not violate parents’ fundamental rights.

Here is the full text of the decision.
Note: I edited this post to reflect the fact that the quote above is from the staff summary of the opinion and not the actual opinion. The meaning is the same.