anti-homosexuality bill 2009 – Page 17

Uganda Law Society Opposes the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

I received this statement earlier today. Obviously, Uganda’s lawyers have great reservations about the Bahati bill.

UGANDA LAW SOCIETY VIEWS ON

THE ANTI HOMOSEXUALITY BILL

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill proposed to Parliament in 2009 would, if enacted into law, in its current state violate international human rights law and lead to further human rights violations.

The bill has been received with mixed feelings of both praise and strong criticism with praise coming from the local populace and criticism from the international media, western governments, international and local gay rights, human rights, civil rights, and scientific organizations, world leaders, some Christian organizations including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church of Canada.

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) is an institution that defends and promotes constitutionalism, the rule of law and the human rights of every Ugandan citizen. The ULS therefore in the same spirit acknowledges and defends 100% the rights of all citizens including the small percentage of the population living as homosexuals.

Predicted outcomes of this bill

If passed, the bill would institutionalize discrimination against those who are, or thought to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. It would also reinforce the existing legislation against consensual sex between individuals of the same sex which legislation is itself contrary to international human rights norms. The bill would further purport to criminalise the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality, compel HIV testing in certain circumstances, impose life sentences for entering into a same-sex marriage, introduce the death penalty for ‘aggravated’ homosexuality, as well as punish those who fail to report knowledge of any violations of its provisions within 24 hours.

Generally, the bill would violate the principle of non-discrimination and would lead to violations of the human rights to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, liberty and security of the person, privacy, the highest standard of health, and to life. These rights are guaranteed under the Constitution of Uganda and in international and regional treaties to which Uganda is party, which include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter). Specifically under our Constitution the relevant provisions promoting protection and non-criminalization of minority activities as long as they are not contrary to the law are provided under –

Article 20(1) on inherent fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual; Article 21 on equality before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect as well as the enjoyment of equal protection of the law. Further, Article 24 requires that no person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Discrimination and punishment basing on one’s sexual orientation is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 29(1) (a), (b), (c), and (d) states every person shall have a right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of thought, conscience and belief, freedom to manifest such practicewhich shall include the right to belong to and participate in the practices of any organization, freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join other civic organizations. The bill criminalizes all forms of publications and expression concerned or related to gay rights.

Article 36 requires the protection of rights of minorities in decision-making processes, and their views and interests shall be taken into account in the making of national plans and programs – the gay and lesbian community is a minority in Uganda. And Article 45 saves other additional human rights and freedoms not specifically mentioned in the preceding articles and these rights include gay rights.

All these provisions when interpreted are to the effect that individual rights and freedoms should be respected as long as those rights don’t affect the enjoyment of other people’s rights.

The ULS is not in any way promoting homosexuality in Uganda but calling for the observance and protection of the rights of homosexuals as human beings, a minority group and as citizens of Uganda. We reckon that the spirit of the bill is for noble and moral intentions such as to protect the traditional family, children, youth and cherished cultural values among others. It should however be alive to the fact that we live in a multi–lateral society comprised of various rights, interests and freedoms and should either be tolerated, restricted but not criminalized or banished.

FOR GOD AND MY COUNTRY

James Mukasa Sebugenyi

PRESIDENT – UGANDA LAW SOCIETY

Email: [email protected]

Daily Monitor: GLBT conference raided by Uganda’s Ethics Minister

From Uganda’s Daily Monitor earlier today:

There was drama at Imperial Resort Beach Hotel in Entebbe today when State Minister for Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo broke up a secret gay rights activists conference.

The two week conference organised by Freedom and Roam Uganda, an association that lobbies for the recognition of same sex relationships in Uganda ended prematurely when the minister ordered them to disperse.

“I have closed this conference because it’s illegal. We do not accept homosexuality in Uganda. So go back home,” Minister Lokodo told the participants.

If the authorities can raid a conference before it becomes against the law to have a conference, then what will happen if the Anti-Homosexuality Bill becomes law?

Apparently, the authorities attempted to arrest the leader of the conference.

Committee Chair: No Plans Set for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Stephen Tashobya, chair of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of the Ugandan Parliament, told me yesterday that he had not scheduled consideration for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Asked if his committee would write a new report, or stick with the report issued during the last Parliament, Tashobya declined to say. “The committee will have a say on that and we will meet soon to decide how to proceed with all of the bills returned to the committee,” Tashobya explained.

When asked if he planned to have the anti-gay bill back to the floor of the Parliament within the required 45 day period, Tashobya expressed some reservations that he could guarantee that time table. He noted, “We have many bills which have a high priority, such as the Marriage and Divorce bill and other bills on commerce.”

Parliament rules require bills sent to committee to be acted on and returned for consideration within 45 days. Last year, Speaker Rebecca Kadaga warned committee chairs that they could face unspecified sanctions if this rule was not kept.

According to Parliament’s rules (see below), Tashobya could ask Parliament for more time if the committee has not prepared the necessary report within 45 days. At that point, Parliament could grant or decline the request. If the request is declined, Parliament could act on the bill at that point. If an extension is granted, the bill will be considered at the end of that period whether or not the committee’s work is complete.

When asked if he had been pressured by the Executive branch to go slow on the anti-gay bill, Tashobya said he was unable to comment.

Tashobya, who was not at Parliament the day the bill was tabled, said he is aware that the bill has wide support among the MPs.

From Uganda’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedures

125. Delays with Bills

(1) Subject to the Constitution, no Bill introduced in the House shall be with the Committee for consideration for more than forty-five days.

(2) If a Committee finds itself unable to complete consideration of any Bill referred to it in sub-rule (1), the Committee may seek extra time from Parliament.

(3) Where extra time is not granted or upon expiry of the extra time granted under subrule (2), the House shall proceed to deal with the Bill without any further delay.

What’s Next for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

Click here for the current official text of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

This morning AFP news service has an article that correctly reports the story about the bill, amendments and the process involved.

Parliament officials said Thursday that the bill — which US President Barack Obama has described as “odious” — had been reintroduced in its original format, which included the death penalty clause.

Bahati continues to say he will recommend the removal of the death sentence for aggravated homosexuality.

A Ugandan lawmaker behind a proposed draconian anti-gay bill that sparked an international outcry said Friday he wanted to drop clauses that would see the death penalty introduced for certain homosexual acts.

“There will be no death penalty at all…that will go,” David Bahati, the legislator who formulated the bill, told AFP.

As expected, Bahati will recommend the removal of the requirement to report known gay people. However, he wants to zero in on “promotion.”

Bahati said the bill was now focused on stopping the promotion of gay rights, and retains a proposal to criminalise public discussion of homosexuality with a heavy prison sentence.

Here is the section in the existing bill on promotion of homosexuality:

The way this is worded, landlords will not be able to rent to gays, most public establishments will be reluctant to serve more than one gay person at a time, if at all. Gay people using cell phones or the internet (bloggers, emailing, etc.) will be in jeopardy. The potential for use of police power to snoop on private citizens is heightened and the potential to use this law to accuse enemies of promoting homosexuality seems clear. While this seems to be intended to put GLB rights groups out of business, the reach goes far beyond those groups.

Although the reporting requirement has been dropped, I don’t think health care professionals are in the clear. If they give advice to a GLBT person that affirms them, then I believe the way this aspect of the bill is worded, then they might violate the very broad language here.

This clearly violates freedom of conscience for those who are gay and those who are not. If a religious leader is convinced that GLBT persons should be treated with respect and dignity, then they could be viewed as engaging in promotion.

I hope the watching world is not thrown off by the possible removal of the death sentence. This effort remains sinister and has the effect of violation of freedom of conscience and other basic human rights.

Current Official Text of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009

This morning Helen Kawesa, Public Relations Manager for the Uganda Parliament provided this copy of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill which was introduced on Tuesday. As you will see, it is the same bill as was printed in Uganda Gazette on September 25, 2009 and then first tabled on October 14, 2009. Click the screen capture to go to the Gazette copy.

To date, the bill has not been amended and this is the version re-introduced on February 7, 2012.

This morning AFP news service has an article that correctly reports the story about the bill, amendments and the process involved.

Parliament officials said Thursday that the bill — which US President Barack Obama has described as “odious” — had been reintroduced in its original format, which included the death penalty clause.

Bahati continues to say he will recommend the removal of the death sentence for aggravated homosexuality.

A Ugandan lawmaker behind a proposed draconian anti-gay bill that sparked an international outcry said Friday he wanted to drop clauses that would see the death penalty introduced for certain homosexual acts.

“There will be no death penalty at all…that will go,” David Bahati, the legislator who formulated the bill, told AFP.

However, it remains to be seen whether or not the Parliament will alter the bill in the way Bahati now proposes. Two sources within Parliament have informed me that the MPs will be inclined to agree with recommendations made by Bahati and the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee. If he can be believed, Bahati’s strategy seems to have shifted to making it dangerous for GLBT people communicate or gather. More on this in the next post…