Scott Lively goes on offense

Perhaps in preparation for the upcoming Current TV documentary on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Scott Lively is going on offense. In a May 22nd email to supporters, Lively wrote:



I’m looking for a good Christian media source to interview me on film on the Uganda issue for posting online.  I intend to get off defense and counter-attack the false witnesses with hard facts about Uganda and the dishonest way the media has addressed the story.  Please forward this to any pro-family journalists you know and ask them to contact me at [email protected].

In the mean time, I have created a new category of news stories at under the title “Uganda.”  There are about 20 stories there now, going back to about 2003 which show the growing problem of pro-homosexual activism in that country, long before my 2009 seminar which is now being blamed for creating a climate of “homophobia” in Uganda. There are also numerous examples of liberal media propaganda about the anti-homosexuality bill.

If you happen to hear someone criticize me based on the intense, global anti-Scott Lively character assassination by these media, please refer them to our website, both to read the material there, but also to download Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda which was the source of all of my comments and teaching in Uganda.

Thanks for standing with me through the firestorm,

Dr. Scott Lively

As he notes on his website, there are several articles going back to 2003 (although some of the links are broken), including a letter addressed to the Parliament of Uganda back in March. The letter is long but the highlights are that he favors targeted criminalization but with the aim being rehabilitation rather than prison. He indicates in this letter that he knew the Parliament was considering new legislation at the time (March, 2009). He also frames his views as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” public policy:

I believe you could easily adapt this model to your purposes by imposing this same reporting requirement on anyone with knowledge of homosexuals who involve themselves with anyone under a certain age. If, for example, you encompassed all youths under the age of twenty-five within this shield of protection, you would stop virtually all “gay” recruitment in your country, since normal young men and women are usually firmly set in their heterosexual identity by their mid-twenties. On the other hand, you would preserve the right to privacy of adults who are not activists or pederasts but simply want to live their lives in relative peace. This would function much like the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the United States military. Adult homosexuals would remain subject to the law, but not actively pursued if they are discrete about their lifestyle.

Lively professes opposition to the death penalty but the reasons sound pragmatic rather than principled.

First and foremost, the inclusion of capital punishment for what you have classed as “aggravated homosexuality” is, in my view, a disproportionately harsh penalty. You may not be aware that capital punishment has been banned in numerous countries, even for the most extreme cases of aggravated murder. This is held as such an important policy that these nations will often refuse to extradite criminals to their home countries (including the United States) if there is any possibility that they will be subject to capital punishment there. Advocating the “death penalty” for “mere” sexual crimes evokes such a severe negative reaction in most Western nations that all other aspects of the law, and the rationale for drafting it is ignored, and very “gay” movement we seek to oppose is strengthened by public sympathy they would not otherwise enjoy.

Conversely, if the “death penalty” provision were removed, it would take the wind out of the sails of their current campaign against the bill. With so much of the international opposition rooted in the idea that this is a “Kill the Gays” law, the removal of this provision would represent enough of a concession on your part that a great many of the people who are now siding with the homosexual movement out of sympathy would consider the matter resolved. The “gay” activists and their political allies will, of course, continue to attack the bill, but from a much weaker position.

You can read the whole thing and form your own conclusions, but according to the response provided, the bill supporters did not want to make any changes. Note the players involved in getting the letter to Parliament and then the response to Lively. Martin Ssempa received Lively’s letter and forwarded it to Parliament. Then, the responder was Charles Tuhaise, who has emerged as a major supporter of the bill. Here is the reply:

My letter was forwarded to Members of Parliament by Dr. Martin Ssempa. This was the reply.

March 10, 2010

Dr. Ssempa,

Thanks for sending Dr. Lively’s Letter. His proposals can be considered as we make our revisions, but, while I appreciate the need to have people like Lively campaign for the Bill and the law when passed, there are obvious dangers in trying to equalise the policy and law on homosexuality between USA and Uganda. The two countries are dealing with totally different situations. The time when USA should have enacted a preventive law like we are contemplating passed a long time ago and they are faced with a huge and financially and politically powerful gay population recruited into homosexuality because no one foresaw the need for a preventive law in time (probably in the 1940s). If such comprehensive law (not merely about sodomy) had been in place, people like Alfred Kinsey would not have done so much damage by opening the door wide for homosexuality.

The situation in Uganda today is different because homosexuality is still a budding problem. We either nip it in the bud now with a strong, preventive law or give it a foothold to grow from.

The danger I see in Dr. Lively’s suggestions is in proposing to

normalise homosexual practice for adults (whatever age they may be). That is the Western approach generally which has failed miserably, because what is held as normal practice by adults will be adopted by children and youth automatically. It’s just a matter of time before the whole culture is swamped in homosexual practice. That’s how pornography broke barriers in Western society and became insidious. It’s like the proverbial “Camel and herdsman story”. Today it is a foot in the hut, tomorrow it is a leg in the hut, next day its the head in the hut; before long, the herdsman is tossed out of the hut.

I agree with Dr. Lively that the Death Penalty can be removed, but it must be replaced by equally strong and detterent penalties. The purpose of penalties is to detter people from behaviour with far-reaching consequences. What the Bill needs, to me, is solid research into the consequences of homosexuality. Its huge health-risks and social, cultural and economic disruption need to be documented and not merely talk about defending our “religious and cultural practices”. In countries or territories with legalised homosexuality, parents and religious bodies have lost the right to teach against homosexuality; a property owner will not refuse to rent a house or hotel room to a homosexual couple based on belief, conscience or fear of influence on neighbouhood children; teachers must teach that homosexuality is normal lyfestyle or lose their licences; children in Kindergarten are introduced to homosexual books and other indoctrination e.t.c. All these are reasons we must do everything to stop and prevent homosexual practice.

Ultimately, I see no way out in taking a stand and paying the price. We cannot adopt an innefective policy against homosexuality just to prevent loss of donor funds. Our friends in the West must stand with Uganda as we take a serious stand against homosexual infiltration. What we need is more nations to stand up and do the same. There will be no place for lukewarmness, the way I see this situation. It’s time for nations to stand up for what is right and pay the price. The more nations do this, the more the tide will turn against the homosexual movement. Christians in the West must know that it is time to pay the price for truth. Unwillingness to do this is responsible for infiltration and takeover of virtually every western insitution by homosexuals, including the church.

I admire the courage of my friend Dr. Lively, because he has stood up to homosexual intimidation for so long as a lone voice. We need more people like him in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. The homosexual machine is well organised and its agenda is not conciliation with anyone but total take-over of society. Africa is probably is the last place they are trying to take-over that has the best hope to turn the tide, if we do not mess-up the opportunity.

Charles Tuhaise

(P/S: You can forward my comments to Dr. Scott Lively)

Mr. Tuhaise may have forgotten where he heard all about pornography and homosexuality. According to Lively, about the same message came from his highly successful visit to Uganda in March, 2009:

The Ugandan people are strongly pro-family, and there is a large Christian population which is much more activist minded than that of most western countries. However, the international “gay” movement has devoted a lot of resources to transforming the moral culture from a marriage-based one to one that embraces sexual anarchy. Just as in the U.S. many years ago they are leading with pornography to weaken the moral fiber of the people, and propagandizing the children behind the parents’ backs. On the TV show we exposed a book distributed to schools by UNICEF that normalizes homosexuality to teenagers. (We expect a massive protest by parents, who are mostly not aware that such materials even exist in their country, let alone in their childrens’ classrooms.)

Mr. Tuhaise seems to be saying that the bill is necessary based on what Scott Lively taught when he was in Uganda. The Ugandan supporters of the bill believe they are carrying the teachings of Lively to their logical conclusion.


Read a current update on the status of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

For all articles on Uganda, click here.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill: A status report

In January, rumblings came from Kampala that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB) might not have the full support of the government. Then on January 12, Uganda’s President Yowari Museveni expressed reservations and caution in a speech to his party members, saying

So therefore, I strongly advise you that you agree to the idea that the cabinet sit down with Bahati, a sub-committee, and see how best to handle this issue because…because… it is a foreign policy issue. It’s not just our internal politics. It is a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way which does not compromise our principles, but also takes into account our foreign policy interests.

Even though AHB supporters once predicted that the AHB would be considered in mid-February, 2009, the bill has not had a required second reading or been the subject of hearings in Parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Committee. Instead, leaders there appear to have heeded at least one aspect of President Museveni’s advice. On May 7, the Uganda Daily Monitor first reported that the AHB had been evaluated negatively by a key Cabinet committee. Specifically, the Monitor reported that the Cabinet committee found that the bill duplicated existing law in several cases and stigmatized homosexuals due to the title of the AHB. Then, on May 8, Josh Kron reported in the New York Times that the chair of the Cabinet committee, Adolf Mwesige, told him

“Ninety-nine percent of all the proposals in the Bahati bill have been done before,” Mr. Mwesige said. “If we proceeded, it would definitely provoke criticism, and rightly so.”

According to the NYT article, Hon. Mwesige believed the Cabinet report would be the end of the AHB:

Mr. Mwesige said he expected the full Parliament to vote down the bill within weeks. “The influence of the cabinet is very important. If it takes a decision, it must be taken seriously.”

Indeed, the Cabinet report issues a devastating attack on the AHB. I have seen a copy of the report provided to me by Jeff Sharlet who received it by a source in Uganda. In it, the Cabinet committee expressed significant concerns about how the bill was drafted, introduced and worded, concluding

(1) That it was not clear who drafted the Bill since the First Parliamentary Counsel had not been consulted as required under the Law, (Article 94 of the Constitution) and that therefore the Bill was inconsistent with provisions of the law.

(2) That however, the Private Member had invited the Office of the First Parliamentary Counsel to participate in a consultative meeting on the Bill after it had already been published and that this was out of procedure.

(3) That therefore, the Private Member had not complied with the Constitutional provisions as contained in Article 94 and that the Bill was considered unconstitutionally before Parliament.

(4) That due to the omission, the Attorney General had realised that the Bill had technical defects both in form and content as follows:

What follows in the report is a very long list of problems with the bill, most of them noting that the bill duplicates existing law. Over the course of the public debate of the AHB, supporters such as David Bahati and Martin Ssempa have said that the bill was needed to protect “the boy child.” Those opposed have replied that such protections already exist in Ugandan law. Clearly, the Cabinet committee agrees with those opposed to the bill. Here are representative observations of the Cabinet committee:

Clause 2 – The offense of homosexuality:

That the offences listed under this clause were already adequately provided for in the Penal Code Act Cap. 120, section 145 (a) and (c), and that there was no need to create these offences again in a separate Act of Parliament.

Clause 3 – Aggravated Homosexuality:

That the offences under this clause needed to be harmonized with the existing penalties in the already existing laws.

Clause 14 – Failure to disclose the offence:

(a) That this clause was rather broad and easy to abuse since it could be incapable of proof.

(b) That in addition, the use of the words, “a person in authority” was not necessary since the existing laws already provide that any person who observes an offence being committed is under obligation to report it.

The committee found duplication in clauses 4, 6-12 and suggested that the other clauses were unnecessary for various reasons. The only clause the committee believed might be of some value was clause 13 on “Promotion of Homosexuality,” saying

(a) That this appears to be the core of the Bill and should be upheld due to the fact that there was massive recruitment to entice people into homosexuality going on especially among the youth.

(b) That therefore the law should provide that all the parties: publishers, printers, distributors, etc. of any materials that promote homosexual should all be liable to have committed an offence.

In the end, the Committee made five recommendations. 

Regarding the legality of the bill, the First Parliamentary Counsel is charged with drafting all bills and apparently was not consulted until after the bill had been published or introduced into Parliament. Perhaps this is why David Bahati only had a few copies of the bill on the day it was introduced. According to the minutes of Parliament on April 29, 2009, Bahati had only “a few copies available.”

MR DAVID BAHATI (NRM, Ndorwa County West, Kabale): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to move a motion seeking leave of Parliament to introduce a Private Members Bill moved under Rule 47, 105 and 106. Some of the few copies available are going to be circulated in a minute. I beg the indulgence of Members that I move on.

GIVEN THAT Parliament has enacted its Rules of Procedure, pursuant to Article 94 of the Constitution which also empowers a Member of Parliament to move a Private Members Bill under Rules 105 and 106;

According to Article 94, part (d)

(d) the office of the Attorney General shall afford the member moving the private member’s bill professional assistance in the drafting of the bill.

Being “illegally before Parliament” might be way for the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee to avoid acting on the bill at all. The implications on this point are not clear. However, the Cabinet committee’s recommendations certainly give adequate justification for a negative vote if a vote is taken.

So is the bill dead?

Not everybody agrees that the committee report is the end of the line. Via email, Charles Tuhaise, with the Parliamentary Research Service in Uganda, says he believes the bill will be considered:

The alleged unconstitutionality or redundancy of some of the provisions of the AH bill will be examined during committee hearings. The argument that some clauses of the AH Bill are redundant because they are dealt with in other legislation would not tally with Uganda’s legislative history, where legislation has been develop to specifically deal with unique problems or situations. For example, whereas Uganda has laws against assault or infliction of grievous bodily harm, a new Act, “The Domestic Violence Act” was recently enacted by Parliament to specifically and comprehensively address the unique circumstances of this problem.

Just to be clear, when Tuhaise says “committee hearings,” he is referring to the Parliamentary committee (Legal and Parliamentary Affairs). Tuhaise, who has publicly supported the AHB, believes the Cabinet committee’s views will be heard but is not ready to concede defeat.

When might the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee consider the AHB? Tuhaise suggested that other legislation now is more important, saying:

Committee work recently focused on the electoral Bills to prepare for next year’s General Elections. It is likely that as Parliament completes work on these Bills, the AH Bill will follow.  The AH Bill is before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.

In my view, the AHB is weakened considerably, but not finished. I think some of the provisions may end up in other legislation or come back if a candidate needs to whip up support by opposing gays. The bill may have already accomplished that purpose for those who introduced and support it. I do think, however, that the recent Cabinet report signals that opposition to the AHB is no longer political suicide in Uganda. It appears that those opposed to the AHB for various reasons are now more empowered to speak out.

Uganda social work association calls for prohibition on homosexuality

The President of the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda (NASWU), Charles Tuhaise, sent this statement from their organization this morning. Mr. Tuhaise is also a researcher for Uganda’s Parliamentary Research Service. I referred to him in this prior post on the purpose of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. In contrast to Martin Ssempa’s distortions of the bill, Mr. Tuhaise is clear that the bill intends to prohibit homosexuality, saying

…you have read the Bill and know that its object is to outlaw all same-sex sexual conduct. The question of “consenting adults” therefore does not arise. All same-sex sexual conduct is proscribed under the Bill.

Thus, even though adults may give consent, the intent of the bill is to make such consent illegal. In the following document, the NASWU, led by Mr. Tuhaise supports comprehensive prohibition.

The NASWU is affiliated with the International Federation of Social Workers. Mr Tuhaise told me that the IASW is aware of the document which has generated support and criticism. I fully expect that IASW as well as most mental health organizations will issue critical statements soon.

The statement is lengthy and will commence in full after the break. I am not putting this in block quotes because some of the formatting will be lost. I will comment further on this statement in another post.   Continue reading “Uganda social work association calls for prohibition on homosexuality”