Executions in Uganda

Uganda Leads The Way In Africa's Fight Against AIDS

A bill being debated in the Uganda legislature would execute homosexuals who are infected with HIV. Here’s a bit from an Associated Press story on the sad matter:

The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. “Serial offenders” also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.

Anyone who “aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality” faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with “religious, political, economic or social authority” who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.

How awful that people who most need care from their neighbors might instead receive the sword. Human rights groups, including various Christian groups, have been critical of the bill. World magazine and the Baptist Press reported on evangelical opposition weeks ago. Other Christians with varying views on homosexuality issued a joint statement this week. Rick Warren, though, said his job as pastor is to “never take sides.” (He clearly has never met any of my pastors.)

Anyway, the AP story strongly insinuates that Christians are behind the legislation in various ways. I’m not sure how well they make the case. Here:

The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

The use of the word “after” makes it seem as if the legislation is a result of the visit by the three gay therapy activists. But if that’s the case, the reporters in no way show that to be true. The only substantiation for the statement is as follows:

Debate over the Ugandan bill follows a conference in Kampala earlier this year attended by American activists who consider same-gender relationships sinful, and believe gays and lesbians can become heterosexual through prayer and counseling.

Of the three Americans, two didn’t respond to interview requests and the third said he thought the proposed legislation was awful. In another interview, he says he’d prefer that Uganda’s current laws be liberalized.
There are a lot of people in the world who believe that same-sex relationships are sinful. That doesn’t mean they’re calling for the execution of people infected with HIV. Now, maybe there are American evangelicals who are pushing for this legislation. If so, the article can’t just allege it — it has to back it up with information for readers. I mean, it doesn’t even mention Rick Warren’s “not taking sides” approach, which is at the very least relevant to the issue at hand.

We also get this snippet. The Ugandan ethics minister disagrees with the AP belief that the law is the result of foreign evangelical influence but gay activist David Cato says otherwise:

“In the beginning, when the missionaries brought religion, they said they were bringing love,” he said. “Instead they brought hate, through homophobia.”

Now, it’s certainly fine to include such a statement in an article. But that is a very serious charge and the missionaries should be given a chance to respond. None are quoted in the article or characterized, even. That’s not right.

I also fear that the article is framed with such a progressive worldview that it doesn’t even attempt to understand the cultural and ethical values of the Ugandans. I mean, I oppose capital punishment as a rule, but I also know that advocates of capital punishment don’t view said punishment as “hate” — as the article portrays it. They view it as a tool of punishment for particular crimes. I learned very little, if anything, about how the Ugandans view this issue.

I mean, Thomas Jefferson — who is not generally considered a Founding evangelical — authored the Virginia penal code that punished sodomy with castration. Some people view homosexual behavior as a crime and one deserving of punishment. Other people think gay sex is all good. Still others think it’s a sin but not a crime. There’s a spectrum of belief here.

But this Uganda story isn’t even about crimes for homosexual behavior, per se. It’s about having HIV being a capital crime, along with many other draconian provisions.

This makes no sense to me and the story doesn’t even attempt to explore the reasoning behind this. I doubt that there’s anything that could be said that would make me feel less hostile to this legislation, but I’d still like to know a bit more about why others might support it.

Print Friendly

  • SjB

    The situation in Uganda made me wonder if their logic ran something like this: Stolen goods are evidence of theft and a thief caught in possession of stolen goods is considered guilty and punishable by law. If in a similar way, HIV is considered evidence of homosexual acts, then the person having HIV could be considered guilty and punishable by law. Anyway, that’s my best guess on their logic.

    I did find it interesting that they qualified whom they are considering punishing as limited to “active” homosexuals and “serial offenders.” There does appear to be some kind of logic and limitations working behind what they are debating.

  • northcoast

    From time to time someone asserts that the Christian missionaries brought intolerance on this subject to Africa, but my understanding is that homosexuality was already taboo in East Africa.

  • Brian Walden

    The article never explains what punishments (if any) there are for active heterosexuals with HIV. Wouldn’t a comparison of laws governing heterosexual fornication vs. homosexual fornication be incredibly important for understanding what’s going on in Uganda.

  • Martha

    Does the bill have a provision to “execute homosexuals who are infected with HIV”? I saw one report which said that it was in the case of someone with HIV deliberately infecting others (which isn’t really any better, but is a somewhat different matter to saying “Anyone with AIDS or HIV-positive is going to be executed”).

    And it goes back before any conference in Kampala this year; this is all part of the ongoing Anglican Wars story, where in 2007 breakaway congregations from the Episcopal Church were joining or being taken under the authority of the Church of Uganda (amongst others) and in turn Archbishop Orombi was being denounced as anti-gay, bigoted, and fully supporting the Ugandan government’s anti-homosexual laws.

    Definitely the law as it stands in Uganda is very extreme, but I’d like to see some actual quotes.

  • Martha

    Okay, here is Human Rights Watch’s report on the proposed bill, and they don’t mention anything about executing individuals who are HIV positive, which I rather imagine they would were it in the bill.

    http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86441#_ftn26

    They state:

    “The bill criminalizes the intentional transmission of HIV to another person. Human Rights Watch recognizes the potential role of prohibitions on harmful practices that intentionally expose individuals to the risk of HIV infection, but such statutes are unnecessarily duplicative of existing provisions in the Ugandan penal code and are contrary to international guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights…Human Rights Watch recommends deleting provisions in the bill on the criminalization of transmission.”

    They also provide a link to the text of the proposed bill. Part VII – Offences and Penalties, says that “Any person who wilfully and intentionally transmits HIV to another person commits an offence, and upon conviction shall be liable to life imprisonment.”

    That doesn’t seem the same as mandating the death penalty; are we perhpas seeing a bit of reaction along the lines of “Life imprisonment without access to treatment amounts to a death sentence!” and that’s how the “HIV carriers will be executed” story got legs?

    Or am I being too cynical in wondering if certain parties are exaggerating for the sake of point scoring in such matters as the Anglican Wars – you conservatives are in league with a man who supports the death penalty for gays!

  • Martha

    Brian, the text of the bill (if it’s an accurate copy) doesn’t actually say anything about homosexuals versus heterosexuals. It says things like “person”, “partners”, “him or herself” and talks about testing pregnant women and minors, but there is no language about “homosexuals”.

    AIDs is equal-opportunity for both genders and all ages in Africa.

  • Patrick

    Martha, you have the wrong bill. The Antihomosexual Law of 2009 is the one that punishes “aggravated homosexuality” with death.

    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

    There’s no exaggerations here.

  • Martha

    Aha – I see what I did there. I conflated the existing legislation on prevention of transmission of HIV with the bill proposed by David Bahati, the MP responsible.

    Okay, let’s see what that says:

    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

    “felony” means an offence which is declared by law to be a felony or if not declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable without proof of previous conviction, with death or with
    imprisonment for 3 years or more.;

    4, Attempt to commit homosexuality.
    (1) A person who attempts to commit the offence of homosexuality commits a felony and is liable on conviction to imprisonment seven years.
    (2) A person who attempts to commit the offence of aggravated homosexuality commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.”

    Again, there is nothing that I can see in it about the death penalty, except for that definition of “felony”. The main body talks about five and seven years terms of imprisonment and fines, except for the “offence of aggravated homosexuality” which carries life imprisonment as above.

    It’s a very strange bill, if you read the definitions of what constitutes homosexuality in Mr. Bahati’s opinion, and it definitely is trying to regulate public morality, but I don’t see the death penalty in it. Maybe I’m not reading it right?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Martha,

    I haven’t read the bill, although I did hear it’s so horribly written that even hugs can be considered grounds for punishment.

  • Martha

    Ah, yes, here it is:

    “3. Aggravated homosexuality.
    (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
    (a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
    (b) offender is a person living with HIV;
    (c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
    (d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
    (e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
    (f) offender is a serial offender, or
    (g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
    (2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.
    (3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.”

    So the charge of “aggravated homosexuality” could be used against someone in a same-sex relationship if that person is HIV-positive, and if convicted the death penalty is mandated.

    Yes, this is a bad law. Has it any chance of passing?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Martha,

    The bill will likely be modified heavily, but it’s expected to pass. Whether that will include capital punishment . . . no idea.

    Anyway, let’s stick to the journalism issues and not the merits of the bill.

    Oh man, do I sound like Rick Warren now?

  • Jerry

    Thomas Jefferson — who is not generally considered a Founding evangelical — authored the Virginia penal code that punished sodomy with castration.

    Mollie, I found this inclusion struck me like fingernails on a blackboard. Our founding fathers did not think women deserved the vote and that many free white men did not either. Many thought that slavery was basically not an issue and many other things we consider horrible today.

    And, for what it’s worth, I think many would find a continuum, however unfairly conceived, between how gays are treated in various countries Uganda at one extreme and the US at the other. I know many Christians will object to this characterization just like many Muslims object to the “Muslims are terrorists” thought.

    Also, this issue will no doubt also affect to some extent the “separate church and state” argument about gay rights in the US.

  • Jerry

    Oh man, do I sound like Rick Warren now?

    There’s hope for you yet :-)

  • http://rub-a-dub.blogspot.com MattK

    I’m glad to see that I was not alone in being left confused by this story.

  • skootercat
  • Jay

    The msm is really biased to say this bill is motivated by hatred. Surely, the people who want to put homosexuals to death are motivated by love, not hate. I believe in another context you said that it was wrong to call the Churches that discriminate against gay people unfriendly to them. As I recall, you said they were really “gay friendly” and should be referred to as that. The Ugandans (and the American Christians who inspired them) really love gay people.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Jay,

    You are incorrect. I said it was wrong to infer that only those churches that teach there is nothing sinful with homosexual behavior are “friendly” to gay people.

    Traditional Christian teaching that ALL sex — in thought, word and deed — outside of marriage is sinful may be considered “unfriendly” by you, but that’s certainly not an unbiased way to present the information.

    Others would say that the most friendly thing you can say to, for instance, Tiger Woods would be “stop having sex outside of your marriage.” Others may think that’s unfriendly. But the point is that the MSM should not take sides.

    As for this story, I don’t think the reporter even attempted to discern the motivation of the people in Uganda. I learned literally nothing about what motivates them. Perhaps others have special heart-reading technology that I’m not privy to.

    As it happens, I don’t need to know what motivates them to condemn that proposed law that violates everything I believe about the dignity of the human and how the state should handle human rights. Still, for the purposes of a news story, it would have been helpful to get their defense. Even if only to combat it better.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Have had to delete a lot of attacks on things that aren’t relevant to this post. Stay on topic to the matters at hand and stay focused on journalism. Thanks!

  • Lymis

    Note that the law also includes making it illegal to know that someone else has engaged in homosexual activity and not turning them in for arrest and prosecution. (Maximum 3 years in prison)

    It also makes it illegal to speak positively about homosexuality or homosexual relationships. See the whole aiding and abetting part.

    Note, too that the death penalty doesn’t just apply to those with HIV. Look at point (f) on the list – serial offenders. That means that under this law, someone who is convicted for the second time is subject to the death penalty.

  • http://www.mikehickerson.com Mike Hickerson

    CNN is reporting that Uganda has just banned female circumcision, a practice that has been denounced by many human rights groups. No mention of religion in the CNN report, though from Google News it looks like the same government official is involved with both laws. Seems like we could use some “big picture” journalism to help understand why Uganda’s government is aligned with secular Western human rights agencies on female circumcision while opposed to them on homosexuality. For example, how do Ugandan Christians view female circumcision?

  • antropovni

    It might be a bit late, but following on #20′s call for more local context, take a look at AllAfrica.com–an aggregator of decidedly non-MSM English language journalism from the continent. The site has a topic page devoted to coverage, analysis, and commentary on Uganda’s anti-homosexuality legislation.