UN restores reference to sexual orientation in violence policy – UPDATED

UPDATE: Paul Canning has this story from all angles. He has the vote changes listed and notes that 47 countries switched votes from the last time this issue came up.

His summary demonstrates the striking changes in votes from the first time around when sexual orientation was removed as a basis for condemning executions.

This means that 23 nations changed their vote to yes, 15 didn’t vote no and nine more abstained – 47 in total went in a positive direction. This is a quarter of the UN membership.

  • One third of African countries changed their vote positively, including Rwanda and Angola voting yes. 
  • Almost the whole of the Caribbean changed their vote positively, including Jamaica.

In the debate at the UN the most moving contribution was from the Rwandan delegate who said that a group does not need to be “legally defined” to be targeted for massacres and referenced his countries experience. “We can’t continue to hide our heads in the sand” he said.”These people have a right to life.”

“These people have a right to life,” said the Rwandan delegate. Will this sentiment spread to neighboring nations, including Uganda? We shall see…

This just in from Reuters…

The United States succeeded on Tuesday in getting the United Nations to restore a reference to killings due to sexual orientation that had been deleted from a resolution condemning unjustified executions.

Western delegations were disappointed last month when the U.N. General Assembly’s human rights committee approved an Arab and African proposal to cut the reference to slayings due to sexual orientation from a resolution on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

The committee’s move also had outraged human rights activists and groups that lobby for gay rights. Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch (HRW) said at the time that it was a “step backwards” and “extremely disappointing.”

The 192-nation General Assembly approved a U.S. amendment to the resolution that restored the reference to sexual orientation with 93 votes in favor, 55 against and 27 abstentions. The amended resolution was then adopted with 122 yes votes, none against and 59 abstentions.

The main opposition to the U.S. amendment came from Muslim and African nations, which had led the push to delete the reference to sexual preference from the resolution last month.

Print Friendly

  • http://www.medhikazemi.com/ paul canning

    The ‘main opposition’ did come from Islamic conference and a block of African countries BUT nearly 50 countries switched and this included Rwanda who gave an amazing speech – which no mainstream media has reported.

    see http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2010/12/big-victory-for-usa-in-fresh-united.html

  • Michael Bussee

    US President Obama:

    “While today’s UN adoption of an inclusive resolution is important, so too are the conversations that have now begun in capitals around the world about inclusion, equality, and discrimination. Protecting gays and lesbians from state-sponsored discrimination is not a special right, it is a human right.”

    http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe-press-office%2F2010%2F12%2F21%2Fstatement-press-secretary-adoption-us-sponsored-amendment-ensure-gays-an&h=a44b2

  • anteros

    Obama :-)

  • anteros

    hey! what happened to the smiley I put after “Obama” !?

  • Maazi NCO

    One third of African countries changed their vote positively, including Rwanda and Angola voting yes.

    Warren, I am not sure whether what you wrote is the true picture. For the US/EU-sponsored amendment to add “sexual orientation”, most African countries stuck to their guns. A few chose to defer to US government pressure and “Abstain”. These include Mozambique, Kenya, Guinea, Mali and Guinea Bissau. A few number switched sides and voted for the US/EU amendment to curry US government favour. These include Rwanda, South Africa, Mauritius and Angola. It is worth noting that Angola and Mauritius have laws against gayism while Republic of Benin which sponsored the original amendment to delete “sexual orientation” has no laws against gayism.

    Almost the whole of the Caribbean changed their vote positively, including Jamaica.

    For the specific EU/USA-sponsored amendment to add “sexual orientation”, many Caribbean nations including Jamaica “abstained” to please US government. Many later voted for the whole resolution despite abstaining on the issue of the amending it to include “sexual orientation”.

    “These people have a right to life,” said the Rwandan delegate. Will this sentiment spread to neighboring nations, including Uganda? We shall see…

    I agree completely with the Rwandan delegate that “these people have right to life”, but disagree with him that the western-constructed term “sexual orientation” should be added to any UN resolution. Unlawful/extra-judicial murder is adequately covered by “discrimination on any grounds” as sponsored by Benin’s original amendment in November? This switch in vote is just sheer political prostitution and the speech by the delegate is a funny after-thought. If he really believed what he said, why did he not vote with EU and USA against Benin’s original amendment? Methinks that fake emotional speech was used to cover the fact that Rwanda deferred to US government as reward for protecting the RPF regime from UN report which claimed that the Rwandan armed forces committed carnage and mass murder in the Democratic Republic of Congo

    The amended resolution was then adopted with 122 yes votes, none against and 59 abstentions.

    The United States Government in line with its reputation for double-dealing and hypocrisy abstained from the voting for the whole resolution because it wanted to continue blowing people up with drones in the unwinnable war Afghanistan and the secret war in Yemen.

  • stephen

    Well done USA.

  • Maazi NCO

    “These people have a right to life,”….Will this sentiment spread to neighboring nations, including Uganda? We shall see…

    The “right-to-life” sentiment was already mainstream in Uganda, even before David Bahati won an election to become an MP. The Rwandan delegate re-echoed the sentiments of most Ugandans on the subject matter, excluding parts of his speech that implicitly appealed to African nations to recognize that western constructed term— “sexual orientation”. Many Ugandans—-myself included—-opposed the death penalty and other crude provisions in the original Bahati Bill. Having said that, I reiterate that most of the Ugandan people want punishment to fit the sex crime of gayism. They want the anti-gay laws to be consolidated so that sensitization and promotion of gayism by foreign-controlled advocates is banned.

  • Wendy Leigh

    You ambitions Maazi are not consistent with the Ugandan Constitution. Even though your wish is to have private intimacies of LGBT’s defined as a sex-crime, I maintain that you will not be successful. Funny, the term “sensitization” is a right-wing theocratic term used by recognized H8 groups in America Maazi. You seem to like your western alliances when they suit you.

  • Maazi NCO

    You ambitions Maazi are not consistent with the Ugandan Constitution.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Our constitution provides grounds for enforcement of law on grounds of common interest and morality. Gay marriage for instance is banned explicitly in the constitution with the words—-“it is unlawful for same-sex couples to marry”

    Even though your wish is to have private intimacies of LGBT’s defined as a sex-crime

    Gayism is already a sex crime. Please go and educate yourself on the Sex Offenders Act of 2000. BTW, I would merely like to see our anti-gay laws consolidated to plug existing loopholes

    I maintain that you will not be successful.

    Okay. Thanks for sharing your aspirations as a foreigner who has no ties to Uganda and whose only interest is to campaign for an extension of San Francisco-style sexual perversion throughout Africa

    Funny, the term “sensitization” is a right-wing theocratic term used by recognized H8 groups in America Maazi. You seem to like your western alliances when they suit you.

    Any discerning person who has monitored my commentary over the months would notice that I have no western alliances. I do not like western interference in our nation’s affairs whether in favour or against our sodomy laws. It would be great for US evangelicals and Western gay lobbyists to keep their distance from Uganda. So far, I have seen the US evangelicals retreat under heavy pressure from blackmailing elements of the Euro-American Gay Lobby. I would like to see the Euro-American gay lobbyists and their covert funding for local proxies stopped in Uganda

  • Michael Bussee

    the Ugandan people want punishment to fit the sex crime of gayism

    What crime is that? What makes it a crime? Isn’t crime something that deprives someone else of their basic freedoms — like robbery, murder, assault, child abuse, rape? How does “gayism” deprive Maazi of anything?

    I would merely like to see our anti-gay laws consolidated to plug existing loopholes.

    What “loopholes”, specifically? Aren’t gay sex, sexual assault, rape, child molestation, etc. already illegal? What else needs to be criminalized that is not already covered under your existing laws?

  • Michael Bussee

    Gayism is already a sex crime.

    Since that is the case, name one “loophole” that you need to close. One.

  • Wendy Leigh

    You make a lot of accusations Maazi, with no proof. Now the gays are blackmailing? Who and for what purpose? That doesn’t even make sense. Furthermore, you don’t know me either and have not a clue whether I have connections to Uganda or not. You have proven yourself to be a liar for sure, so your use of American fundamentalist language is not surprising lol.

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Maazi

    We all know what you think, and we all think it’s rubbish. You’re wasting your time trying to persuade us otherwise.

  • Maazi NCO

    @ Maazi

    We all know what you think, and we all think it’s rubbish. You’re wasting your time trying to persuade us otherwise.

    Who said I was trying to persuade you and others otherwise? I couldn’t care less what you foreign chaps think. I merely putting across the mainstream views of the Ugandan people.

  • Wendy Leigh

    The Ugandan Constitution states, that

    *Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the State,

    *that rights and freedoms of the individual and groups shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all organizations and agencies of Government and by all persons,

    *that all persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social, and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law,

    *that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty,

    *that every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression (including love), freedom of thought and conscience,

    *that every person has a right as applicable, to belong to, enjoy, practice, profess, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language, tradition, creed or religion in community with others,

    *that every Ugandan citizen has the right to participate in the affairs of government, individually or through his or her representatives in accordance with law,

    *and for the Protection of minorities, that every Ugandan has a right to participate in peaceful activities to influence the policies of government through civic organizations,

    *that every Ugandan has right to privacy of person, home and other property, which must include one’s head, heart and bed,

    *that there is respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment,

    *that no person shall be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment,

    *that there is protection from slavery, servitude and forced labor such as institutionalized “conversion” therapies,

    *that every worker has a right- to form or join a trade union of his or her choice for the promotion and protection of his or her economic and social interests,

    *that anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favor of groups marginalized on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them,

    * that all persons have a right to education, including the right to safe sexual and identity education.

    The Ugandan Constitution also states that no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others,

    *that notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, there shall be no derogation from enjoyment of the following rights and freedoms-

    * freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

    *that the rights, duties, declarations and guarantees relating to the fundamental and human rights or other human rights and freedoms specifically mentioned in this Chapter shall not be regarded as excluding others not specifically mentioned.

  • Maazi NCO

    What “loopholes”, specifically? Aren’t gay sex, sexual assault, rape, child molestation, etc. already illegal? What else needs to be criminalized that is not already covered under your existing laws?

    name one “loophole” that you need to close. One.

    Please read my previous postings on this blog article carefully. I have already written about the loopholes that need to be closed. I will not repeat myself.

    You have proven yourself to be a liar for sure, so your use of American fundamentalist language is not surprising lol.

    I know you have a strong wish to pull me into your US cultural civil war, but I am not interested. Please go and celebrate the end of the hypocritical DADT policy and concentrate on fighting for all 50 USA states to legalize gay marriage and gay adoption. In order words, face the battles in your own home and remove yourself from Ugandan affairs.

  • Wendy Leigh

    I’ll do as I please Mr fake name and false allegations. Actually, I think you should go worry about your own marriage and sexual habits and stop attempting to persecute your countrymen. You know there is treatment for your obsession. You can change Maazi!

  • Richard Willmer

    The loophole to which ‘Maazi’ refers is called ‘freedom of speech’ – say that you are gay, and you’ll be carted off to prison!

  • Maazi NCO

    The Ugandan Constitution states, blah, blah, blah

    Please read the constitution carefully, especially Articles (31) and (43). In Uganda, we do not have judges that legislate from the bench like the heavily politicized American judiciary with all its liberal and conservative judges. The Ugandan proxies of the euro-american gay lobby know this or else they would have moved long ago to have the Ugandan courts strike out the Sex Offenders Act of 2000. It is noteworthy that in Botswana which has a similar constitution, gay sex practitioners tried thrice—2003, 2004 and 2006—-to have the sodomy laws struck down and failed on each occasion.

  • Maazi NCO

    The loophole to which ‘Maazi’ refers is called ‘freedom of speech’ – say that you are gay, and you’ll be carted off to prison!

    No Sir !! I have no wish for anyone to be carted off to jail for simply saying he/she is gay. But I think jail time is justified if he/she tries to sensitize or promote gay lifestyle through leaflets, NGO activities or general public advocacy.

  • Wendy Leigh

    What are you so afraid of Maazi? You really cant make straight people gay, or gay people straight? Even your use of the term “lifestyle” shows how badly you’ve been enveloped in fundamentalist American lingo.

  • Wendy Leigh

    Are you worried about your own sexuality Maazi?

  • Richard Willmer

    Thank you for the clarification, ‘Maazi’.

  • Richard Willmer

    Just heard: Male arrested, Ssempa in hiding … this is to do with allegedly false allegations they have been making against Robert Kayanja.

  • Richard Willmer
  • Maazi NCO

    Are you worried about your own sexuality Maazi?

    This is a question that an expert psychologist like Warren should ask not a desperate gay sex practitioner like yourself. You would have no idea where to even begin if you were trying to psycho-analyze me. I am not one of your hypocritical Republican politicians who say one thing in public and do something else under the cover of darkness :D :D :D

    What are you so afraid of Maazi? You really cant make straight people gay, or gay people straight? Even your use of the term “lifestyle” shows how badly you’ve been enveloped in fundamentalist American lingo.

    Though I have lived in USA, I am confident that I did not develop any lingo from anyone there. In fact, throughout my time in NY, I concentrated on my career and never got involved in your US cultural civil wars. Though, I did watch with a detached air of bemusement.

  • Maazi NCO

    http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/741917

    I know. I do not wish to be drawn into the Pastors Wars

  • Wendy Leigh

    Oh Maazi, LOL, I think its clear who is the desperate one is. I’ve even used my real name.

  • Richard Willmer

    We are similarly bemused by the developing situation in UG, I can assure you, ‘Maazi’. But the fact that the likes of Male and Ssempa are being ‘neutralised’ ahead of the imminent ‘Rolling Stone’ ruling is possibly an encouraging development. (I can tell you that, if this were to be part of the ‘agenda’ behind Male’s arrest, I would not be entirely surprised.)

  • Maazi NCO

    We are similarly bemused by the developing situation in UG, I can assure you, ‘Maazi’. But the fact that the likes of Male and Ssempa are being ‘neutralised’ ahead of the imminent ‘Rolling Stone’ ruling is possibly an encouraging development. (I can tell you that, if this were to be part of the ‘agenda’ behind Male’s arrest, I would not be entirely surprised.)

    Too much conspiracy theory !! The Director of Public Prosecutions recommended back in September 2009 that the two pastors should be arrested for false allegations and defaming the character of Robert Kayanja. The Police dilly-dallied on that matter until recently. I will believe your conspiracy theory when MP David Bahati and MP Benson Obua are arrested.

  • Jame

    Richard just a correction; Martin Ssempa did not go into hiding. I actually met him about three hours ago at one of the coffee places in Kampala. He was very ok with everything. He says he never received a police surmon from the CID but will await what the police will say. Nowonder the Ug media had little to report on him.

    Secondly there is more to these pastors’ wars than what meets the eye. An average man on the streets of Kampala would tell you what has been happening. Let’s wait for more developments on this story.

    Then what is the craze about Maazi’s name? It actually exists and I have two other friends with such names.

  • Maazi NCO

    Richard just a correction; Martin Ssempa did not go into hiding. I actually met him about three hours ago at one of the coffee places in Kampala. He was very ok with everything. He says he never received a police surmon from the CID but will await what the police will say. Nowonder the Ug media had little to report on him.

    Dear James,

    New Vision did claim that Ssempa was on the run, but if you say that he is not then I believe you completely.

    Then what is the craze about Maazi’s name? It actually exists

    Dear James,

    It is true that the name exists, but that for the purposes of this blogging exercise, I use it as a pseudonym.

  • Jame

    Too much conspiracy theory !! The Director of Public Prosecutions recommended back in September 2009 that the two pastors should be arrested for false allegations and defaming the character of Robert Kayanja. The Police dilly-dallied on that matter until recently. I will believe your conspiracy theory when MP David Bahati and MP Benson Obua are arrested.

    Absolutely true. You wonder why it took the police this long to effect the arrests. I am convinced our nation will still stand against homosexuality.

  • Maazi NCO

    Then what is the craze about Maazi’s name? It actually exists

    Dear James,

    It is true that the name exists, but that for the purposes of this blogging exercise, I use it as a pseudonym.

  • Richard Willmer

    Jame

    I’m sure there is much to these ‘pastor wars’. I’ll ask my friends in Kampala for their views on what’s really going on.

    ‘Maazi’ has already admitted on this blog that he using a pseudonym. I think some of us feel that it is somewhat ‘distasteful’ for one to make (false, we believe) allegations about things like so-called ‘recruitment’ without saying who one really is. I use my real name (and Bahati wants to throw people like me into prison); ‘Maazi’ is in no danger (noone is calling for his incarceration or hanging), so why can’t he?

    So the New Vision got it wrong about Ssempa. Interesting …

    (I did in fact hear about this about five hours ago from UG friends of mine, and Ssempa was NOT mentioned at that point.)

  • Richard Willmer

    Jame

    I think there needs to be some clarification on this term ‘homosexuality’. Archbishop John Sentamu made this point soon after the Bahitler Bill was first published. He said that many people (and especially Bahati and his allies – presumably for propaganda purposes) confused ‘consensual same sex acts’ with ‘sexual abuse’, and this was part of the problem in UG regarding this whole issue.

  • Richard Willmer

    Here’s the Monitor report (Ssempa is mentioned here too):

    http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1077294/-/cjw8roz/-/index.html

    False allegations about gay people, or those suspected to be gay, are numerous, of course. I am very pleased that it appears that resolute measures might now be being implemented to stop this vice. Let’s hope that Giles Muhame’s case is treated in accordance with the UG Constitution and UG laws on defamation, and that, if he is clearly in contravention of the law, he is appropriately punished for his alleged crimes.

  • Lynn David

    Surely the Rwandan representative spoke from the heart after the genocides in his country. But I cannot help but wonder if we have the Fellowship’s Bob Hunter to thank for some African votes, including Rwanda.

  • ken

    Thanks for the info on the case against Male and Ssempa, Richard.

    I’m curious to find out what Ssempa’s involvement was. I.e. was he involved in getting the accusers to lie? was he aware they were lying? Did he just let his anti-gay bigotry lead him to blinding repeat the accusations? etc.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    Wow, I can see homophobic Ugandans are well represented on this thread!

    As a Ugandan, I proudly proclaim my recognition and respect for the rights of all people, regardless of the gender of the people they get physically or emotionally intimate with, as long as no one’s rights are being violated in the process. That is why I think the relevant laws criminalising sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex should be repealed, and the Bahati Bill thrown in the dust bin where it belongs.

    Homophobia is simply intellectually indefensible, and I am amused at the lengths to which people like Maazi NCO will go to defend their bigotry. What’s his problem? He should know that not all Ugandans share his view, and if it were not for religious indoctrination (of the intolerant fundamentalist kind), and archaic, irrational cultural prejudices that Ugandans are subjected to from birth, most of them probably wouldn’t even care about what adults did in private. Lack of proper education in science (and basic philosophy) is another factor that contributes to the ignorance and poor reasoning that fuels the kind of hatred we see from homophobic Ugandans.

    I also really wouldn’t proudly tout the majority opinions of a population of mostly under-educated, science-illiterate people to defend my position, the way he constantly does.

    Stop the hate Maazi NCO. Hate never wins.

    Enjoy Christmas, everyone.

  • stephen

    Interesting info re Ssempa, giving some insight into what’s really behind his actions. In other news, Bill Donohue of the imaginary Catholic League earns $400,000 a year from his anti-gay nastiness, giving an absolute insight into his motives.

  • Richard Willmer

    Both Ssempa and Male are completely obsessed with the topic of ‘homosexuality’ – as if nothing else really matters. I’ve heard that Male even claims that there are rumours that Ssempa might be gay, and has also told friends of mine that ‘there are doubts’ about Bahati. It’s all very very odd, to say the least. Male also sees himself as something akin to ‘God’s thought police’, it would appear.

    As for the timing of these ‘arrests’ (if indeed that’s what they are): it may be that the UG authorities simply want to ‘close down’ discussion on the whole issue (some in the NRM [the ruling party] feel that things have got seriously ‘out of hand’, I’ve heard). Very little is being said about ‘homosexuality’ in the election campaign, it seems, despite claims by some that talking about it might be a ‘vote winner’.

  • Richard Willmer
  • Richard Willmer

    @ James Onen

    I’m sure that many Ugandans, like yourself, do NOT see things as Maazi and Jame do; in fact, I KNOW this is the case.

    Quite apart from ‘moral’ and ‘human rights’ issues, the Bahati Bill is a potential jurisprudential disaster area; this latest chapter in the now world-famous ‘pastor wars’ illustrates this aspect so well.

    I suspect that many in positions of power are fully aware that, for many reasons, the Bahati Bill (even if ‘watered down’) is deeply undesirable for Uganda. It would not surprise me if there are also those who favour the decriminalisation of all private sexual acts pursuant to informed consent, if only on grounds of what best serves certain pressing ‘public health agendans’, such as the recent increase in HIV transmission rates in UG. I keep remembering that paper published by a research fellow and piblic health lecturer at Makerere University, and trailed in the press, back in the spring of this year; this paper did not support ‘gay advocacy’, but it DID support the idea of decriminalisation of private consensual sexual relations.

  • Maazi NCO

    James Onen—I am not religious so I am not sure what you are on about. Every nation in this world has a right to regulate certain types of human conduct and behaviour depending on their social setting and cultural taboos. In Germany and Austria, it is taboo to deny the holocaust and anyone who uses his/her freedom of expression to deny, minimize or ridicule that tragic event in history commits a jailable offence. Germany and Austria in particular have used this law to prosecute anti-semites, even when they made the offensive statements abroad in countries such as UK, USA and the rest of the world where holocaust denial is not criminalized. In most of the West, polygamy is a crime called “bigamy” punishable by jail time. It doesn’t matter if a consenting man and three consenting women agreed to such a marriage. In Uganda and most of Africa, the sex crime of gayism and its spin-offs in the form of gay pride marches, gay marriage and gay adoption are incompatible with African culture and traditions. I am not a science illiterate nor am I ignorant. I possess a masters degree by research in Electrical Engineering from a well-known British university and began by professional career in the United States. Besides that, I am a well-travelled person. But then again, I doubt a person needs all these qualities to know that a deviant behaviour is just exactly that.Your sanctification of “private individual behaviour” indicates that you are one of those few extreme liberal African elite types with a strong western-centric worldview. You of all persons should now that African society is deeply communal and nothing like the fragmented, highly individualistic societies common in West where everyone is encouraged to mind only about his/her own business and not that of his community or relatives. I will conclude by suggesting that if you genuinely want to be regarded as a “free thinker” then you should learn to think and generate original ideas rather than parroting the same trite liberal atheistic nonsense one is used to hearing from many Europeans and Americans.

  • Richard Willmer

    Maazi

    I still think that you do not really understand the full meaning of the bahatiite agenda – it is effectively about the ‘removal’ of a whole section of Ugandan society.

    Your caricature of ‘western culture’ is overdrawn (propaganda): your suggestions that everything is ‘individualistic’ and that people do not care about their families and friends are simply not a fair reflection on reality. I understand your point about the ‘communal’ nature of African societies, but don’t forget that many Africans also value their privacy; on the other side of the argument, many British families are enjoying very ‘communal’ Christmas celebrations together, and many British people give significant amounts of time and money to charities that benefit both local and overseas communities. There is also much selfishness in African societies: look at the huge differences between rich and poor in many such societies.

    On the issue of bigamy / polygamy: the law relates to ‘marriage contracts’; if someone wishes to live with a ‘group’ of sexual partners, they are perfectly at liberty to do so; noone is going to arrest them.

  • Richard Willmer

    Maazi

    A question for you: do you actually approve of polygamy, by the way?

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    Thank you for your comments Maazi NCO. Now I will respond.

    You said:

    James Onen—I am not religious so I am not sure what you are on about.

    Well then perhaps next time you should actually read people’s comments properly before responding to them. I said:

    “He should know that not all Ugandans share his view, and if it were not for religious indoctrination (of the intolerant fundamentalist kind), and archaic, irrational cultural prejudices that Ugandans are subjected to from birth, most of them probably wouldn’t even care about what adults did in private.”

    The key word I use here is ‘most’. Every rule has its exception, but since you didn’t deny an adherence to your cultural prejudices on your part, perhaps my point still stands? Until you can offer a sound argument as to why your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified, I think it will be safe to assume that your biases are based on archaic cultural prejudices (as you have argued consistently). Kindly shed some light on this, if I am wrong. Otherwise I look forward to your sound argument, sir, if there is one somewhere.

    You said:

    Every nation in this world has a right to regulate certain types of human conduct and behaviour depending on their social setting and cultural taboos.

    So would you condone slavery, female genital mutilation, and child sacrifice, should the majority of a population approve of it, even on a ‘cultural basis’? Of course not – meaning that the degree to which an action relates to, or deviates from, ‘cultural norms’ isn’t the objective measure for determining what should or should not be criminalized. Even the Uganda Constitution (which, in my opinion, contradicts itself in some places) seems to recognize this:

    Article 33 (6) of the Uganda Constitution:

    Laws, cultures, customs or traditions which are against the dignity, welfare or interest of women or which undermine their status, are prohibited by this Constitution.

    From this it is rather clear that even if a behaviour is considered a ‘cultural norm’ by any particular local tribal society it is constitutionally prohibited if that action is against the dignity, welfare or interest of women or which undermine their status. Clearly, being against the dignity, welfare or interest of women (or which undermine their status) is the objective measure being applied here, and not the degree to which any action or practice is considered a ‘cultural norm’.

    Also, consider Article 32 (1) of the Uganda Constitution:

    Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.

    ‘…or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom….’

    So to say that laws should be based on what are perceived by some to be cultural or customary taboos is rather unconstitutional, at least for Uganda. From the above, the Uganda Constitution clearly attaches greater importance to equality and fair treatment (of even marginalized groups) than to any requirement by any citizen to adhere or conform to cultural values or traditions (which are by their very nature subjective, and relative, anyway).

    You said:

    In Germany and Austria, it is taboo to deny the holocaust and anyone who uses his/her freedom of expression to deny, minimize or ridicule that tragic event in history commits a jailable offence. Germany and Austria in particular have used this law to prosecute anti-semites, even when they made the offensive statements abroad in countries such as UK, USA and the rest of the world where holocaust denial is not criminalized.

    Well, boo hoo Maazi… Personally, I think those Holocaust-denial laws are ridiculous, and irrational. I do believe in the right to exercise and express genuine skepticism on any and all issues. If I had the time I would be signing petitions to get such laws repealed, but life is short so you have to choose your fights. But this is beside the point, because I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right, right? So don’t appeal to injustices committed by some to justify the injustices you want to level at others. That’s fallacious reasoning.

    You said:

    In most of the West, polygamy is a crime called “bigamy” punishable by jail time. It doesn’t matter if a consenting man and three consenting women agreed to such a marriage.

    Again, don’t appeal to injustices committed by some to justify the injustices you want to level at others. For the second time, that’s fallacious reasoning. Come on man, as a Ugandan to a fellow Ugandan, let our debate be guided by sound argumentation based on logical principles and not on purported bad examples set by others, or their alleged double standards.

    You said:

    In Uganda and most of Africa, the sex crime of gayism and its spin-offs in the form of gay pride marches, gay marriage and gay adoption are incompatible with African culture and traditions.

    This is the epitome of poor reasoning, so typical of the rampant ignorance-driven homophobia pervasive among my fellow Ugandans. To make this easy, here is a list of some African cultural practices, embraced by those who practice them, as the encapsulation of their ‘cherished’ African heritage:

    1. Treating women as property

    2. Not questioning authority

    3. Female genital mutilation

    4. Tribalism

    5. Ritual child murder

    6. Killing Albinos for their boy parts

    Also:

    In Africa some children were killed because of fear that they were an evil omen or because they were considered unlucky. Twins were usually put to death in Arebo; as well as by the Nama Hottentots of South West Africa; in the Lake Victoria Nyanza region; by the Tswana in Portuguese East Africa; among the Ilso and Igbo people of Nigeria; and by the !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert. The Kikuyu, Kenya’s most populous ethnic group, practiced ritual killing of twins. If a mother died in childbirth among the Ibo people of Nigeria, the newborn was buried alive. It suffered a similar fate if the father died. (read: Infanticide in Africa)

    also:

    In Afghanistan, Shia husbands are now permitted by law to deny their wives food if they don’t provide sex on demand. Apparently this is part of their heritage and ‘culture’. (read: Wives in Afghanistan denied food for refusing sex)

    As you can see, using tradition/culture as justification for inhumane treatment, or refusal to recognize the rights of others, fails at every turn. I’m sure you would agree that all the customs listed above are bad because they violate the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. Now here you are, trotting out your appeal to culture to do exactly the same.

    Are we supposed to ‘understand’ where the Shia men are coming from? No. We are supposed to speak out against the violations of the rights of those women who are victims of that oppressive law, regardless of how dear Shia men consider those traditions to be to them. Same goes for those who would want to put the lives of innocent children at risk for the sake of cherished ‘cultural norms’.

    Thankfully, we have managed to transcend a good number of these outdated inhumane customs, and put them behind us. However several of them still remain e.g. women as property, ritual killing, juju, tribalism, homophobia and female genital mutilation – just to name a few. The fight goes on.

    I guess I should also repeat the point that the Uganda Constitution clearly attaches greater importance to equality and fair treatment (of even marginalized groups) than any requirement by any citizen to adhere or conform to cultural values (which are by their very nature subjective, and relative, anyway). Read Article 32 (1).

    Remember, also, that no Ugandan is required by the constitution to adhere or conform to cultural values or practices of any group. What the constitution does, is give me the right to…

    …belong to, enjoy, practice, profess, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language, tradition, creed or religion in community with others.

    …if I want. (Article 37). But don’t forget that Article 32 (1) prohibits you from using your cultural prejudices to violate the rights of others.

    You continue:

    I am not a science illiterate nor am I ignorant. I possess a masters degree by research in Electrical Engineering from a well-known British university and began by professional career in the United States. Besides that, I am a well-travelled person.

    Well if you are not science illiterate you certainly don’t seem to be showing it, particularly with regards to this issue. Could you kindly refer me to peer reviewed scientific literature from a reputable journal that defend your view point on the matter of sexual orientation? I’ll be waiting. Being the ‘qualified’ man that you are, I’m sure you attach value to the peer review process, right? If not, then please feel free to toss your Masters’ degree in Electrical Engineering out the window, because the knowledge you attained in that mysterious university of yours was in all likelihood a product of studying literature gathered, filtered and accumulated through peer review.

    As a an aside, there is one high profile master’s degree holding electrical engineer I personally know, who has a keen interest in pushing for the Bahati Bill to get passed. Might you be him? Hmm…

    You said:

    Your sanctification of “private individual behaviour” indicates that you are one of those few extreme liberal African elite types with a strong western-centric worldview.

    Should I laugh? Is this a joke? Maazi, I am using basic logical principles to evaluate this issue. My reasoning is not constrained by prejudices of any kind. I have a logic-centric world view… how’s that for you? Can you handle it? If you can, then let’s see some sound arguments coming from you – not excuses for bad reasoning.

    You said:

    You of all persons should now that African society is deeply communal and nothing like the fragmented, highly individualistic societies common in West where everyone is encouraged to mind only about his/her own business and not that of his community or relatives.

    OK, I’m laughing now. So what if African society is deeply communal? It is this same ‘communality’ which is the engine for corruption, patronage, nepotism… the very things that keep the country backward!

    This is not a West vs. African thing, as you are making it out to be, out of paranoia. With greater education, and higher rates of urbanization, Africa’s notion of communality will fade. Should we ever become an industrial urban society you can all but forget about your cherished African group-think, because people of all tribes will be scattered throughout the region in search of employment opportunities, and communities will abandon their ancestral homes. It is only a matter of time. You can already see that African countries are moving to create common markets. Today a Ugandan can work in Kenya without a work permit, and doesn’t need a visa to go there. If he works there long enough, he will probably raise a family there. His children, meanwhile, will naturally gravitate towards their country of birth and upbringing, and in all likelihood choose to settle there. Your romanticised notion of a ‘communal’ Africa will therefore be a thing of the past, Maazi. But there is one way out of this…. keep Africans uneducated, and discourage industrialization thereby stifling urbanization, and you will surely have all the communality you need (read: The Social Impacts of Urbanisation). Not exactly something I would personally brag about, but hey, maybe we’re different.

    You said:

    I will conclude by suggesting that if you genuinely want to be regarded as a “free thinker” then you should learn to think and generate original ideas rather than parroting the same trite liberal atheistic nonsense one is used to hearing from many Europeans and Americans.

    Well I’m glad you visited my website! I hope you took the trouble to find out what freethought actually is. Judging from your comment, you obviously didn’t, so here it is:

    “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, religion or any other dogma.”

    Freethought, therefore, is not about generating new ideas. It is about the basis upon which one forms opinions – which should be science, logic, and reason . Are we clear on that? Good. And I would imagine that my being an atheist would have no bearing in this discussion, since you yourself have claimed that you are non-religious (so were you lying?). For you to bring it up in an attempt to disparage me makes clear your inability to put forward a sound argument in defense of your position. That’s going really low, Maazi… even for you – wait… maybe not.

    My contention, Maazi, is that homophobia is intellectually indefensible. You have not offered a single sound argument as to why your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified. Meanwhile, I have clearly demonstrated why your appeal to ‘culture’ and appeals to ‘double standards of certain western states’ are fallacious.

    I have engaged, and continue to engage, many Ugandans on this issue and the more I force them to rationally defend their homophobia the more they’ve come to realise that it is intellectually indefensible. Attitudes are changing, my friend. To that end, the Bahati Bill may turn out to be the best thing that could have happened for the LGBT community in Uganda. It has opened the floodgates of debate, homosexuality is continuously being demystified, and more and more people are growing tolerant.

    So stop the hate, Maazi NCO. Hate never wins, as history has shown us… time and time again.

  • Richard Willmer

    A philosophical ‘tour de force’ from Mr. Onen …

    Perhaps the key point is that, given that there is no clear scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is the result of some kind of a ‘moral choice’, homophobia is both morally and philosophically indefensible.

    I would like to reiterate a narrower point: the Bahati Bill (which a well known Ugandan evangelical Christian has described as ‘totalitarian, evil and anti-christian’) is a jurisprudential nightmare that has no place in any country seeking to be in any way ‘democratic’. The manner in which rival ‘pastors’ use accusations of so-called ‘sodomy’ in an attempt to destroy their rivals gives an indication of what a totalitarian ‘bahatiland’ might look like.

    Mr. Onen

    Are you conversant with the principles of philosophy (which transcend ‘culture’, of course), by any chance? You certainly appear to be so.

  • Maazi NCO

    James Onen,

    I will start by saying that I seriously doubt that you know who I am. There are quite a number of electrical engineers in Uganda with masters degrees from abroad. No need to suspect someone who is definitely not Maazi NCO.

    I read your entire long drawn apologia on “gay rights”. It was entertaining despite being convoluted. As in the case of burglars and fraudsters, I do not recognize gay sex offenders as a distinct biological category of humans because gayism is neither genetic nor an immutable identity like race. No one has provided CREDIBLE and conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary. In almost 80 nations worldwide that criminalize gayism and even in the remaining 112 nations where gayism is legal, many people—religious or irreligious— do not accept such deviant behaviour as genetic and its practitioners are not regarded as a distinct identity akin to race or ethnicity. Your comment about the majority of Ugandans being irrational for rejecting such sexual behaviour as anti-social, inhuman and deviant is a matter of opinion not agreeable with most here. Please stop twisting and turning the Ugandan constitution upside down. The constitution does not protect sexual depravity as it is not in the public interest as presented in article (43) and spin-offs such as gay marriage is explicitly banned in article (31). Misinterpreting the Ugandan constitution will not get you and your gay sex practitioner friends anywhere. It is noteworthy that in Botswana which has a similar constitution, gay sex practitioners tried thrice—2003, 2004 and 2006—-to have the sodomy laws struck down and failed on each occasion. If you are confident that Uganda will be different then mobilize your gay sex buddies, collect money from liberal westerners and mount a court challenge against our Sex Offenders Act of 2000. Use the arguments you have made on this forum to try to convince our judges to strike out the anti-gay law rather than burn energy here twisting provisions of our constitution to support sexual perversion.

  • Richard Willmer

    You sound a little rattled, ‘Maazi’.

    (Christmas truce over … inverted are commas back!)

    Question for you:-

    IF gay orientation IS innate (and there are suggestions that it might be) to a person, how can you justify comparing your gay compatriots to fraudsters who, for example, deny that the Holocaust ever happened?

  • Maazi NCO

    You sound a little rattled, ‘Maazi’.

    I am never rattled by anything.

    (Christmas truce over … inverted are commas back!)

    Never thought it would last anyway. Hope you enjoyed your xmas holiday :D

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    I read your response. Ok, I’m done laughing. Now it’s time for me to calmly expose your poor reasoning (again). Please pay attention.

    You said:

    I read your entire long drawn apologia on “gay rights”.

    CORRECTION: You read my sound arguments… none of which you have refuted – and you have not refuted my refutations of your fallacious appeals to culture either. As we have seen, subjective cultural values (whatever those may be), cannot be used as a basis for violating the rights and freedoms of others, and is not the basis by which laws are created. Or do you think the eastern tribes are entitled to mutilating the genitals of their teenage girls as a matter of cultural practice? If no, then my argument is validated. If yes, then you support child abuse.

    You said:

    It was entertaining despite being convoluted. As in the case of burglars and fraudsters, I do not recognize gay sex offenders as a distinct biological category of humans because gayism is neither genetic nor an immutable identity like race. No one has provided CREDIBLE and conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary.

    You know, I’m really waiting to see either refutations of my arguments, or the arguments I asked you to put forward to defend your position. I can see so far you’re off to a poor start. Nothing so far. Instead, you display your ignorance of science.

    Look, I don’t care what YOU recognize or don’t recognize. Everyone is entitled their opinion but guess what… no one is entitled to their own facts.There are people in this world who still believe the world is flat (read: Flat Earth Society). No amount of scientific evidence will convince them that the earth is a sphere, so what do you do with such people? Well, present them the evidence, and if they reject it, move on, and ignore them. I have been tempted to do the same with you but I’m having way too much fun here. So I guess I’ll stick around and play.

    The general immutability of sexual orientation is the current prevailing scientific consensus arising from a convergence of research from independent scientific disciplines such as Psychology, Psychiatry, and Pediatrics which are the fields of science that would be relevant to any study of human sexual orientation, right? You said have a Masters’ degree – well, ACT like you earned it.

    You said:

    In almost 80 nations worldwide that criminalize gayism and even in the remaining 112 nations where gayism is legal, many people—religious or irreligious— do not accept such deviant behaviour as genetic and its practitioners are not regarded as a distinct identity akin to race or ethnicity.

    The world is full of irrational and unscientific people, Maazi, It’s that simple. You are a perfect example of this. Even though you are trained up to Masters’ degree level, your understanding of science has clearly been constrained by your adherence to your archaic cultural prejudices. I mean, you yourself have been throwing the culture card around to ‘defend’ your bigotry, haven’t you? Evidence of this is all over this blog in your numerous comments in various posts by Warren. Culture! Culture! Culture!

    You said:

    Your comment about the majority of Ugandans being irrational for rejecting such sexual behaviour as anti-social, inhuman and deviant is a matter of opinion not agreeable with most here.

    Not agreeable with most here? As in Uganda? Look, I work in the media industry ‘here’. I follow the news. I know the appalling quality of UPE and USE education. I know about the poor quality of graduates our institutions of higher learning are churning out… year in, year out. Acclaimed scholar Mahmud Mamdani even worries that if current conditions prevail, most major African universities will “cease to produce knowledge and become little more than… glorified secondary schools”. Given these facts, I ask you, how much stock should be placed on the prejudices of half-educated/semi-literate Ugandans impervious to persuasion by reason, logic or evidence – in the evaluation of what is essentially a scientific question? And it is these prejudices of a half-educated/semi-literate society that you are brandishing as justification for bigotry? You’re hilarious!

    You said:

    Please stop twisting and turning the Ugandan constitution upside down.

    Dude, I am QUOTING the constitution, and using logic to deduce how its provisions would logically be reflected in the law. What, suddenly you’re not a fan of the constitution? If you think I am twisting and turning the constitution upside down, then you need to demonstrate exactly how I am doing so. You have not – and until you do this, my arguments stand.

    You said:

    The constitution does not protect sexual depravity as it is not in the public interest as presented in article (43)

    Ooooh ooooh oooooh! Let’s quote that article, shall we? Let’s see… Article 43 says:

    General limitation on fundamental and other human rights and freedoms:

    (1) In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.

    (2) Public interest under this article shall not permit—

    (a) political persecution;

    (b) detention without trial;

    (c) any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided in this Constitution.

    So you must have missed the part in sub-section 1 that says:

    …no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others…

    You can clearly see that ‘public interest’ is not being divorced from the recognition and respect of the ‘fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others’. In fact, public interest is cited AFTER fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others, isn’t it? In other words, something cannot be deemed to be acceptable under the auspices of ‘public interest’ if it violates or threatens to violate the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others! Don’t you just love the Uganda Constitution, Maazi? Read it more!

    You continued:

    and spin-offs such as gay marriage is explicitly banned in article (31).

    Maazi, Article 31 addresses marriage, not criminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts. So sorry, that provision doesn’t grant you license to slander and disparage gay people. I contend that this is one of the Articles in the constitution that are contradictory. I mean, how can the constitution, in Article 32, claim to:

    …take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.

    … and then in the same breath disallow LGBT people from getting married? This is an obvious contradiction, and I think it needs to be addressed.

    You said:

    Misinterpreting the Ugandan constitution will not get you and your gay sex practitioner friends anywhere. It is noteworthy that in Botswana which has a similar constitution, gay sex practitioners tried thrice—2003, 2004 and 2006—-to have the sodomy laws struck down and failed on each occasion.

    Boy, you are a sad, sad, hateful man. I have used clear reason and logic to demonstrate the legal implications of the various provisions in the constitution. You have not refuted ANY of these implications. Now, I don’t know about Botswana… but guess what – attempts at racial desegregation failed several times too, initially, in the southern part of the United States, did you know that? You don’t need to be a history professor to know that persistence and moral conviction is what eventually paved the way for justice, which came many years later. Martin Luther King’s dream eventually came true, after decades of civil rights struggles.

    Bigots of all kinds are swimming against the tide of human progress, Maazi. Hate gets you nowhere. You are full of hate. Stop the hate.

    You said:

    If you are confident that Uganda will be different then mobilize your gay sex buddies, collect money from liberal westerners and mount a court challenge against our Sex Offenders Act of 2000. Use the arguments you have made on this forum to try to convince our judges to strike out the anti-gay law rather than burn energy here twisting provisions of our constitution to support sexual perversion.

    Well, if that Sex Offenders Act includes discriminatory laws against LGBT people then it is unconstitutional, and the constitution must prevail. Plain and simple – Article 2(2).

    I think advocates of hate and discrimination against LGBT people have really managed to get away with sooooo much poor reasoning and cheap rhetoric! Indeed, I will be disseminating my arguments to the public to initiate serious intellectual debate on this issue. Thankfully many people are now taking great interest in this issue.

    I must say though… If your kind of arguments are the best on offer, Maazi, then the future sure looks bright for LGBT rights in Uganda :-)

    Oh, and by the way, I’m still waiting for a sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified.

    Will it ever come?

    Stop the hate.

  • Richard Willmer

    Thank you, Maazi.

    I hope your Christmas was pleasant, and that next Christmas will be an even better one for ALL Ugandans.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Richard Wilmer

    You asked:

    Mr. Onen

    Are you conversant with the principles of philosophy (which transcend ‘culture’, of course), by any chance? You certainly appear to be so.

    Yes (I studied philosophy)… and that is why it is rather transparently obvious to me that homophobia, and any attempt to undermine the rights and freedoms of LGBT people in Uganda is intellectually indefensible.

    I have been eagerly awaiting sound arguments from Mr. Maazi NCO but he keeps letting me down! He keeps playing the ‘culture’ card (which obviously gets him nowhere constitutionally, and renders him prone to double standards) then he rejects scientific consensus (which exposes his ignorance), and the rest of it is just him spewing personal hatred. His kind of irrational rhetoric is what has driven the debate in Uganda ever since the Bahati bill was introduced last year.

    I sat back hoping for Uganda’s intellectuals to engage fellow Ugandans on this issue but possibly out of fear of public scorn they preferred to allow the rhetoric to carry on without much intellectual challenge from them. This reminds me of what is going on currently in Pakistan, where most of its intellectuals know that the blasphemy laws are archaic, but the climate of hostility and anger among the majority Pakistani Muslim population (thanks to the efforts of extremist clerics) has risen to a level where any attempt to repeal the blasphemy law might lead to extreme violence or civil war. Which ever person who advocates for the law to be repealed will most certainly be threatened with death by the extremists. Which seems to actually be the case already. (read about how the Pakistani federal Minister for Minorities was threatened with death by beheading by Islamic extremists)

    So in Uganda while the intellectuals remained quiet out of fear of the lynch-mob, the irrational, illogical, unscientific and hateful rhetoric of Buturo, Ssempa, Langa, Bahati, and like-minded people remained the staple feature in the local the news. This is certainly going to change now that people are starting to get the courage to speak up.

    Since there is more than good reason to believe that Museveni will not allow the Bahati bill to ever become law, what is at stake now, for me, is the clash of basic human principles. Bigotry and hatred on one hand, verses reason and compassion on the other.

    History has shown us that the latter always tends to win in the long run :-)

  • wilypagan

    Maazi NCO

    You appear to be a closeted homosexual. Usually, the most homophobic, vitriolic morons are weak men who fear their own sexuality. A strong, successful, happy man with a good relationship with a woman has no reason to fear or hate homosexuals, since what they do in consenting relationships has no effect on him.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you continue to criminalize your fellow citizens for living the lives they choose, be careful. Someone may accuse you. That is all it will take in Uganda, without an “activist judge” to protect you. You just might find yourself in prison where you can get all that homo activity you apparently claim.

  • Richard Willmer

    James Onen

    I think you are correct about the long-term outcome (Bahati-fuelled discussion is starting to beak down the taboo). My principal concern is what human rights abuses are perpetrated in the meantime.

    I too am ‘cautiously optimistic’ that the Bahati Bill will lapse when the Eighth Parliament is dissolved, although there must no slackening in the campaign against it, of course.

  • Richard Willmer

    Wilypagan

    I’m doubt (though I might be wrong, of course) that Maazi NCO is a ‘closet case’. His comments suggest to me that he supports the ‘Bahati agenda’ out of some kind of ‘misplaced nationalism’.

    You are, however, correct to suggest that the Bahati Bill opens up all kinds of possibilities for serious abuses of ‘justice’. If it ever becomes law (which is looking increasingly unlikely, in my view), it could be used by unscrupulous individuals to destroy their political or business opponents. I have previously described it as a ‘jurisprudential disaster area’.

    It has certainly helped the campaign against the Bill that Bahati’s foreign backers include such deeply unsavoury characters as Scott Lively, who appears to be, amongst other things, a ‘Holocaust-denier’.

  • Richard Willmer

    James Onen

    I think you are correct about the long-term outcome (Bahati-fuelled discussion is starting to beak down the taboo). My principal concern is what human rights abuses are perpetrated in the meantime.

    I too am ‘cautiously optimistic’ that the Bahati Bill will lapse when the Eighth Parliament is dissolved, although there must be no slackening in the campaign against it, of course.

  • Maazi NCO

    James Onen,

    I will start by saying that your attempts to portray gayism as an identity akin to race is just rubbish not founded on any credible conclusive science. There is no gay gene. Quit kidding yourself. Name-dropping Martin Luther King will not change these facts.

    You keep referring to Ugandans as semi-literates and illiterates, implying that people who revile gayism are uneducated, backward people—an argument popular among pro-gay propagandists of which you are certainly one. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I am well-travelled man. I have been to first-world nations like Singapore, where a 2007 campaign to repeal the sodomy laws proved unpopular with almost 70% of the population, forcing the government there to keep the penal code in place. There are other relatively rich nations such as Malaysia and UAE where gayism is equally reviled. My point is that literacy or socio-economic status does not determine whether or not one thinks gayism is right or wrong. Hedonism— or lack of it —is the driving force in determining how people perceive gayism. Gay sex is not a HUMAN RIGHT and is not covered by the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights despite latter day attempts to re-interpret its provisions to cover the depraved sexual activity.

    I can see you are spitting fire, getting all emotional and throwing around cheap insults because you are desperate to have sexual perversion legalized in Uganda. I have already thrown the gauntlet to you and your gay sex buddies—–If you are confident that our constitution protects that debased sexual activity which you adore and worship, then by all means, go to the courts and have the Sex Offenders Act of 2000 struck down. Its simple really and much easier than spitting fire on the pages of Warren Throckmorton’s blog.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    Thanks for the response. Let’s see if it has fared any better than the previous ones.

    You said:

    I will start by saying that your attempts to portray gayism as an identity akin to race is just rubbish not founded on any credible conclusive science. There is no gay gene. Quit kidding yourself. Name-dropping Martin Luther King will not change these facts.

    I will start by thanking you Maazi NCO. You see, this week I’m on leave from work and I’ve been looking for activities that would entertain me. Interacting with you has provided me with more entertainment than I could have ever hoped for. Imagine, here I was thinking the Christmas holidays were going to be boring. Thank you :-)

    Two things, to begin with…

    First of all, I’m not sure what the ‘Gay Gene’ has to do with this discussion. My defense of the rights of LGBT people isn’t predicated on sexual orientation being innate (though I believe it is, on account of the evidence). I suspect you brought up the ‘gay gene’ in order to argue along the lines of…

    ……because, purportedly, no gay gene has been discovered, this means that people are not born gay but choose to be gay, in which case they don’t count as a legitimate ‘group’ that can claim to seek constitutional protection on account of being a marginalized minority….

    Is that the direction you were trying to take? Well, since you never present sound arguments I’m actually venturing one for you here. (Let me know if you had a different argument than this in mind)

    Well if this is your argument, take a look at what happens when you substitute the word gay with ‘Bahai’:

    ‘…..no ‘Bahai’ gene has been discovered. This means that people are not born Bahais but choose to be Bahais, in which case they don’t count as a legitimate ‘group’ that can claim to seek constitutional protection on account of being a marginalized minority….’

    Well, well, well… what do we have here? Religious belief, political affiliation, cultural practices are not ‘in-born’ are they? But even then, people are entitled to constitutional protection along those lines.

    Okay… so the constitution doesn’t explicitly state that being an LGBT person makes you a legitimate minority. It doesn’t ‘spell-it-out’. But guess what – it doesn’t have to. Good legal documents take into account the fact that specifics are often variable, which is why you get provisions like this one in Article 32 (1), which, after listing a few relevant categories, summarize the point by articulating the general principle upon which those categories have been determined:

    Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.

    The general principle here being “…Or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances against them.”

    In Uganda, it is history, culture and tradition (I’d also add religion) that have, without an iota of doubt, contributed directly to the prejudices that exist against LGBT people today. This much is undeniable. You yourself have invoked the culture card repeated to justify your prejudices. This constitutional provision can therefore be invoked to protect minorities from people like you. It just needs to be enforced by repealing the existing laws that violate it.

    I am personally surprised that this has not been recognized. But you know what? This is what happens when what people are taught are facts to be memorized, and not general principles to be understood, which then become the foundation for establishing those facts and recognizing new ones in light of new evidence.

    Facts are provisional, and are amenable to change when new information is introduced (that is how rational people view the concept of ‘facts’ anyway). The general principle becomes the basis upon which that new information is analyzed and interpreted before it joins the ranks of other accepted facts (it, like all the others, pending further confirmation, or disconfirmation, based on the strength of available evidence). This is why philosophy is important, and I so wish that it was taught compulsorily to secondary school students! Under the current system, students are taught what to think, not how.

    Maazi, what you should therefore be doing is provide me with an actual argument as to how there not being a ‘gay gene’ (should that indeed be the case) renders LGBT people any less worthy of having their fundamental human rights being protected.

    You have not done this.

    There are no religion genes, politics genes, or economic system genes, yet people who subscribe to all manner of religious denominations, political parties, or economic systems, and who do so by choice, have their rights and freedoms protected, don’t they?

    This, to me, therefore renders the choice/innate question on homosexuality irrelevant. So I ask you, again, what is your argument and how is it supposed to work? Otherwise, as it is, the general principle in Article 32 (1) is clear, and can be applied for the protection of the rights of LGBT people.

    Secondly, I do not subscribe to the notion of a ‘Gay Gene’, so you straw-manned me on that. Like I said earlier, I happen to think it is irrelevant to the issue at hand (and if you think I am wrong for holding this view kindly show me on what basis I am in error; thanks), but for the purpose of clarification, let me make my position clear. I accept the prevailing consensus view on sexual orientation which is that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, environmental and biological factors, and that people have no real choice in what their sexual orientation will be.

    This is the consensus view of the experts relevant to this issue.

    Of course, I know you reject the prevailing scientific consensus, Maazi, but there’s really not much I can do about that. As I told you in an earlier comment, there are people who still think the earth is flat, even though the prevailing consensus is that is spherical. There are some scientists who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, even though the prevailing consensus is that it does. No amount of evidence will convince these ‘deniers’ that the scientific consensus on these issues is valid. What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    People will believe weird things and will deny the facts, Maazi, and there is nothing I can do about that.

    What you cannot claim to have, is scientific support for your views. It will also be obvious to anyone reading through your comments that your hostility towards gay people are not informed by reason or science but by your archaic cultural prejudices, and in your numerous comments here you have hammered this point home. You can’t claim to have a rational argument either, because I have also frequently requested you for a sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified, but no such argument has come from you yet – and I doubt it will.

    You said:

    You keep referring to Ugandans as semi-literates and illiterates, implying that people who revile gayism are uneducated, backward people—an argument popular among pro-gay propagandists of which you are certainly one.

    You know, I wish you offer me the same courtesy I offer you. I go through your responses step by step, and I go out of my way to directly quote you so that we are all clear about what I’m specifically responding to.

    Let’s look at the actual exachange, shall we? You had earlier said:

    Your comment about the majority of Ugandans being irrational for rejecting such sexual behaviour as anti-social, inhuman and deviant is a matter of opinion not agreeable with most here.

    To which I responded:

    Not agreeable with most here? As in Uganda? Look, I work in the media industry ‘here’. I follow the news. I know the appalling quality of UPE and USE education. I know about the poor quality of graduates our institutions of higher learning are churning out… year in, year out. Acclaimed scholar Mahmud Mamdani even worries that if current conditions prevail, most major African universities will “cease to produce knowledge and become little more than… glorified secondary schools”. Given these facts, I ask you, how much stock should be placed on the prejudices of half-educated/semi-literate Ugandans impervious to persuasion by reason, logic or evidence – in the evaluation of what is essentially a scientific question? And it is these prejudices of a half-educated/semi-literate society that you are brandishing as justification for bigotry? You’re hilarious!

    The problem is that you’re expecting me to be impressed by the fact that the majority of Ugandans share your archaic views. My response was intended to press the point that there is nothing to be proud of in defending your bigotry by appealing to the opinions of ‘most here’ (your words) – the ‘most here’ in question being a population of generally half-educated/semi-literate people (which is a fact, the last time I checked). Let me put it this way. I also wouldn’t be impressed by a Pakistani man who told me Asia Bibi (the Pakistani Christian woman on death row for blasphemy) should be stoned to death because the majority of the population shared his view. In your case, and in the case of this hypothetical Pakistani man, the problem is, first of all, the fallacy of the appeal to majority (which does not automatically render the majority view correct) – and secondly, that this majority view is one mostly comprised of people whose opinions on such issues have been formed on the basis of cultural and/or religious prejudices – and not logic, reason or science.

    All this can be avoided by you taking the time to offer me even one logically sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified. Will it come?

    You said:

    Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I am well-travelled man. I have been to first-world nations like Singapore, where a 2007 campaign to repeal the sodomy laws proved unpopular with almost 70% of the population, forcing the government there to keep the penal code in place. There are other relatively rich nations such as Malaysia and UAE where gayism is equally reviled. My point is that literacy or socio-economic status does not determine whether or not one thinks gayism is right or wrong.

    Travelling does not equal ability to produce sound arguments, evidently. For the third time, don’t appeal to injustices committed by some to justify the injustices you want to level at others. That’s fallacious reasoning. Here is why: they’re threatening to stone a Christian woman to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. Does this make it a good idea that all of us should adopt? Of course not.

    But I’m glad you brought up Singapore. From Wikipedia:

    After the exhaustive Penal Code review in 2007, oral and anal sex were legalised for heterosexuals and female homosexuals only. The changes meant that oral and anal sex between consenting heterosexual and female homosexual adults were no longer offences but section 377A, which dealt with gross indecency between consenting men, remained in force.

    So what do you say, that we too, in Uganda, legalise heterosexual sodomy, as well as oral sex between lesbians? Is this okay with you? You’re a well travelled guy right? Why don’t we do as the Singaporeans do?

    Of course, it is unfortunate that consensual adult male sex was not decriminalized, but hey – I think they’re off to a good start. Here’s what puzzles me: I really don’t know why you give up so easily. You seem to think one legal set-back means there will never be change. This is why I talked about the civil rights struggle in the US in my previous comment, because there is an important lesson to be learnt. The Loving Vs. Virginia case might interest you.

    What happened was that in 1924, the US State of Virginia had passed into law what they called the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial (white with non-white) marriage a felony. But guess what – the portion of the law outlawing interracial marriage was repealed by the US Supreme Court in 1967 in the Loving Vs. Virginia case. Forty three years after its initial enactment, after years and years of subjecting it to legal challenge.

    And this is just one out of several landmark civil rights victories that have taken place in the last 100 years. Change is possible, and change takes time. So to seek solace in the fact that certain governments are resisting changing existing repressive laws today is foolhardy. It is by no means a proof that the status quo shall prevail for eternity.

    To quote Max Plank:

    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather, because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

    What Plank felt about scientific truths, is what I feel about the pursuit of justice.

    Indeed, with education, industrialization, urbanization and globalization will come a new generation of people who’ve been raised in a world awash with the humanistic ideals of equality, tolerance and fairness… away from archaic cultural prejudices that shaped the attitudes of the previous generation and the ones before. This is an inescapable sociological inevitability.

    This, also, is precisely why homophobic cultural/religious extremists are desperate. This is why they are angry. This is why they feel helpless. And because they know reason cannot be used to prop up their bigotry and prejudice, they are relying on anger, hatred, and intimidation to bolster their fragile fantasy. They are swimming against the tide of human progress, and they know it. They are the dying breed, and they know it. And there is no turning back.

    Lawyers in Singapore, meanwhile, have not stopped challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A. One day justice will prevail. If not in this generation, maybe in the next :-)

    Now about Malaysia and UAE…

    Actually, even hetero-sexual oral sex is also reviled in Malaysia under its colonial-era penal code. Did you know that? And UAE has a sharia system where even fornication is a reviled crime. Did you know that too? Should Uganda also criminalise hetero-sexual oral sex and fornication? Maazi, should we?

    So if your point here is that it’s ok for you to be a bigot because there still exist discriminatory laws in some countries then I’m sorry, you haven’t proved your case. You’ve only proved that there exist discriminatory laws in some countries, and not that those laws are in any way rationally justifiable. I’d be more impressed if you were able to point me to the rationale these countries have used as justification for laws against consensual adult homosexual acts. The question would then be to determine whether or not that rationale stands up to reason, and respect for human rights. From what I have seen in the commentary of politicians who preferred to maintain these laws in those countries, they are relying solely on an appeal to culture and customs. We have already seen that such appeals are not only fallacious, but also unconstitutional and violate human rights.

    You said:

    Hedonism— or lack of it —is the driving force in determining how people perceive gayism. Gay sex is not a HUMAN RIGHT and is not covered by the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights despite latter day attempts to re-interpret its provisions to cover the depraved sexual activity.

    Actually, Maazi, hedonism is quite irrelevant to this debate, and here’s why:

    One’s personal perception, or opinion, of an act, particularly one that does not infringe on the fundamental human rights of others, should have no bearing on any discussion of its constitutionality. Hate gay sex all you want, you are entitled to hold that view. I’ll have you know that gay sex is something that personally doesn’t appeal to me either. But this doesn’t make it ok for either of us to use these personal perceptions/opinions of ours, about gay sex, as the basis for advocating for discriminatory laws against those who don’t share our view. And more so if those perceptions are informed by cultural or religious beliefs.

    About human rights, allow me to begin by reiterating something I said a moment ago:

    This is what happens when what people are taught are facts to be memorized, and not general principles to be understood, which then become the foundation for establishing those facts and recognizing new ones. Facts are provisional, and are amenable to change when new information is introduced (that is how rational people view facts anyway). The general principle becomes the basis upon which that new information is analyzed and interpreted before it joins the ranks of other accepted facts (it, like all the others, pending further confirmation, or disconfirmation, based on the strength of evidence). This is why philosophy is important, and I so wish that it was taught compulsorily to secondary school students! Under the current system, students are taught what to think, not how.

    So for you to say that gay rights is not a human right because it is not explicitily stated as such in the 1948 UN Human Rights declaration is to miss the point completely. Let’s look at the first two articles:

    Article 1:

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2:

    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    without disctinction of any kind, such as

    Do you see? Good legal documents take into account the fact that specifics are often variable, which is why you see the kind of language in use in Article 2 of the UN Human Rights Declaration, which prior to listing a few relevant categories, begin the point by articulating the general principle upon which those categories have been determined. The general principle here being “without distinction of any kind” and then it says ‘such as’ before citing relevant examples. The specific distinctions cited are merely provided as relevant examples of such distinctions as were contentious in the world at the time, post World War II. It is not that those are the only distinctions the 1948 UN Human Rights Declaration recognizes, or accepts. The distinctions on the list are examples to demonstrate the general principle. You said you have a masters’ degree, so I KNOW you understand this.

    You said:

    I can see you are spitting fire, getting all emotional and throwing around cheap insults because you are desperate to have sexual perversion legalized in Uganda.

    Correction: Spitting REASON, LOGIC and SCIENCE. I have asked incessantly, for you to offer me even one logically sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified. You have not. Meanwhile, I have decimated your appeals to culture as a rational justification. You must know that such appeals are fallacious, don’t you? Oh, and also unconstitutional.

    You conclude:

    I have already thrown the gauntlet to you and your gay sex buddies—–If you are confident that our constitution protects that debased sexual activity which you adore and worship, then by all means, go to the courts and have the Sex Offenders Act of 2000 struck down. Its simple really and much easier than spitting fire on the pages of Warren Throckmorton’s blog.

    I do accept the challenge, Maazi NCO. It’s time to get the ball rolling, and I’m right on it :-). It may be decades till LGBT people get their freedom. Fortunately for me, and other compassionate human beings, injustice has a way of not lasting very long, especially when under fierce and persistent assault by reason and compassion.

    Stop the hate. Hate never wins.

  • Maazi NCO

    I will start by thanking you Maazi NCO. You see, this week I’m on leave from work and I’ve been looking for activities that would entertain me.

    I am glad that you see me as entertainment :) —but unlike yourself, I am a busy man.Though I do create time to visit this blog frequently, I really do not have the time to engage your incredibly long emotional rants in a point-by-point rebuttal. But I shall make an exception in this particular reply to your last extraordinarily long commentary—- just to prove that I am never shy of a challenge or a debate.

    What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    Gayism has nothing to do with Nazi Holocaust and Rwandan genocide which are racist/ethnic crimes against humanity. Normally, conflating rejection of gayism and racism is a favoured propaganda line employed by gay sex advocates. It has becoming tiring and unconvincing. One does not need to listen to a bunch of Americans to see that there is indeed a Gay Agenda underway. One only needs to see attempts such as those made in 2008 by France and Netherlands to use the United Nations to impose gayism on the world. One needs to observe how Western governments—desperate to please their domestic gay sex electorate—are trying to blackmail other nations into accepting gayism using UN organs and multilateral gatherings such as the EU–Africa summits or Africa/Caribbean/Pacific–Europe economic forums. There is of course the usual threats to withhold the [largely useless] donor aid. It is amazing how these Western governments are ready to suspend donor aid to African States for gayism, but are reluctant to do the same on important matters such as corruption (even when they are paying lip-service to elimination of corruption).

    Okay… so the constitution doesn’t explicitly state that being an LGBT person makes you a legitimate minority. It doesn’t ‘spell-it-out’. But guess what – it doesn’t have to.

    The Constitution of Uganda does not protect gay sex any more than the United States Constitution protects polygamy. Stop twisting the facts to fit your favourite narrative. I have already told you to challenge the sodomy laws in court with your arguments for “gay rights”. I am surprised that you and your gay sex buddies do not seem to have the confidence to use your convoluted arguments to convince a court in Uganda to strike out the Sex Offenders Act of 2000. Is it because you chaps know that Ugandan judges will NEVER pass legislation from the bench?

    Maazi, what you should therefore be doing is provide me with an actual argument as to how there not being a ‘gay gene’ (should that indeed be the case) renders LGBT people any less worthy of having their fundamental human rights being protected.

    Everyone in Uganda is protected by the law of the land. However certain behaviours exhibited by people are not protected from punishment. Those who engage in any form of crime from gayism to rape to fraud to murder to vandalism are criminals to be punished under the law. Of course, it goes without saying that a crime in one sovereign territory may actually not be so in another territory. A good example is bigamy/polygamy and holocaust denial which are crimes in some places, but not in other places.

    So what do you say, that we too, in Uganda, legalise heterosexual sodomy, as well as oral sex between lesbians? Is this okay with you? You’re a well travelled guy right? Why don’t we do as the Singaporeans do?

    Stop being obtuse, okay? I mentioned Singapore and others to indicate that there is no correlation between accepting gay sex as normal and a people’s level of education, economic status and place of origin. I wanted to show that highly educated masses—religious or irreligious— from rich nations can also share the same view on certain subjects as illiterate masses in poorer nations. Literacy is not necessarily a function of intelligence or cognitive abilities. It was part of a response to your comment linking gay sex acceptance to the level of literacy found in Uganda. Please allow me to reiterate again that gay sex is not normal behaviour and is rejected overwhelmingly by rich and poor societies in many places, including where it is not criminalized. For instance, Japan does not criminalize gayism, but if you have ever spent time there like I have, you will know that gayism is a taboo subject there and is just tolerated. Even though gay sex practitioners are free to parade the streets to celebrate their deviant behaviour, it is something most Japanese prefer not to talk about and most mainstream Japanese politicians would rather be caught dead, than talk of so-called “gay rights” or “gay marriage”. Gayism is not normal and most people all over the world know it. However, there are those who subscribe to libertarian ideological school which states that certain anti-social behaviours should be legal if parties to it are consenting adults. There are also those in the world who reject such libertarian ideology and maintain that certain anti-behaviour should be criminalized regardless of consent.

    Lawyers in Singapore, meanwhile, have not stopped challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A. One day justice will prevail. If not in this generation, maybe in the next

    Oh pleazzee !! Do you know anything about Singapore? The Singaporean judiciary is not the highly politicized US judiciary with its liberal and conservative judges. In Singapore, judges do not pass legislation from the bench. The sodomy law will go when the parliament decides—- and the parliament will decide to repeal the sodomy law only when majority of Singaporeans agree to that. Same applies to Uganda.

    Hate gay sex all you want, you are entitled to hold that view. I’ll have you know that gay sex is something that personally doesn’t appeal to me either. But this doesn’t make it ok for either of us to use these personal perceptions/opinions of ours, about gay sex, as the basis for advocating for discriminatory laws against those who don’t share our view.

    I do not share your western-centric libertarian ideology, which confers “rights” on individuals without emphasizing the need to exercise these “rights” with responsibility. I rather agree with the African Charter on Human Rights, which recognizes the communal nature of African societies by granting “collective group rights” and indicating that all individual rights and freedoms must be exercised with due regards to common interest and morality. Most Ugandans do not want gayism, therefore it shall remain a criminal offence there.

    So for you to say that gay rights is not a human right because it is not explicitily stated as such in the 1948 UN Human Rights declaration is to miss the point completely.

    1948 UNDHR does not cover gayism that is why France and Netherlands made a desperate and unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to impose UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity on the whole world. All other attempts to peddle the gay agenda on a global scale is bound to failure.

    This is why I talked about the civil rights struggle in the US in my previous comment, because there is an important lesson to be learnt. The Loving Vs. Virginia case might interest you.

    I have read the history of the civil rights movements and nearly all cases handled by Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP lawyers. Loving versus Virgina was a clear case of racism which is explicitly prohibited in every known international human rights instruments starting from 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights. With regard to natural law, there is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because: (1) without prejudice to barren opposite sex couples, a product of any fertile man and fertile woman—regardless of race or ethnicity— is a child and (2) it is agreed by all that race is an immutable characteristic and this can be proved scientifically by genetic studies using simple Mendelian techniques. Gayism has not been proven credibly and conclusively using science to be immutable or normal ( I concede that it has been “normalized” for political reasons). If everybody took to interracial marriages, we will have a highly mixed population similar to that of Brazil. If everyone decided to engage exclusively in gay sex, then the world as it we know it will cease to exist at some point due to lack of procreation. One doesn’t need to listen to a religious fundamentalist to know this fact !!

    Stop the hate. Hate never wins.

    This refrain is quite popular with gay sex propagandists. I am not surprised you reiterate it like an automaton at the end of each and every one of your long windy essays. BTW, I do not hate anyone, but I can see the propaganda value of labelling anyone stridently opposed to gayism as being hateful. I assure you that such cheap propaganda will not force me to shift my opinion any more than it would if a person supporting legalization of drugs accused me of hating drug addicts because of my support for the criminalization of narcotic possession.

  • Maazi NCO

    POINT OF CORRECTION

    Literacy is not necessarily a function of intelligence or cognitive abilities. I

    it should have read—-

    Intelligence or cognitive abilities is not a function of literacy

  • Richard Willmer

    Maazi

    What is it that you are seeking to achieve through the criminalisation of those in consensual relationships?

  • ken

    Richard,

    Why are you bothering to try to have a rational discussion with Maazi? Any reasonably person would recognize that as being a waste of time. He is just going to spout a lot of homophobic nonsense and unsubstantiated claims of “gay recruitment.” And when you ask him for evidence of his claims he’ll say he has already given it before or respond with more homophobic comments.

    While I strongly encourage others posting their view points and verifiable information about uganda, please do us all a favor and just ignore him.

  • Richard Willmer

    Ken

    I think you’ll find that ‘Maazi NCO’ will post comments whether or not I, or anyone else, replies to them.

    ‘Maazi’s’ unsubstantiated claims are, of course, complete nonsense; they actually refer to some health promotion leaflets distributed in 2007 – if they refer to anything at all, that is. In addition, ‘Maazi’ is somewhat verbose, to say the least, as well being rather confused over issues such as privacy.

    It is just possible that he might be involved with work on amending the Bahati Bill – this is why I have been ‘probing’ him. (I see no point in continuing with that exercise – which is why I’m now ‘owning up’ to what I’ve been doing.)

    He has let one or two things ‘slip’, which others (not on this blog) have found quite interesting when I’ve passed them on.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    Thanks for offering a more fleshed-out response. This one is certainly more interesting than the others. So let’s see…

    You said:

    I am glad that you see me as entertainment —but unlike yourself, I am a busy man.Though I do create time to visit this blog frequently, I really do not have the time to engage your incredibly long emotional rants in a point-by-point rebuttal. But I shall make an exception in this particular reply to your last extraordinarily long commentary—- just to prove that I am never shy of a challenge or a debate.

    Well you certainly are shy of providing a logically sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified, aren’t you? My comments are lengthy is because not only do I decimate your excuses for bigotry, I have to take the time to explain why they are poor excuses. And I have done repeatedly, for which you have offered no sound rebuttals. But I’m glad you’re back for more.

    You quoted me saying:

    What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    To which your response was:

    Gayism has nothing to do with Nazi Holocaust and Rwandan genocide which are racist/ethnic crimes against humanity. Normally, conflating rejection of gayism and racism is a favoured propaganda line employed by gay sex advocates. It has becoming tiring and unconvincing.

    But you missed the point completely. Why didn’t you quote the whole of my paragraph, which was:

    Of course, I know you reject the prevailing scientific consensus, Maazi, but there’s really not much I can do about that. As I told you in an earlier comment, there are people who still think the earth is flat, even though the prevailing consensus is that is spherical. There are some scientists who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, even though the prevailing consensus is that it does. No amount of evidence will convince these ‘deniers’ that the scientific consensus on these issues is valid. What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    People will believe weird things and will deny the facts, Maazi, and there is nothing I can do about that.

    And that was my whole point. Scott Lively was included as an example of the tendency of people to believe the most ludicrous things in the face of the established facts and the expert consensus. That is all. So you reject the scientific consensus of the relevant experts on sexual orientation, and what I’m saying is that there is nothing I can do about that. I also can’t do anything about people who reject evolution, global warming, the moon landing, and the fact that the earth is spherical. Their ignorance is cannot be my burden, and neither can yours.

    You said:

    One does not need to listen to a bunch of Americans to see that there is indeed a Gay Agenda underway.

    Well, well…there is also an Environmentalist Agenda, Christian Agenda, Evangelical Agenda, Catholic Agenda, Women’s Emancipation Agenda, Democracy Agenda, Human Rights Agenda, Education-for-all agenda, Foreign Aid Agenda, Neo-Conservative Agenda, Islamic Agenda… there are all kinds of agendas. The world is full of diversity of all kinds, and people that represent the various facets of this diversity all have an interest in the way they interact with the rest of society, and the way society interacts with them. So having an ‘agenda’ is not a problem. Why? Because EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA, including you, Maazi, otherwise you wouldn’t be defending bigotry on Warren’s blog, would you?

    The question therefore, is not whether someone has an agenda – it is a question of what that agenda is. If what gays want is equal treatment and an end to harassment and discrimination, then, by golly, what a wonderful agenda that is!

    The problem with homophobic people like you, and Scott Lively, Pastor Ssempa, and others, is that you claim that this ‘gay agenda’ also includes a plot to destroy ‘the family’, a plot to turn everyone into homosexuals, a plot to recruit children, etc… this is the ‘imaginary’ part of the gay agenda I was alluding to.

    You said:

    One only needs to see attempts such as those made in 2008 by France and Netherlands to use the United Nations to impose gayism on the world. One needs to observe how Western governments—desperate to please their domestic gay sex electorate—are trying to blackmail other nations into accepting gayism using UN organs and multilateral gatherings such as the EU–Africa summits or Africa/Caribbean/Pacific–Europe economic forums.

    And what is wrong with appeasing the ‘gay electorate’? Isn’t that how a democracy works? Would you rather they didn’t?

    Politicians all over the world rely on patron-client relationships to build a support base, and raise funds for campaigns. So in America, for example, you’ll have the Christian Right (the Christian Agenda :-) ), the ‘Gun’ Lobby, the anti-immigration lobby, anti-abortion lobby, etc.. and other special interest groups, giving support in terms of votes and funds to mainly the Republican Party. Look at what happened to PEPFAR under President George W. Bush – where due to heavy influence of the conservative Christian right, priority for funding was given to mainly abstinence-based AIDS campaign programmes, while condom-based AIDS campaign programmes and projects were undermined.

    But again, that is how democracy works.

    All political parties represent various special interest groups, who give them the electoral and economic support they need to remain politically viable. My view of all this is that it makes democracy a highly dubious exercise. The funny thing is, it could also be argued that the Ugandan president has flirted with the anti-homosexuality sentiment to capitalize on the general homophobia in Uganda. Many have threatened not to vote Museveni back if he bows to western pressure and blocks the bill. Now, I ask you… how different is this from the ‘gay electorate’ In the US using their votes and influence to urge their governments to denounce the Bahati Bill? I mean, how is your complaint supposed to work, exactly? That anti-gay rights people, like yourself, can lobby politicians in their home countries, but pro-gay people can’t, in theirs? That’s a double standard, Maazi, if there ever was one.

    Regarding the anti-homosexuality bill (and general ill-treatment of homosexuals), not only gay rights groups are opposed to it, but even religious conservatives like evangelists Rick Warren, and Joyce Meyer. Even the Vatican calls for decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts. Are they part of the gay-lobby too? No.

    So what foreign governments are responding to, then, is pressure, not only from gay-lobbyists or the gay-electorate, but from all people in their countries who value freedom and compassion. And that is democracy at work for you.

    You said:

    There is of course the usual threats to withhold the [largely useless] donor aid. It is amazing how these Western governments are ready to suspend donor aid to African States for gayism, but are reluctant to do the same on important matters such as corruption (even when they are paying lip-service to elimination of corruption).

    I do agree with you that donor aid is generally useless, and I would prefer that it was stopped. It is my view that Foreign Aid increases poverty and corruption. See? Even we can agree sometimes :-)

    You said:

    The Constitution of Uganda does not protect gay sex any more than the United States Constitution protects polygamy. Stop twisting the facts to fit your favourite narrative. I have already told you to challenge the sodomy laws in court with your arguments for “gay rights”. I am surprised that you and your gay sex buddies do not seem to have the confidence to use your convoluted arguments to convince a court in Uganda to strike out the Sex Offenders Act of 2000. Is it because you chaps know that Ugandan judges will NEVER pass legislation from the bench?

    Actually, Maazi, there is no Federal Law against polygamy in the USA, even though it is illegal in all 50 states under state laws, mainly on ‘moral’ grounds. I would argue that such laws, too, are unconstitutional as they are based not on the basis of human rights but in the basis of a perceived morality. Morality, being a highly subjective matter, always boils down to religious or cultural prejudices, therefore to rely on it as a basis of a law will be problematic, if not unconstitutional. As long as we’re talking about consenting adults who enter into the relationship as equals and fully informed, it’s hard to logically deny people their right. Many groups in the US, such as Libertarians, are challenging anti-polygamy legislation in different states, and I agree with what they’re doing.

    When it comes to Uganda, and its constitution, its obvious you didn’t understand my point. To reiterate: Good legal documents take into account the fact that specifics are often variable, which is why you get provisions like this one in Article 32 (1), which, after listing a few relevant categories, summarize the point by articulating the general principle upon which those categories have been determined. The general principle, being “…Or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances against them.”

    Let me give you two examples to help you understand this.

    Example 1: I am an atheist (a fact). No where in the Uganda constitution does it explicitly state that my right to be an atheist is constitutionally protected. Atheism is no more explicitly stated in the constitution as ‘gayism’ is. So do you think ‘atheism’ should be banned in Uganda because the constitution does not ‘spell-it-out’? Humour me with an answer, won’t you? Thanks.

    Example 2: According to one definition, a mammal is “Warm-blooded, usually hairy animals from the Chordate Phylum. This class of animals breathes air, gives live birth, and feeds milk to their young. Human beings are members of the Mammal Class, as well as dogs, cats, deer, mice, squirrels, raccoons, bats, opossums, and others.” The definition starts by providing the general principle by which one can distinguish mammals from other animals – then it proceeds to give examples. Now I ask, does it mean that any other animal that was not included on this list of examples is not a mammal? Of course not. So lets say I come across a tiger. To determine whether or not it is a mammal, I would need to establish to what degree the tiger conforms to the general principle of what a mammal is. And indeed, going by that general principle, the tiger qualifies as a mammal.

    So Article 32 (1) spells out a general principle and underscores it by providing relevant examples for easier comprehension. The second article UN Human Rights Declaration does precisely the same. More on this later.

    Now, about “judges never passing legislation from the bench”, I only need to refer you the petition filed by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Institute that ended up with sedition laws being found to be unconstitutional, and thus declared null and void. If there are laws that are unconstitutional, they can be legally challenged, even without participation of the legislature.

    And this should be obvious.

    You said:

    Everyone in Uganda is protected by the law of the land. However certain behaviours exhibited by people are not protected from punishment. Those who engage in any form of crime from gayism to rape to fraud to murder to vandalism are criminals to be punished under the law.

    And that’s just the thing, Maazi. Thank you for bringing this up! Prior the ruling issued on the Andrew Mwenda petition, sedition was a crime. However, it was found to by the courts to be unconstitutional for sedition to be a crime, and hence the relevant laws were declared to be null and void. I feel like bringing up that point about people being taught what to think and not how, but I’ll skip that (refer to my previous comment). What is being challenged in this discussion between us (feels more like a one sided lecture in constitutionalism from me to you, but anyway), is whether or not laws criminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults are constitutional or not. I have already shown, MANY TIMES that they are not constitutional. This is why the relevant laws, whether in the penal code, or sexual offenders, act, or whatever other legal document, should be scrapped. As a reminder to you, Article 2 of the Uganda Constitution says:

    2. Supremacy of the Constitution.

    (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda.

    (2) If any other law or any custom is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and that other law or custom shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

    Let’s continue…

    You said:

    Of course, it goes without saying that a crime in one sovereign territory may actually not be so in another territory. A good example is bigamy/polygamy and holocaust denial which are crimes in some places, but not in other places.

    …which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Maazi. We are discussing constitutionalism, not cultural relativism. Look, to rescue yourself from your rather precarious position, you must demonstrate on what grounds the (discriminatory) laws against consensual homosexual acts tally with the Uganda Constitution. I have shown, several times already, that they do not.

    You said:

    Stop being obtuse, okay? I mentioned Singapore and others to indicate that there is no correlation between accepting gay sex as normal and a people’s level of education, economic status and place of origin. I wanted to show that highly educated masses—religious or irreligious— from rich nations can also share the same view on certain subjects as illiterate masses in poorer nations. Literacy is not necessarily a function of intelligence or cognitive abilities. It was part of a response to your comment linking gay sex acceptance to the level of literacy found in Uganda.

    Well if you’d read a few sentences further you’d have seen where I addressed that contention directly. I said:

    So if your point here is that it’s ok for you to be a bigot because there still exist discriminatory laws in some countries then I’m sorry, you haven’t proved your case. You’ve only proved that there exist discriminatory laws in some countries, and not that those laws are in any way rationally justifiable. I’d be more impressed if you were able to point me to the rationale these countries have used as justification for laws against consensual adult homosexual acts. The question would then be to determine whether or not that rationale stands up to reason, and respect for human rights. From what I have seen in the commentary of politicians who preferred to maintain these laws in those countries, they are relying solely on an appeal to culture and customs. We have already seen that such appeals are not only fallacious, but also unconstitutional and violate human rights.

    OK? And you conveniently did not respond to this point. But anyway…

    You said:

    For instance, Japan does not criminalize gayism, but if you have ever spent time there like I have, you will know that gayism is a taboo subject there and is just tolerated. Even though gay sex practitioners are free to parade the streets to celebrate their deviant behaviour, it is something most Japanese prefer not to talk about and most mainstream Japanese politicians would rather be caught dead, than talk of so-called “gay rights” or “gay marriage”.

    Lucky for you I WAS BORN IN JAPAN and spent 12 years of my life there, Maazi. I speak the language, fluently, and know the culture intimately.

    Honto desu yo! Wakarimasuka?

    I know enough about the Japanese to know that you are speaking complete and utter nonsense. In the 1980s, the most popular TV programme in Japan called “Hachijidayo Zen’insh?g?!” (with weekly television ratings of an unprecedented 50% of the national audience in during their time slot Saturdays 8-9pm) featured a slot where one of its lead comedians performed a gay skit. In Japan, under the veneer of superficial conservatism lies a highly sexually repressed people, whose multi billion yen fetish porn industry speaks volumes about how they actually feel about sex than they’d reveal to people outwardly. Out of respect to Warren and is ideals, I will not torment you with the details – but some of that stuff, even for the liberal me, is quite shocking.

    There is also a whole booming sub-genre in the Anime (Japanese animation) and Manga (Japanese comics) industries catering to man-and-man romance, called Yaoi. Look it up.

    So yeah, Japanese politicians will talk the talk, won’t they? They’re politicians, after all, catering to the fantasy of an idealized, romanticized, conservative past. But Japanese people are not intolerant of gay people. They’re actually more intolerant of foreigners than they are of gay people, you’ll be surprised to know. So, yay for Japan?

    You said:

    Gayism is not normal and most people all over the world know it

    .

    Define normal. Then tell me what people’s perceptions of what they perceive to be normal have any bearing on its legality. Thanks. A lot of people used to think slavery was normal. A lot of people used to think beating women was normal (probably many still do). A lot of people in eastern Uganda think female genital mutilation is normal. You seem to think discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is normal. Who defines what normal is?

    If what you mean is that people all over the world have the tendency to be highly prejudiced, then I won’t disagree with you. In the highly educated Japan, I remember me and my brothers being stoned out of a park because the Japanese kids we found there thought we looked like gorillas. Injustices exist everywhere, Maazi, and it’s up to the compassionate people of this world to challenge them wherever they exist.

    You said:

    However, there are those who subscribe to libertarian ideological school which states that certain anti-social behaviours should be legal if parties to it are consenting adults.

    How is homosexuality anti-social? I have many gay and lesbian friends. We ‘socialise’ just fine. Some of them are the nicest people I know. You also have it backwards. What is anti-social is DISCRIMINATION. What is anti-social is INTOLERANCE. What is anti-social is HATE. You and other homophobes are therefore the personification of anti-social behaviour. Stop the hate

    You said:

    There are also those in the world who reject such libertarian ideology and maintain that certain anti-behaviour should be criminalized regardless of consent.

    Yeah. And those that do so have no rational justification for doing so, besides recourse to cultural or religious prejudices. Remember, I’ve been waiting for a sound argument from you for DAYS and so far nothing has come from you. Otherwise, I’ve already gone into great detail about how biases against an act motivated by culture or religion have no bearing on its legality. If you need me to clarify on this, please let me know – I’d be happy to. Or maybe you can just refer to my earlier comments where I’ve gone into detail about this.

    Appeals to culture, appeals to the majority, or appeals to the injustices committed by others, as a justification for discriminatory laws, are basically fallacious. The fact that all your arguments (if they can even be called that) revolve around these fallacies should make it clear to you that you are standing on thin intellectual ice.

    And this is not about ideologies. This is about reason, and logic.

    You said:

    Oh pleazzee !! Do you know anything about Singapore? The Singaporean judiciary is not the highly politicized US judiciary with its liberal and conservative judges. In Singapore, judges do not pass legislation from the bench. The sodomy law will go when the parliament decides—- and the parliament will decide to repeal the sodomy law only when majority of Singaporeans agree to that. Same applies to Uganda.

    It doesn’t matter. As long as human rights activists, lawyers or ordinary petitioners in Singapore persistently make a strong case for the unconstitutionality of discriminatory laws against consensual adult male homosexual acts, the laws will collapse one day. Such laws will meet the same fate in Uganda, JUST LIKE THE SEDITION LAW which was found to be unconstitutional following a petition by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Council. I’m sure you acknowledge that the Ugandan legislature had nothing to do with its getting repealed, don’t you? So stop bringing up the rather naïve point that ‘judiciaries don’t legislate from the bench’. Of course the judiciary doesn’t create legislation, but they are empowered to evaluate the constitutionality of existing legislation (should petitions against them be brought to the courts), and repeal them, if they are found not to be consistent with the constitution. Surely you know this, so stop pretending that you don’t.

    You said:

    I do not share your western-centric libertarian ideology, which confers “rights” on individuals without emphasizing the need to exercise these “rights” with responsibility. I rather agree with the African Charter on Human Rights, which recognizes the communal nature of African societies by granting “collective group rights” and indicating that all individual rights and freedoms must be exercised with due regards to common interest and morality.

    …But if such common interest, or morality, is determined on the basis of cultural or religious prejudices, then the pursuit of such interest or morality through legislation is unconstitutional. It’s that simple, really.

    You said:

    Most Ugandans do not want gayism, therefore it shall remain a criminal offence there.

    Thank goodness then, that the Uganda Constitution does not cater to the whims of the majority. It states in Article 32 (1):

    Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.

    You don’t seem to like your constitution very much, do you, Maazi NCO?

    You said:

    1948 UNDHR does not cover gayism that is why France and Netherlands made a desperate and unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to impose UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity on the whole world. All other attempts to peddle the gay agenda on a global scale is bound to failure.

    Actually, LGBT rights are covered under the general principle articulated in the second article of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as…” Some countries were (and still are) using the excuse that LGBT rights, or sexual orientation, wasn’t explicitly ‘spelt out’ in the original declaration as a basis for persisting with discriminatory laws against LGBT people in their countries. The new resolution was intended to ‘spell-it-out’ for those pretending not to understand this basic general principle.

    That said, in a strange way, I have to thank David Bahati for initiating the discussion. Since I know that the Bahati Bill will never be passed, and since the existing laws are more-or-less unenforceable (without breaching constitutionally protected privacy laws), we can get on with the business of openly talking about the issue, and openly challenging the claims of hateful bigots. You will be surprised at how many people have come to view things differently in the course of a year, at least in my experience. The open discussion has demystified homosexuality, and is continuing to do so.

    Come to think of it, what I’m probably going to do is circulate the link to this thread for others to read this exchange between you and me, Maazi NCO. They will see how your arguments, being identical to is typically heard from the Bahatis, Buturos, and Ssempas of this world) do not stand in the face of reason. They will see how fallacious they are. And they will see how unconstitutional they are. Won’t that be great? I should put them on my blog too :-)

    You said:

    I have read the history of the civil rights movements and nearly all cases handled by Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP lawyers. Loving versus Virgina was a clear case of racism which is explicitly prohibited in every known international human rights instruments starting from 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights.

    …which says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind.” Mr. Maazi NCO, do you have trouble comprehending the meaning of the phrase ‘without distinction of ANY KIND’? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not be so ferociously advocating for discriminatory laws against LGBT people.

    You continue:

    With regard to natural law, there is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because: (1) without prejudice to barren opposite sex couples, a product of any fertile man and fertile woman—regardless of race or ethnicity— is a child

    So does this mean that couples in which one or both partners are barren, or where both CHOOSE not to have children, cannot be married? Since when is child-bearing, or even a potential for child-bearing, a prerequisite for marriage? Interracial or otherwise?

    This has been the major criticism for the use of ‘Natural Law’ arguments as a basis for discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is a topic also discussed in philosophical circles, interestingly. Here is an excerpt of an overview of such debate as can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You might find it interesting:

    There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one’s loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.

    Out of curiosity, Maazi are you OK with hetero-sexual oral or anal sex? Do you think those acts violate ‘Natural Law’? If yes, then we’re going to need larger prisons in Uganda for all Ugandan heterosexuals guilty of those acts. And if no, you’d be guilty of applying double standards in your invocation of ‘Natural Law’ as a basis for criminalization of certain sexual acts.

    You said:

    and (2) it is agreed by all that race is an immutable characteristic and this can be proved scientifically by genetic studies using simple Mendelian techniques. Gayism has not been proven credibly and conclusively using science to be immutable or normal ( I concede that it has been “normalized” for political reasons).

    THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS:

    Below is a summary of the consensus views of actual certified experts and scientists relevant to the subject of sexual orientation. Their views are based on empirical research whose results are published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals:

    On whether homosexuality is a mental disorder

    According to the American Psychological Association (the major professional organisation representing certified psychologists in the United States, with about 150,000 members):

    “…research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

    On whether sexual orientation is a choice

    According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom with 15,000 members):

    “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.”

    The scientific consensus on sexual orientation is that sexual orientation is immutable, generally impervious to attempts at change, and not a matter of choice. You reject this. Like I said, there is nothing I can do about that, except to inform you that your views are without scientific merit.

    AIDS deniers, Flat Earthers, and Moon Landing Deniers, too, all tout their pet conspiracy theories in an attempt to justify their equally unscientific, fringe, evidence-free, irrational views. They, like you, insist that those who disagree with them do so as the result of heavy politicization of the mainstream scientific views they reject. Like I said, there is nothing to be done for such people – because a person whose views on a subject have not been informed by reason and evidence, cannot be persuaded out of that view, by reason and evidence.

    You said:

    If everybody took to interracial marriages, we will have a highly mixed population similar to that of Brazil. If everyone decided to engage exclusively in gay sex, then the world as it we know it will cease to exist at some point due to lack of procreation.

    But since the scientific consensus on sexual orientation is that people don’t choose to be gay, that shouldn’t be a concern, should it Maazi? Your premise is without evidential support.

    One doesn’t need to listen to a religious fundamentalist to know this fact !!

    Well it’s not a fact, and, again, you have not demonstrated it to be a fact that people choose to be gay. I’m not gay and I don’t think I care to be. I find that women are what interest me sexually.

    But wait a minute… are you suggesting that if homosexuality were decriminalized, and ‘gayism were allowed to spread’ (as only you would say), one day YOU, Pastor Ssempa, David Bahati and Nsaba Buturo wouldn’t be interested in women anymore? Hmm…… now that you allude to this possibility, I’m reminded by a study called “Is Homophobia Related to Homosexual Arousal?” carried out in 1996 by the Department of Psychology at the University of Georgia. The abstract reads:

    The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

    Ha ha ha… so you might be in denial, Maazi NCO :-)

    You conclude:

    This refrain is quite popular with gay sex propagandists. I am not surprised you reiterate it like an automaton at the end of each and every one of your long windy essays. BTW, I do not hate anyone, but I can see the propaganda value of labelling anyone stridently opposed to gayism as being hateful. I assure you that such cheap propaganda will not force me to shift my opinion any more than it would if a person supporting legalization of drugs accused me of hating drug addicts because of my support for the criminalization of narcotic possession.

    By ‘this refrain’ you were referring to my statement “Stop the hate. Hate never wins”.

    I repeat it because you just don’t seem to get it. Hate simply never wins. Slavery. The Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany. Oppression of Women… all these historical prejudices and violations of rights of people eventually collapsed. The discrimination LGBT people are being continuously subjected by you, and like-minded individuals, too, will collapse one day. It has already done so in many countries.

    As long as compassionate people persist in their advocacy of justice and equality, hate will not be left standing. This is simply both a historical and sociological fact – but you don’t get it. So I repeat the point for your own benefit, Maazi NCO.

    I am under no illusion that this is a fight that can be won in one day. It may take years, decades, generations…but as long as courageous voices keep speaking up, change will come. And that is all that matters.

    Why?

    ….Because hate never wins. Stop the hate, Maazi NCO :-)

    Happy New Year to all.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    Thanks for offering a more fleshed-out response. This one is certainly more interesting than the others. So let’s see…

    You said:

    I am glad that you see me as entertainment —but unlike yourself, I am a busy man.Though I do create time to visit this blog frequently, I really do not have the time to engage your incredibly long emotional rants in a point-by-point rebuttal. But I shall make an exception in this particular reply to your last extraordinarily long commentary—- just to prove that I am never shy of a challenge or a debate.

    Well you certainly are shy of providing a logically sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified, aren’t you? My comments are lengthy is because not only do I decimate your excuses for bigotry, I have to take the time to explain why they are poor excuses. And I have done repeatedly, for which you have offered no sound rebuttals. But I’m glad you’re back for more.

    You quoted me saying:

    What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    To which your response was:

    Gayism has nothing to do with Nazi Holocaust and Rwandan genocide which are racist/ethnic crimes against humanity. Normally, conflating rejection of gayism and racism is a favoured propaganda line employed by gay sex advocates. It has becoming tiring and unconvincing.

    But you missed the point completely. Why didn’t you quote the whole of my paragraph, which was:

    Of course, I know you reject the prevailing scientific consensus, Maazi, but there’s really not much I can do about that. As I told you in an earlier comment, there are people who still think the earth is flat, even though the prevailing consensus is that is spherical. There are some scientists who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, even though the prevailing consensus is that it does. No amount of evidence will convince these ‘deniers’ that the scientific consensus on these issues is valid. What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    People will believe weird things and will deny the facts, Maazi, and there is nothing I can do about that.

    And that was my whole point. Scott Lively was included as an example of the tendency of people to believe the most ludicrous things in the face of the established facts and the expert consensus. That is all. So you reject the scientific consensus of the relevant experts on sexual orientation, and what I’m saying is that there is nothing I can do about that. I also can’t do anything about people who reject evolution, global warming, the moon landing, and the fact that the earth is spherical. Their ignorance is cannot be my burden, and neither can yours.

    You said:

    One does not need to listen to a bunch of Americans to see that there is indeed a Gay Agenda underway.

    Well, well…there is also an Environmentalist Agenda, Christian Agenda, Evangelical Agenda, Catholic Agenda, Women’s Emancipation Agenda, Democracy Agenda, Human Rights Agenda, Education-for-all agenda, Foreign Aid Agenda, Neo-Conservative Agenda, Islamic Agenda… there are all kinds of agendas. The world is full of diversity of all kinds, and people that represent the various facets of this diversity all have an interest in the way they interact with the rest of society, and the way society interacts with them. So having an ‘agenda’ is not a problem. Why? Because EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA, including you, Maazi, otherwise you wouldn’t be defending bigotry on Warren’s blog, would you?

    The question therefore, is not whether someone has an agenda – it is a question of what that agenda is. If what gays want is equal treatment and an end to harassment and discrimination, then, by golly, what a wonderful agenda that is!

    The problem with homophobic people like you, and Scott Lively, Pastor Ssempa, and others, is that you claim that this ‘gay agenda’ also includes a plot to destroy ‘the family’, a plot to turn everyone into homosexuals, a plot to recruit children, etc… this is the ‘imaginary’ part of the gay agenda I was alluding to.

    You said:

    One only needs to see attempts such as those made in 2008 by France and Netherlands to use the United Nations to impose gayism on the world. One needs to observe how Western governments—desperate to please their domestic gay sex electorate—are trying to blackmail other nations into accepting gayism using UN organs and multilateral gatherings such as the EU–Africa summits or Africa/Caribbean/Pacific–Europe economic forums.

    And what is wrong with appeasing the ‘gay electorate’? Isn’t that how a democracy works? Would you rather they didn’t?

    Politicians all over the world rely on patron-client relationships to build a support base, and raise funds for campaigns. So in America, for example, you’ll have the Christian Right (the Christian Agenda :-) ), the ‘Gun’ Lobby, the anti-immigration lobby, anti-abortion lobby, etc.. and other special interest groups, giving support in terms of votes and funds to mainly the Republican Party. Look at what happened to PEPFAR under President George W. Bush – where due to heavy influence of the conservative Christian right, priority for funding was given to mainly abstinence-based AIDS campaign programmes, while condom-based AIDS campaign programmes and projects were undermined.

    But again, that is how democracy works.

    All political parties represent various special interest groups, who give them the electoral and economic support they need to remain politically viable. My view of all this is that it makes democracy a highly dubious exercise. The funny thing is, it could also be argued that the Ugandan president has flirted with the anti-homosexuality sentiment to capitalize on the general homophobia in Uganda. Many have threatened not to vote Museveni back if he bows to western pressure and blocks the bill. Now, I ask you… how different is this from the ‘gay electorate’ In the US using their votes and influence to urge their governments to denounce the Bahati Bill? I mean, how is your complaint supposed to work, exactly? That anti-gay rights people, like yourself, can lobby politicians in their home countries, but pro-gay people can’t, in theirs? That’s a double standard, Maazi, if there ever was one.

    Regarding the anti-homosexuality bill (and general ill-treatment of homosexuals), not only gay rights groups are opposed to it, but even religious conservatives like evangelists Rick Warren, and Joyce Meyer. Even the Vatican calls for decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts. Are they part of the gay-lobby too? No.

    So what foreign governments are responding to, then, is pressure, not only from gay-lobbyists or the gay-electorate, but from all people in their countries who value freedom and compassion. And that is democracy at work for you.

    You said:

    There is of course the usual threats to withhold the [largely useless] donor aid. It is amazing how these Western governments are ready to suspend donor aid to African States for gayism, but are reluctant to do the same on important matters such as corruption (even when they are paying lip-service to elimination of corruption).

    I do agree with you that donor aid is generally useless, and I would prefer that it was stopped. It is my view that Foreign Aid increases poverty and corruption. See? Even we can agree sometimes :-)

    You said:

    The Constitution of Uganda does not protect gay sex any more than the United States Constitution protects polygamy. Stop twisting the facts to fit your favourite narrative. I have already told you to challenge the sodomy laws in court with your arguments for “gay rights”. I am surprised that you and your gay sex buddies do not seem to have the confidence to use your convoluted arguments to convince a court in Uganda to strike out the Sex Offenders Act of 2000. Is it because you chaps know that Ugandan judges will NEVER pass legislation from the bench?

    Actually, Maazi, there is no Federal Law against polygamy in the USA, even though it is illegal in all 50 states under state laws, mainly on ‘moral’ grounds. I would argue that such laws, too, are unconstitutional as they are based not on the basis of human rights but in the basis of a perceived morality. Morality, being a highly subjective matter, always boils down to religious or cultural prejudices, therefore to rely on it as a basis of a law will be problematic, if not unconstitutional. As long as we’re talking about consenting adults who enter into the relationship as equals and fully informed, it’s hard to logically deny people their right. Many groups in the US, such as Libertarians, are challenging anti-polygamy legislation in different states, and I agree with what they’re doing.

    When it comes to Uganda, and its constitution, its obvious you didn’t understand my point. To reiterate: Good legal documents take into account the fact that specifics are often variable, which is why you get provisions like this one in Article 32 (1), which, after listing a few relevant categories, summarize the point by articulating the general principle upon which those categories have been determined. The general principle, being “…Or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances against them.”

    Let me give you two examples to help you understand this.

    Example 1: I am an atheist (a fact). No where in the Uganda constitution does it explicitly state that my right to be an atheist is constitutionally protected. Atheism is no more explicitly stated in the constitution as ‘gayism’ is. So do you think ‘atheism’ should be banned in Uganda because the constitution does not ‘spell-it-out’? Humour me with an answer, won’t you? Thanks.

    Example 2: According to one definition, a mammal is “Warm-blooded, usually hairy animals from the Chordate Phylum. This class of animals breathes air, gives live birth, and feeds milk to their young. Human beings are members of the Mammal Class, as well as dogs, cats, deer, mice, squirrels, raccoons, bats, opossums, and others.” The definition starts by providing the general principle by which one can distinguish mammals from other animals – then it proceeds to give examples. Now I ask, does it mean that any other animal that was not included on this list of examples is not a mammal? Of course not. So lets say I come across a tiger. To determine whether or not it is a mammal, I would need to establish to what degree the tiger conforms to the general principle of what a mammal is. And indeed, going by that general principle, the tiger qualifies as a mammal.

    So Article 32 (1) spells out a general principle and underscores it by providing relevant examples for easier comprehension. The second article UN Human Rights Declaration does precisely the same. More on this later.

    Now, about “judges never passing legislation from the bench”, I only need to refer you the petition filed by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Institute that ended up with sedition laws being found to be unconstitutional, and thus declared null and void. If there are laws that are unconstitutional, they can be legally challenged, even without participation of the legislature.

    And this should be obvious.

    You said:

    Everyone in Uganda is protected by the law of the land. However certain behaviours exhibited by people are not protected from punishment. Those who engage in any form of crime from gayism to rape to fraud to murder to vandalism are criminals to be punished under the law.

    And that’s just the thing, Maazi. Thank you for bringing this up! Prior the ruling issued on the Andrew Mwenda petition, sedition was a crime. However, it was found to by the courts to be unconstitutional for sedition to be a crime, and hence the relevant laws were declared to be null and void. I feel like bringing up that point about people being taught what to think and not how, but I’ll skip that (refer to my previous comment). What is being challenged in this discussion between us (feels more like a one sided lecture in constitutionalism from me to you, but anyway), is whether or not laws criminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults are constitutional or not. I have already shown, MANY TIMES that they are not constitutional. This is why the relevant laws, whether in the penal code, or sexual offenders, act, or whatever other legal document, should be scrapped. As a reminder to you, Article 2 of the Uganda Constitution says:

    2. Supremacy of the Constitution.

    (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda.

    (2) If any other law or any custom is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and that other law or custom shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

    Let’s continue…

    You said:

    Of course, it goes without saying that a crime in one sovereign territory may actually not be so in another territory. A good example is bigamy/polygamy and holocaust denial which are crimes in some places, but not in other places.

    …which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Maazi. We are discussing constitutionalism, not cultural relativism. Look, to rescue yourself from your rather precarious position, you must demonstrate on what grounds the (discriminatory) laws against consensual homosexual acts tally with the Uganda Constitution. I have shown, several times already, that they do not.

    You said:

    Stop being obtuse, okay? I mentioned Singapore and others to indicate that there is no correlation between accepting gay sex as normal and a people’s level of education, economic status and place of origin. I wanted to show that highly educated masses—religious or irreligious— from rich nations can also share the same view on certain subjects as illiterate masses in poorer nations. Literacy is not necessarily a function of intelligence or cognitive abilities. It was part of a response to your comment linking gay sex acceptance to the level of literacy found in Uganda.

    Well if you’d read a few sentences further you’d have seen where I addressed that contention directly. I said:

    So if your point here is that it’s ok for you to be a bigot because there still exist discriminatory laws in some countries then I’m sorry, you haven’t proved your case. You’ve only proved that there exist discriminatory laws in some countries, and not that those laws are in any way rationally justifiable. I’d be more impressed if you were able to point me to the rationale these countries have used as justification for laws against consensual adult homosexual acts. The question would then be to determine whether or not that rationale stands up to reason, and respect for human rights. From what I have seen in the commentary of politicians who preferred to maintain these laws in those countries, they are relying solely on an appeal to culture and customs. We have already seen that such appeals are not only fallacious, but also unconstitutional and violate human rights.

    OK? And you conveniently did not respond to this point. But anyway…

    You said:

    For instance, Japan does not criminalize gayism, but if you have ever spent time there like I have, you will know that gayism is a taboo subject there and is just tolerated. Even though gay sex practitioners are free to parade the streets to celebrate their deviant behaviour, it is something most Japanese prefer not to talk about and most mainstream Japanese politicians would rather be caught dead, than talk of so-called “gay rights” or “gay marriage”.

    Lucky for you I WAS BORN IN JAPAN and spent 12 years of my life there, Maazi. I speak the language, fluently, and know the culture intimately.

    Honto desu yo! Wakarimasuka?

    I know enough about the Japanese to know that you are speaking complete and utter nonsense. In the 1980s, the most popular TV programme in Japan called “Hachijidayo Zen’insh?g?!” (with weekly television ratings of an unprecedented 50% of the national audience in during their time slot Saturdays 8-9pm) featured a slot where one of its lead comedians performed a gay skit. In Japan, under the veneer of superficial conservatism lies a highly sexually repressed people, whose multi billion yen fetish porn industry speaks volumes about how they actually feel about sex than they’d reveal to people outwardly. Out of respect to Warren and is ideals, I will not torment you with the details – but some of that stuff, even for the liberal me, is quite shocking.

    There is also a whole booming sub-genre in the Anime (Japanese animation) and Manga (Japanese comics) industries catering to man-and-man romance, called Yaoi. Look it up.

    So yeah, Japanese politicians will talk the talk, won’t they? They’re politicians, after all, catering to the fantasy of an idealized, romanticized, conservative past. But Japanese people are not intolerant of gay people. They’re actually more intolerant of foreigners than they are of gay people, you’ll be surprised to know. So, yay for Japan?

    You said:

    Gayism is not normal and most people all over the world know it

    .

    Define normal. Then tell me what people’s perceptions of what they perceive to be normal have any bearing on its legality. Thanks. A lot of people used to think slavery was normal. A lot of people used to think beating women was normal (probably many still do). A lot of people in eastern Uganda think female genital mutilation is normal. You seem to think discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is normal. Who defines what normal is?

    If what you mean is that people all over the world have the tendency to be highly prejudiced, then I won’t disagree with you. In the highly educated Japan, I remember me and my brothers being stoned out of a park because the Japanese kids we found there thought we looked like gorillas. Injustices exist everywhere, Maazi, and it’s up to the compassionate people of this world to challenge them wherever they exist.

    You said:

    However, there are those who subscribe to libertarian ideological school which states that certain anti-social behaviours should be legal if parties to it are consenting adults.

    How is homosexuality anti-social? I have many gay and lesbian friends. We ‘socialise’ just fine. Some of them are the nicest people I know. You also have it backwards. What is anti-social is DISCRIMINATION. What is anti-social is INTOLERANCE. What is anti-social is HATE. You and other homophobes are therefore the personification of anti-social behaviour. Stop the hate

    You said:

    There are also those in the world who reject such libertarian ideology and maintain that certain anti-behaviour should be criminalized regardless of consent.

    Yeah. And those that do so have no rational justification for doing so, besides recourse to cultural or religious prejudices. Remember, I’ve been waiting for a sound argument from you for DAYS and so far nothing has come from you. Otherwise, I’ve already gone into great detail about how biases against an act motivated by culture or religion have no bearing on its legality. If you need me to clarify on this, please let me know – I’d be happy to. Or maybe you can just refer to my earlier comments where I’ve gone into detail about this.

    Appeals to culture, appeals to the majority, or appeals to the injustices committed by others, as a justification for discriminatory laws, are basically fallacious. The fact that all your arguments (if they can even be called that) revolve around these fallacies should make it clear to you that you are standing on thin intellectual ice.

    And this is not about ideologies. This is about reason, and logic.

    You said:

    Oh pleazzee !! Do you know anything about Singapore? The Singaporean judiciary is not the highly politicized US judiciary with its liberal and conservative judges. In Singapore, judges do not pass legislation from the bench. The sodomy law will go when the parliament decides—- and the parliament will decide to repeal the sodomy law only when majority of Singaporeans agree to that. Same applies to Uganda.

    It doesn’t matter. As long as human rights activists, lawyers or ordinary petitioners in Singapore persistently make a strong case for the unconstitutionality of discriminatory laws against consensual adult male homosexual acts, the laws will collapse one day. Such laws will meet the same fate in Uganda, JUST LIKE THE SEDITION LAW which was found to be unconstitutional following a petition by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Council. I’m sure you acknowledge that the Ugandan legislature had nothing to do with its getting repealed, don’t you? So stop bringing up the rather naïve point that ‘judiciaries don’t legislate from the bench’. Of course the judiciary doesn’t create legislation, but they are empowered to evaluate the constitutionality of existing legislation (should petitions against them be brought to the courts), and repeal them, if they are found not to be consistent with the constitution. Surely you know this, so stop pretending that you don’t.

    You said:

    I do not share your western-centric libertarian ideology, which confers “rights” on individuals without emphasizing the need to exercise these “rights” with responsibility. I rather agree with the African Charter on Human Rights, which recognizes the communal nature of African societies by granting “collective group rights” and indicating that all individual rights and freedoms must be exercised with due regards to common interest and morality.

    …But if such common interest, or morality, is determined on the basis of cultural or religious prejudices, then the pursuit of such interest or morality through legislation is unconstitutional. It’s that simple, really.

    You said:

    Most Ugandans do not want gayism, therefore it shall remain a criminal offence there.

    Thank goodness then, that the Uganda Constitution does not cater to the whims of the majority. It states in Article 32 (1):

    Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.

    You don’t seem to like your constitution very much, do you, Maazi NCO?

    You said:

    1948 UNDHR does not cover gayism that is why France and Netherlands made a desperate and unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to impose UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity on the whole world. All other attempts to peddle the gay agenda on a global scale is bound to failure.

    Actually, LGBT rights are covered under the general principle articulated in the second article of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as…” Some countries were (and still are) using the excuse that LGBT rights, or sexual orientation, wasn’t explicitly ‘spelt out’ in the original declaration as a basis for persisting with discriminatory laws against LGBT people in their countries. The new resolution was intended to ‘spell-it-out’ for those pretending not to understand this basic general principle.

    That said, in a strange way, I have to thank David Bahati for initiating the discussion. Since I know that the Bahati Bill will never be passed, and since the existing laws are more-or-less unenforceable (without breaching constitutionally protected privacy laws), we can get on with the business of openly talking about the issue, and openly challenging the claims of hateful bigots. You will be surprised at how many people have come to view things differently in the course of a year, at least in my experience. The open discussion has demystified homosexuality, and is continuing to do so.

    Come to think of it, what I’m probably going to do is circulate the link to this thread for others to read this exchange between you and me, Maazi NCO. They will see how your arguments, being identical to is typically heard from the Bahatis, Buturos, and Ssempas of this world) do not stand in the face of reason. They will see how fallacious they are. And they will see how unconstitutional they are. Won’t that be great? I should put them on my blog too :-)

    You said:

    I have read the history of the civil rights movements and nearly all cases handled by Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP lawyers. Loving versus Virgina was a clear case of racism which is explicitly prohibited in every known international human rights instruments starting from 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights.

    …which says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind.” Mr. Maazi NCO, do you have trouble comprehending the meaning of the phrase ‘without distinction of ANY KIND’? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not be so ferociously advocating for discriminatory laws against LGBT people.

    You continue:

    With regard to natural law, there is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because: (1) without prejudice to barren opposite sex couples, a product of any fertile man and fertile woman—regardless of race or ethnicity— is a child

    So does this mean that couples in which one or both partners are barren, or where both CHOOSE not to have children, cannot be married? Since when is child-bearing, or even a potential for child-bearing, a prerequisite for marriage? Interracial or otherwise?

    This has been the major criticism for the use of ‘Natural Law’ arguments as a basis for discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is a topic also discussed in philosophical circles, interestingly. Here is an excerpt of an overview of such debate as can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You might find it interesting:

    There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one’s loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.

    Out of curiosity, Maazi are you OK with hetero-sexual oral or anal sex? Do you think those acts violate ‘Natural Law’? If yes, then we’re going to need larger prisons in Uganda for all Ugandan heterosexuals guilty of those acts. And if no, you’d be guilty of applying double standards in your invocation of ‘Natural Law’ as a basis for criminalization of certain sexual acts.

    You said:

    and (2) it is agreed by all that race is an immutable characteristic and this can be proved scientifically by genetic studies using simple Mendelian techniques. Gayism has not been proven credibly and conclusively using science to be immutable or normal ( I concede that it has been “normalized” for political reasons).

    THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS:

    Below is a summary of the consensus views of actual certified experts and scientists relevant to the subject of sexual orientation. Their views are based on empirical research whose results are published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals:

    On whether homosexuality is a mental disorder

    According to the American Psychological Association (the major professional organisation representing certified psychologists in the United States, with about 150,000 members):

    “…research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

    On whether sexual orientation is a choice

    According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom with 15,000 members):

    “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.”

    The scientific consensus on sexual orientation is that sexual orientation is immutable, generally impervious to attempts at change, and not a matter of choice. You reject this. Like I said, there is nothing I can do about that, except to inform you that your views are without scientific merit.

    AIDS deniers, Flat Earthers, and Moon Landing Deniers, too, all tout their pet conspiracy theories in an attempt to justify their equally unscientific, fringe, evidence-free, irrational views. They, like you, insist that those who disagree with them do so as the result of heavy politicization of the mainstream scientific views they reject. Like I said, there is nothing to be done for such people – because a person whose views on a subject have not been informed by reason and evidence, cannot be persuaded out of that view, by reason and evidence.

    You said:

    If everybody took to interracial marriages, we will have a highly mixed population similar to that of Brazil. If everyone decided to engage exclusively in gay sex, then the world as it we know it will cease to exist at some point due to lack of procreation.

    But since the scientific consensus on sexual orientation is that people don’t choose to be gay, that shouldn’t be a concern, should it Maazi? Your premise is without evidential support.

    One doesn’t need to listen to a religious fundamentalist to know this fact !!

    Well it’s not a fact, and, again, you have not demonstrated it to be a fact that people choose to be gay. I’m not gay and I don’t think I care to be. I find that women are what interest me sexually.

    But wait a minute… are you suggesting that if homosexuality were decriminalized, and ‘gayism were allowed to spread’ (as only you would say), one day YOU, Pastor Ssempa, David Bahati and Nsaba Buturo wouldn’t be interested in women anymore? Hmm…… now that you allude to this possibility, I’m reminded by a study called “Is Homophobia Related to Homosexual Arousal?” carried out in 1996 by the Department of Psychology at the University of Georgia. The abstract reads:

    The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

    Ha ha ha… so you might be in denial, Maazi NCO :-)

    You conclude:

    This refrain is quite popular with gay sex propagandists. I am not surprised you reiterate it like an automaton at the end of each and every one of your long windy essays. BTW, I do not hate anyone, but I can see the propaganda value of labelling anyone stridently opposed to gayism as being hateful. I assure you that such cheap propaganda will not force me to shift my opinion any more than it would if a person supporting legalization of drugs accused me of hating drug addicts because of my support for the criminalization of narcotic possession.

    By ‘this refrain’ you were referring to my statement “Stop the hate. Hate never wins”.

    I repeat it because you just don’t seem to get it. Hate simply never wins. Slavery. The Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany. Oppression of Women… all these historical prejudices and violations of rights of people eventually collapsed. The discrimination LGBT people are being continuously subjected by you, and like-minded individuals, too, will collapse one day. It has already done so in many countries.

    As long as compassionate people persist in their advocacy of justice and equality, hate will not be left standing. This is simply both a historical and sociological fact – but you don’t get it. So I repeat the point for your own benefit, Maazi NCO.

    I am under no illusion that this is a fight that can be won in one day. It may take years, decades, generations…but as long as courageous voices keep speaking up, change will come. And that is all that matters.

    Why?

    ….Because hate never wins. Stop the hate, Maazi NCO :-)

    Happy New Year to all.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    Thanks for offering a more fleshed-out response. This one is certainly more interesting than the others. So let’s see…

    You said:

    I am glad that you see me as entertainment —but unlike yourself, I am a busy man.Though I do create time to visit this blog frequently, I really do not have the time to engage your incredibly long emotional rants in a point-by-point rebuttal. But I shall make an exception in this particular reply to your last extraordinarily long commentary—- just to prove that I am never shy of a challenge or a debate.

    Well you certainly are shy of providing a logically sound argument as to why you think your hostility towards freedoms for homosexuals is rationally justified, aren’t you? My comments are lengthy is because not only do I decimate your excuses for bigotry, I have to take the time to explain why they are poor excuses. And I have done repeatedly, for which you have offered no sound rebuttals. But I’m glad you’re back for more.

    You quoted me saying:

    What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    To which your response was:

    Gayism has nothing to do with Nazi Holocaust and Rwandan genocide which are racist/ethnic crimes against humanity. Normally, conflating rejection of gayism and racism is a favoured propaganda line employed by gay sex advocates. It has becoming tiring and unconvincing.

    But you missed the point completely. Why didn’t you quote the whole of my paragraph, which was:

    Of course, I know you reject the prevailing scientific consensus, Maazi, but there’s really not much I can do about that. As I told you in an earlier comment, there are people who still think the earth is flat, even though the prevailing consensus is that is spherical. There are some scientists who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, even though the prevailing consensus is that it does. No amount of evidence will convince these ‘deniers’ that the scientific consensus on these issues is valid. What about history? Scott Lively, the anti-homosexuality guru who many Ugandans admire, claims that the Rwanda genocide, and Nazi Holocaust were part of the (imaginary) Global Gay Agenda, even if no serious historian agrees with these views.

    People will believe weird things and will deny the facts, Maazi, and there is nothing I can do about that.

    And that was my whole point. Scott Lively was included as an example of the tendency of people to believe the most ludicrous things in the face of the established facts and the expert consensus. That is all. So you reject the scientific consensus of the relevant experts on sexual orientation, and what I’m saying is that there is nothing I can do about that. I also can’t do anything about people who reject evolution, global warming, the moon landing, and the fact that the earth is spherical. Their ignorance is cannot be my burden, and neither can yours.

    You said:

    One does not need to listen to a bunch of Americans to see that there is indeed a Gay Agenda underway.

    Well, well…there is also an Environmentalist Agenda, Christian Agenda, Evangelical Agenda, Catholic Agenda, Women’s Emancipation Agenda, Democracy Agenda, Human Rights Agenda, Education-for-all agenda, Foreign Aid Agenda, Neo-Conservative Agenda, Islamic Agenda… there are all kinds of agendas. The world is full of diversity of all kinds, and people that represent the various facets of this diversity all have an interest in the way they interact with the rest of society, and the way society interacts with them. So having an ‘agenda’ is not a problem. Why? Because EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA, including you, Maazi, otherwise you wouldn’t be defending bigotry on Warren’s blog, would you?

    The question therefore, is not whether someone has an agenda – it is a question of what that agenda is. If what gays want is equal treatment and an end to harassment and discrimination, then, by golly, what a wonderful agenda that is!

    The problem with homophobic people like you, and Scott Lively, Pastor Ssempa, and others, is that you claim that this ‘gay agenda’ also includes a plot to destroy ‘the family’, a plot to turn everyone into homosexuals, a plot to recruit children, etc… this is the ‘imaginary’ part of the gay agenda I was alluding to.

    You said:

    One only needs to see attempts such as those made in 2008 by France and Netherlands to use the United Nations to impose gayism on the world. One needs to observe how Western governments—desperate to please their domestic gay sex electorate—are trying to blackmail other nations into accepting gayism using UN organs and multilateral gatherings such as the EU–Africa summits or Africa/Caribbean/Pacific–Europe economic forums.

    And what is wrong with appeasing the ‘gay electorate’? Isn’t that how a democracy works? Would you rather they didn’t?

    Politicians all over the world rely on patron-client relationships to build a support base, and raise funds for campaigns. So in America, for example, you’ll have the Christian Right (the Christian Agenda :-) ), the ‘Gun’ Lobby, the anti-immigration lobby, anti-abortion lobby, etc.. and other special interest groups, giving support in terms of votes and funds to mainly the Republican Party. Look at what happened to PEPFAR under President George W. Bush – where due to heavy influence of the conservative Christian right, priority for funding was given to mainly abstinence-based AIDS campaign programmes, while condom-based AIDS campaign programmes and projects were undermined.

    But again, that is how democracy works.

    All political parties represent various special interest groups, who give them the electoral and economic support they need to remain politically viable. My view of all this is that it makes democracy a highly dubious exercise. The funny thing is, it could also be argued that the Ugandan president has flirted with the anti-homosexuality sentiment to capitalize on the general homophobia in Uganda. Many have threatened not to vote Museveni back if he bows to western pressure and blocks the bill. Now, I ask you… how different is this from the ‘gay electorate’ In the US using their votes and influence to urge their governments to denounce the Bahati Bill? I mean, how is your complaint supposed to work, exactly? That anti-gay rights people, like yourself, can lobby politicians in their home countries, but pro-gay people can’t, in theirs? That’s a double standard, Maazi, if there ever was one.

    Regarding the anti-homosexuality bill (and general ill-treatment of homosexuals), not only gay rights groups are opposed to it, but even religious conservatives like evangelists Rick Warren, and Joyce Meyer. Even the Vatican calls for decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts. Are they part of the gay-lobby too? No.

    So what foreign governments are responding to, then, is pressure, not only from gay-lobbyists or the gay-electorate, but from all people in their countries who value freedom and compassion. And that is democracy at work for you.

    You said:

    There is of course the usual threats to withhold the [largely useless] donor aid. It is amazing how these Western governments are ready to suspend donor aid to African States for gayism, but are reluctant to do the same on important matters such as corruption (even when they are paying lip-service to elimination of corruption).

    I do agree with you that donor aid is generally useless, and I would prefer that it was stopped. It is my view that Foreign Aid increases poverty and corruption. See? Even we can agree sometimes :-)

    You said:

    The Constitution of Uganda does not protect gay sex any more than the United States Constitution protects polygamy. Stop twisting the facts to fit your favourite narrative. I have already told you to challenge the sodomy laws in court with your arguments for “gay rights”. I am surprised that you and your gay sex buddies do not seem to have the confidence to use your convoluted arguments to convince a court in Uganda to strike out the Sex Offenders Act of 2000. Is it because you chaps know that Ugandan judges will NEVER pass legislation from the bench?

    Actually, Maazi, there is no Federal Law against polygamy in the USA, even though it is illegal in all 50 states under state laws, mainly on ‘moral’ grounds. I would argue that such laws, too, are unconstitutional as they are based not on the basis of human rights but in the basis of a perceived morality. Morality, being a highly subjective matter, always boils down to religious or cultural prejudices, therefore to rely on it as a basis of a law will be problematic, if not unconstitutional. As long as we’re talking about consenting adults who enter into the relationship as equals and fully informed, it’s hard to logically deny people their right. Many groups in the US, such as Libertarians, are challenging anti-polygamy legislation in different states, and I agree with what they’re doing.

    When it comes to Uganda, and its constitution, its obvious you didn’t understand my point. To reiterate: Good legal documents take into account the fact that specifics are often variable, which is why you get provisions like this one in Article 32 (1), which, after listing a few relevant categories, summarize the point by articulating the general principle upon which those categories have been determined. The general principle, being “…Or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances against them.”

    Let me give you two examples to help you understand this.

    Example 1: I am an atheist (a fact). No where in the Uganda constitution does it explicitly state that my right to be an atheist is constitutionally protected. Atheism is no more explicitly stated in the constitution as ‘gayism’ is. So do you think ‘atheism’ should be banned in Uganda because the constitution does not ‘spell-it-out’? Humour me with an answer, won’t you? Thanks.

    Example 2: According to one definition, a mammal is “Warm-blooded, usually hairy animals from the Chordate Phylum. This class of animals breathes air, gives live birth, and feeds milk to their young. Human beings are members of the Mammal Class, as well as dogs, cats, deer, mice, squirrels, raccoons, bats, opossums, and others.” The definition starts by providing the general principle by which one can distinguish mammals from other animals – then it proceeds to give examples. Now I ask, does it mean that any other animal that was not included on this list of examples is not a mammal? Of course not. So lets say I come across a tiger. To determine whether or not it is a mammal, I would need to establish to what degree the tiger conforms to the general principle of what a mammal is. And indeed, going by that general principle, the tiger qualifies as a mammal.

    So Article 32 (1) spells out a general principle and underscores it by providing relevant examples for easier comprehension. The second article UN Human Rights Declaration does precisely the same. More on this later.

    Now, about “judges never passing legislation from the bench”, I only need to refer you the petition filed by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Institute that ended up with sedition laws being found to be unconstitutional, and thus declared null and void. If there are laws that are unconstitutional, they can be legally challenged, even without participation of the legislature.

    And this should be obvious.

    You said:

    Everyone in Uganda is protected by the law of the land. However certain behaviours exhibited by people are not protected from punishment. Those who engage in any form of crime from gayism to rape to fraud to murder to vandalism are criminals to be punished under the law.

    And that’s just the thing, Maazi. Thank you for bringing this up! Prior the ruling issued on the Andrew Mwenda petition, sedition was a crime. However, it was found to by the courts to be unconstitutional for sedition to be a crime, and hence the relevant laws were declared to be null and void. I feel like bringing up that point about people being taught what to think and not how, but I’ll skip that (refer to my previous comment). What is being challenged in this discussion between us (feels more like a one sided lecture in constitutionalism from me to you, but anyway), is whether or not laws criminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults are constitutional or not. I have already shown, MANY TIMES that they are not constitutional. This is why the relevant laws, whether in the penal code, or sexual offenders, act, or whatever other legal document, should be scrapped. As a reminder to you, Article 2 of the Uganda Constitution says:

    2. Supremacy of the Constitution.

    (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda.

    (2) If any other law or any custom is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and that other law or custom shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

    Let’s continue…

    You said:

    Of course, it goes without saying that a crime in one sovereign territory may actually not be so in another territory. A good example is bigamy/polygamy and holocaust denial which are crimes in some places, but not in other places.

    …which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Maazi. We are discussing constitutionalism, not cultural relativism. Look, to rescue yourself from your rather precarious position, you must demonstrate on what grounds the (discriminatory) laws against consensual homosexual acts tally with the Uganda Constitution. I have shown, several times already, that they do not.

    You said:

    Stop being obtuse, okay? I mentioned Singapore and others to indicate that there is no correlation between accepting gay sex as normal and a people’s level of education, economic status and place of origin. I wanted to show that highly educated masses—religious or irreligious— from rich nations can also share the same view on certain subjects as illiterate masses in poorer nations. Literacy is not necessarily a function of intelligence or cognitive abilities. It was part of a response to your comment linking gay sex acceptance to the level of literacy found in Uganda.

    Well if you’d read a few sentences further you’d have seen where I addressed that contention directly. I said:

    So if your point here is that it’s ok for you to be a bigot because there still exist discriminatory laws in some countries then I’m sorry, you haven’t proved your case. You’ve only proved that there exist discriminatory laws in some countries, and not that those laws are in any way rationally justifiable. I’d be more impressed if you were able to point me to the rationale these countries have used as justification for laws against consensual adult homosexual acts. The question would then be to determine whether or not that rationale stands up to reason, and respect for human rights. From what I have seen in the commentary of politicians who preferred to maintain these laws in those countries, they are relying solely on an appeal to culture and customs. We have already seen that such appeals are not only fallacious, but also unconstitutional and violate human rights.

    OK? And you conveniently did not respond to this point. But anyway…

    You said:

    For instance, Japan does not criminalize gayism, but if you have ever spent time there like I have, you will know that gayism is a taboo subject there and is just tolerated. Even though gay sex practitioners are free to parade the streets to celebrate their deviant behaviour, it is something most Japanese prefer not to talk about and most mainstream Japanese politicians would rather be caught dead, than talk of so-called “gay rights” or “gay marriage”.

    Lucky for you I WAS BORN IN JAPAN and spent 12 years of my life there, Maazi. I speak the language, fluently, and know the culture intimately.

    Honto desu yo! Wakarimasuka?

    I know enough about the Japanese to know that you are speaking complete and utter nonsense. In the 1980s, the most popular TV programme in Japan called “Hachijidayo Zen’insh?g?!” (with weekly television ratings of an unprecedented 50% of the national audience in during their time slot Saturdays 8-9pm) featured a slot where one of its lead comedians performed a gay skit. In Japan, under the veneer of superficial conservatism lies a highly sexually repressed people, whose multi billion yen fetish porn industry speaks volumes about how they actually feel about sex than they’d reveal to people outwardly. Out of respect to Warren and is ideals, I will not torment you with the details – but some of that stuff, even for the liberal me, is quite shocking.

    There is also a whole booming sub-genre in the Anime (Japanese animation) and Manga (Japanese comics) industries catering to man-and-man romance, called Yaoi. Look it up.

    So yeah, Japanese politicians will talk the talk, won’t they? They’re politicians, after all, catering to the fantasy of an idealized, romanticized, conservative past. But Japanese people are not intolerant of gay people. They’re actually more intolerant of foreigners than they are of gay people, you’ll be surprised to know. So, yay for Japan?

    You said:

    Gayism is not normal and most people all over the world know it

    .

    Define normal. Then tell me what people’s perceptions of what they perceive to be normal have any bearing on its legality. Thanks. A lot of people used to think slavery was normal. A lot of people used to think beating women was normal (probably many still do). A lot of people in eastern Uganda think female genital mutilation is normal. You seem to think discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is normal. Who defines what normal is?

    If what you mean is that people all over the world have the tendency to be highly prejudiced, then I won’t disagree with you. In the highly educated Japan, I remember me and my brothers being stoned out of a park because the Japanese kids we found there thought we looked like gorillas. Injustices exist everywhere, Maazi, and it’s up to the compassionate people of this world to challenge them wherever they exist.

    You said:

    However, there are those who subscribe to libertarian ideological school which states that certain anti-social behaviours should be legal if parties to it are consenting adults.

    How is homosexuality anti-social? I have many gay and lesbian friends. We ‘socialise’ just fine. Some of them are the nicest people I know. You also have it backwards. What is anti-social is DISCRIMINATION. What is anti-social is INTOLERANCE. What is anti-social is HATE. You and other homophobes are therefore the personification of anti-social behaviour. Stop the hate

    You said:

    There are also those in the world who reject such libertarian ideology and maintain that certain anti-behaviour should be criminalized regardless of consent.

    Yeah. And those that do so have no rational justification for doing so, besides recourse to cultural or religious prejudices. Remember, I’ve been waiting for a sound argument from you for DAYS and so far nothing has come from you. Otherwise, I’ve already gone into great detail about how biases against an act motivated by culture or religion have no bearing on its legality. If you need me to clarify on this, please let me know – I’d be happy to. Or maybe you can just refer to my earlier comments where I’ve gone into detail about this.

    Appeals to culture, appeals to the majority, or appeals to the injustices committed by others, as a justification for discriminatory laws, are basically fallacious. The fact that all your arguments (if they can even be called that) revolve around these fallacies should make it clear to you that you are standing on thin intellectual ice.

    And this is not about ideologies. This is about reason, and logic.

    You said:

    Oh pleazzee !! Do you know anything about Singapore? The Singaporean judiciary is not the highly politicized US judiciary with its liberal and conservative judges. In Singapore, judges do not pass legislation from the bench. The sodomy law will go when the parliament decides—- and the parliament will decide to repeal the sodomy law only when majority of Singaporeans agree to that. Same applies to Uganda.

    It doesn’t matter. As long as human rights activists, lawyers or ordinary petitioners in Singapore persistently make a strong case for the unconstitutionality of discriminatory laws against consensual adult male homosexual acts, the laws will collapse one day. Such laws will meet the same fate in Uganda, JUST LIKE THE SEDITION LAW which was found to be unconstitutional following a petition by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Council. I’m sure you acknowledge that the Ugandan legislature had nothing to do with its getting repealed, don’t you? So stop bringing up the rather naïve point that ‘judiciaries don’t legislate from the bench’. Of course the judiciary doesn’t create legislation, but they are empowered to evaluate the constitutionality of existing legislation (should petitions against them be brought to the courts), and repeal them, if they are found not to be consistent with the constitution. Surely you know this, so stop pretending that you don’t.

    You said:

    I do not share your western-centric libertarian ideology, which confers “rights” on individuals without emphasizing the need to exercise these “rights” with responsibility. I rather agree with the African Charter on Human Rights, which recognizes the communal nature of African societies by granting “collective group rights” and indicating that all individual rights and freedoms must be exercised with due regards to common interest and morality.

    …But if such common interest, or morality, is determined on the basis of cultural or religious prejudices, then the pursuit of such interest or morality through legislation is unconstitutional. It’s that simple, really.

    You said:

    Most Ugandans do not want gayism, therefore it shall remain a criminal offence there.

    Thank goodness then, that the Uganda Constitution does not cater to the whims of the majority. It states in Article 32 (1):

    Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.

    You don’t seem to like your constitution very much, do you, Maazi NCO?

    You said:

    1948 UNDHR does not cover gayism that is why France and Netherlands made a desperate and unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to impose UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity on the whole world. All other attempts to peddle the gay agenda on a global scale is bound to failure.

    Actually, LGBT rights are covered under the general principle articulated in the second article of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as…” Some countries were (and still are) using the excuse that LGBT rights, or sexual orientation, wasn’t explicitly ‘spelt out’ in the original declaration as a basis for persisting with discriminatory laws against LGBT people in their countries. The new resolution was intended to ‘spell-it-out’ for those pretending not to understand this basic general principle.

    That said, in a strange way, I have to thank David Bahati for initiating the discussion. Since I know that the Bahati Bill will never be passed, and since the existing laws are more-or-less unenforceable (without breaching constitutionally protected privacy laws), we can get on with the business of openly talking about the issue, and openly challenging the claims of hateful bigots. You will be surprised at how many people have come to view things differently in the course of a year, at least in my experience. The open discussion has demystified homosexuality, and is continuing to do so.

    Come to think of it, what I’m probably going to do is circulate the link to this thread for others to read this exchange between you and me, Maazi NCO. They will see how your arguments, being identical to is typically heard from the Bahatis, Buturos, and Ssempas of this world) do not stand in the face of reason. They will see how fallacious they are. And they will see how unconstitutional they are. Won’t that be great? I should put them on my blog too :-)

    You said:

    I have read the history of the civil rights movements and nearly all cases handled by Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP lawyers. Loving versus Virgina was a clear case of racism which is explicitly prohibited in every known international human rights instruments starting from 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights.

    …which says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind.” Mr. Maazi NCO, do you have trouble comprehending the meaning of the phrase ‘without distinction of ANY KIND’? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not be so ferociously advocating for discriminatory laws against LGBT people.

    You continue:

    With regard to natural law, there is nothing wrong with interracial marriages because: (1) without prejudice to barren opposite sex couples, a product of any fertile man and fertile woman—regardless of race or ethnicity— is a child

    So does this mean that couples in which one or both partners are barren, or where both CHOOSE not to have children, cannot be married? Since when is child-bearing, or even a potential for child-bearing, a prerequisite for marriage? Interracial or otherwise?

    This has been the major criticism for the use of ‘Natural Law’ arguments as a basis for discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is a topic also discussed in philosophical circles, interestingly. Here is an excerpt of an overview of such debate as can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You might find it interesting:

    There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one’s loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.

    Out of curiosity, Maazi are you OK with hetero-sexual oral or anal sex? Do you think those acts violate ‘Natural Law’? If yes, then we’re going to need larger prisons in Uganda for all Ugandan heterosexuals guilty of those acts. And if no, you’d be guilty of applying double standards in your invocation of ‘Natural Law’ as a basis for criminalization of certain sexual acts.

    You said:

    and (2) it is agreed by all that race is an immutable characteristic and this can be proved scientifically by genetic studies using simple Mendelian techniques. Gayism has not been proven credibly and conclusively using science to be immutable or normal ( I concede that it has been “normalized” for political reasons).

    THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS:

    Below is a summary of the consensus views of actual certified experts and scientists relevant to the subject of sexual orientation. Their views are based on empirical research whose results are published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals:

    On whether homosexuality is a mental disorder

    According to the American Psychological Association (the major professional organisation representing certified psychologists in the United States, with about 150,000 members):

    “…research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

    On whether sexual orientation is a choice

    According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists (the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom with 15,000 members):

    “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.”

    The scientific consensus on sexual orientation is that sexual orientation is immutable, generally impervious to attempts at change, and not a matter of choice. You reject this. Like I said, there is nothing I can do about that, except to inform you that your views are without scientific merit.

    AIDS deniers, Flat Earthers, and Moon Landing Deniers, too, all tout their pet conspiracy theories in an attempt to justify their equally unscientific, fringe, evidence-free, irrational views. They, like you, insist that those who disagree with them do so as the result of heavy politicization of the mainstream scientific views they reject. Like I said, there is nothing to be done for such people – because a person whose views on a subject have not been informed by reason and evidence, cannot be persuaded out of that view, by reason and evidence.

    You said:

    If everybody took to interracial marriages, we will have a highly mixed population similar to that of Brazil. If everyone decided to engage exclusively in gay sex, then the world as it we know it will cease to exist at some point due to lack of procreation.

    But since the scientific consensus on sexual orientation is that people don’t choose to be gay, that shouldn’t be a concern, should it Maazi? Your premise is without evidential support.

    One doesn’t need to listen to a religious fundamentalist to know this fact !!

    Well it’s not a fact, and, again, you have not demonstrated it to be a fact that people choose to be gay. I’m not gay and I don’t think I care to be. I find that women are what interest me sexually.

    But wait a minute… are you suggesting that if homosexuality were decriminalized, and ‘gayism were allowed to spread’ (as only you would say), one day YOU, Pastor Ssempa, David Bahati and Nsaba Buturo wouldn’t be interested in women anymore? Hmm…… now that you allude to this possibility, I’m reminded by a study called “Is Homophobia Related to Homosexual Arousal?” carried out in 1996 by the Department of Psychology at the University of Georgia. The abstract reads:

    The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

    Ha ha ha… so you might be in denial, Maazi NCO :-)

    You conclude:

    This refrain is quite popular with gay sex propagandists. I am not surprised you reiterate it like an automaton at the end of each and every one of your long windy essays. BTW, I do not hate anyone, but I can see the propaganda value of labelling anyone stridently opposed to gayism as being hateful. I assure you that such cheap propaganda will not force me to shift my opinion any more than it would if a person supporting legalization of drugs accused me of hating drug addicts because of my support for the criminalization of narcotic possession.

    By ‘this refrain’ you were referring to my statement “Stop the hate. Hate never wins”.

    I repeat it because you just don’t seem to get it. Hate simply never wins. Slavery. The Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany. Oppression of Women… all these historical prejudices and violations of rights of people eventually collapsed. The discrimination LGBT people are being continuously subjected by you, and like-minded individuals, too, will collapse one day. It has already done so in many countries.

    As long as compassionate people persist in their advocacy of justice and equality, hate will not be left standing. This is simply both a historical and sociological fact – but you don’t get it. So I repeat the point for your own benefit, Maazi NCO.

    I am under no illusion that this is a fight that can be won in one day. It may take years, decades, generations…but as long as courageous voices keep speaking up, change will come. And that is all that matters.

    Why?

    ….Because hate never wins. Stop the hate, Maazi NCO :-)

    Happy New Year to all.

  • ken

    Richard Willmer# ~ Dec 31, 2010 at 10:10 am

    “I think you’ll find that ‘Maazi NCO’ will post comments whether or not I, or anyone else, replies to them.”

    Maazi is a child behaving badly in order to get attention from the adults. When you respond to that bad behaviour you only encourage more of it. I’ve seen this sort of thing hundreds of times before. The best way to deal with it is to ignore him. Yes, initially he will continue to post, and his posts will become more and more inflammatory (pushing the limits of what Warren will allow), trying to goad people into responding. However if everyone ignores him, he will eventually learn to have an adult discussion or (more likely) simply go away.

  • Jame

    Ken, Happy New Year. Your description of Maazi(Jan 1, 2011 at 10:57 am)

    doesn’t fit a man you’ve always potrayed yourself to be. On the contrary I would call you a baby who wants every adult to be drawn to what they are doing. Maazi has clearly articulated the very position of most Ugandans. With his outstanding contributions, this blog is kept going and many people are signing up to it. Secondly a disagreement doesn’t warrant labeling, he’s no child you must be one instead.

  • Richard Willmer

    Jame

    I’m not sure that the position ‘Maazi’ adopts is quite as ‘popular’ in UG as some might suppose. ‘Maazi’s’ position is based on disinformation (e.g. these unsubstantiated claims of ‘systematic recruitment’); when Ugandans become aware that the picture of gay people that they are being fed is an unfair one, they often start to see things differently. It is also the case that senior figures in Uganda (Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga, for example) have deemed the Bahati Bill unnecessary and/or undesirable.

    Bahati’s foreign backers include some very shady characters such as Scott Lively, who appears to deny the mass murder of Jews in the 1940s, and says that gays were behind the Nazis when the truth is that the Nazis murdered many gay people.

    The Ugandan evangelical Christian, Kato Mivule, described the Bahati Bill as (and I quote) ‘totalitarian, evil and anti-christian’.

    ‘Maazi’ himself is ‘unsure’ over the issue of privacy, and has made contradictory statements on this aspect over the course of his year-long ‘anti-gay blogging career’.

  • Maazi NCO

    James Onen,

    POINT ONE:

    I have read your latest apologia for gayism and found it no less convoluted than previous postings. You mention statements by US and British Psychiatrists as proof that gayism is normal. For crying out loud, organizations such as APA were forced to change their views on gayism back in the 1970s not because new scientific evidence came to light showing gayism was normal, but because of gay lobby groups were able to successfully use door-stepping, street demonstrations and other pressure tactics to force change. The American Psychological Association (APA) and the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) being scientific bodies implement the difficult task of balancing science and political correctness by calibrating their words carefully in all its statements. The bodies say that gayism is normal behaviour because it has been documented in many different cultures and historical eras and that clinical work has led mainstream medical researchers to conclude the behaviour was normal form of human experience. None of these scientific bodies or any researcher for that matter have provided credible documented proof of gay behaviour in many different cultures around the world. Moreover, I fail to see how proof that some people (e.g. ancient Greeks) engaged in gay sex validate the idea that gayism should be seen universally as normal behaviour. Of course, APA and RCP conveniently forget to acknowledge in their public statements that there is no consensus among respected mainstream scientists on the nature of gayism—-and many studies done on this subject including those on twins and the so-called “gay gene” have had their methodology questioned not by religious zealots, but by eminent mainstream scientists. Despite your efforts to hijack science for your own agenda, research into sexuality remains far away from unveiling the full facts about why people engage in gayism. In any case, one must acknowledge the socio-political context in which APA and RCP officials are operating. In the present socio-political context of the West, it is career suicide for a scientist or any other professional to question the received wisdom of the influential gay lobby. One only needs to see how Carrie Prejean the former Miss California was deprived of being Miss America during the 2009 beauty pageantry for opposing gay marriage while professing support for “gay rights”. It is one thing for respectable independent-minded mainstream scientists to criticize the fraudulence of unscrupulous scientists researching backwards from a predetermined answer (i.e. “gayism is genetic”) to the question (i.e.”Is gayism genetic?”), bending data along the way to fit their pro-gay theory and another thing for the respectable scientists to risk their professional careers, research funding and university tenures by publishing any work using the conventional “question to answer” approach to produce credible information that contradicts the received wisdom of the gay sex lobby. This matter is not particularly restricted to sexuality research, one sees this threat of professional suicide facing climate science researchers— including those not on the payroll of oil companies—who express skepticism of global warming. (Just for the record, I am not questioning global warming, but I believe that science has always thrived on skepticism and its should never be stifled).

    POINT TWO:

    Yes, some religious groups oppose criminalization of gayism. Some do so because they believe that it is a sin which should not be criminal offence and others do so because gay sex lobbyists in their nations have managed to blackmail them. I don’t see why Uganda should be concerned about the position of some Christian groups on gayism any more than USA is concerned with the position of the EU and Vatican on the use of the death penalty.

    POINT THREE:

    You claimed that you were born in Japan; mentioned a gay character in a TV programme and the alleged “superficial conservatism” of the Japanese people who— according to you —are sexually repressed and love fetish pornography. You also threw in the “legendary” xenophobia of East Asia. But in the final analysis, you were still unable to disprove my opinion that gayism remains a taboo subject despite being legal in Japan. Having a token effeminate male (or gay) character in a TV drama does not mean that gayism is no longer a taboo subject in Japan. Even Nigeria’s Nollywood has managed to produce movies with gay characters in them, even though sodomy is illegal there and remains overwhelmingly rejected by society.

    POINT FOUR:

    You speak of state laws prohibiting polygamy as being unconstitutional in USA. Why not go over there and join your fellow libertarian ideologues to lobby for polygamy to be legal activity throughout America? I am sure they will be pleased to have you over there. You also seem okay with Western governments’ efforts to blackmail African nations into allowing gayism, thereby serving the interests of Western gay sex voters. But you are clearly unhappy that the vast majority of the Ugandan people wish their own government to keep gayism criminalized. Speaking of double-standards !!

    POINT FIVE:

    I welcome the Judiciary’s declaration on the sedition law because it was not in the public interest to prevent journalists from holding government to account. If a government official feels that a press report is wrong, he or she can always sue for libel. There was never a need for the sedition law. Gayism is not a HUMAN RIGHT. It is one thing to use privacy provisions in the constitution to get a judge to ban an obscure tabloid from publishing pictures and personal contact details of certain people (without regards to the alleged illegal activity of those people cited by the publication) and it is another thing for a judge to set free a person being prosecuted by the State after being caught red-handed violating the Sex Offenders Act because of so-called “gay rights”. I am confident that Uganda judges would never legislate from the bench. I suspect the foreign-controlled gay sex advocates in Kampala know this as well hence their refusal to go to court over the sodomy law. The sodomy laws are difficult to enforce because a violator needs to be caught red-handed in the act of gayism not because of so-called “privacy”. So there is need for a thoroughly revised Bahati Bill to close the gaps in the sodomy laws. BTW, judges are not robots and they do take into account the culture, traditions and religious beliefs of the society when reaching certain verdicts as was the case in Botswana when a challenge mounted against its sodomy law was thrown out three times. In any case, the notion that gayism is a “human right” is in itself a prejudicial cultural belief rooted in libertarian ideology.

    POINT SIX:

    It is your right to circulate this thread to all your supporters. I would imagine that Warren Throckmorton will be happy with that since it boosts the number of people visiting his blog.

  • Richard Willmer

    Jame

    Here are two stated ‘positions’ on the treatment of gay people. I would be most interested to know with which of these you would prefer to be identified.

    1. http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T8VNS81QM2DFQM68R

    2. http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a9849daa-dd60-4028-adc0-2dfa024cb3a9

  • Wendy Leigh

    Is straightism a human right? You know they never found a straight gene either, right?

  • Richard Willmer

    The ‘Rolling Stone’ ruling has now been issued – in favour of the plaintiffs (i.e. the human rights activists).

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    Let’s proceed, shall we?

    You said:

    POINT ONE:

    I have read your latest apologia for gayism and found it no less convoluted than previous postings.

    You keep saying that and yet you do not offer any refutations of my arguments. Is this your default opening line that you just say for the sake of saying it? I mean, I can throw this ‘apologia’ word right back at you too – and say “you Maazi and your apologia for homophobia….” It’s basically a childish game of rhetoric that I’d rather not get sucked into, really. Let’s talk in terms of arguments and their rebuttals or refutations, ok?

    And rather than just assert that my arguments are convoluted; you have to logically demonstrate that to be the case, which you have not done, despite repeated reminders from me to do so. I actually take the time to quote you, give examples, cite sources, and logically explain why your excuses (they are not arguments) don’t work as rational justifications for your position. This will be apparent to anyone who even casually peruses through this thread.

    You said:

    You mention statements by US and British Psychiatrists as proof that gayism is normal. For crying out loud, organizations such as APA were forced to change their views on gayism back in the 1970s not because new scientific evidence came to light showing gayism was normal, but because of gay lobby groups were able to successfully use door-stepping, street demonstrations and other pressure tactics to force change. The American Psychological Association (APA) and the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) being scientific bodies implement the difficult task of balancing science and political correctness by calibrating their words carefully in all its statements. The bodies say that gayism is normal behaviour because it has been documented in many different cultures and historical eras and that clinical work has led mainstream medical researchers to conclude the behaviour was normal form of human experience. None of these scientific bodies or any researcher for that matter have provided credible documented proof of gay behaviour in many different cultures around the world.

    You have it backwards. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims homosexuality (or any other perceived condition) is a mental illness, and not vice versa. There simply wasn’t empirical data that supported the previous view that homosexuality was an ‘illness’, and hence its previous classification was revoked. (Read the paper: Sexual Orientation, Differences as Deficits: Science and Stigma in the history of American Psychology )

    Also, I would like to see your references for your numerous false assertions on this issue, thanks. The burden of proof is on he/she that makes the positive assertion. This much you know, I suspect. If not, now you do.

    You said:

    Moreover, I fail to see how proof that some people (e.g. ancient Greeks) engaged in gay sex validate the idea that gayism should be seen universally as normal behaviour. Of course, APA and RCP conveniently forget to acknowledge in their public statements that there is no consensus among respected mainstream scientists on the nature of gayism—-and many studies done on this subject including those on twins and the so-called “gay gene” have had their methodology questioned not by religious zealots, but by eminent mainstream scientists. Despite your efforts to hijack science for your own agenda, research into sexuality remains far away from unveiling the full facts about why people engage in gayism.

    The mainstream view among professionals relevant to any study of sexual orientation IS that sexual orientation is not a choice. (You obviously have a lack of understanding of the meaning of ‘mainstream’, don’t you? Look it up) And I didn’t say anything about the Greeks. I do not need to invoke them or any ancient culture that may or may not have been tolerant of homosexuals to show that you don’t have an argument.

    And even if it were the case that there were some scientists (whatever their religious affiliation) took issue with whatever studies that have been conducted on the matter it doesn’t immediately validate their views as legitimate. Have you not heard of peer review? Or do you think all dissenting views are valid? Ok then…

    Here are links to “scientific research” done by people who claim they have evidence the earth is flat. The scientific consensus is that the earth is a sphere. These people reject it, and like I said earlier, they too have pet conspiracy theories for why they think “politicized scientists” allegedly want to “hide the truth”.

    1. THE FLAT-EARTH / ROUND EARTH CONTROVERSY

    2. The Flat Earth

    To quote from this study:

    By 1800, Zetetic societies were flourishing in England. ‘Zetetic’ means ‘skeptic’. The flat-earthers took this name to symbolize their skepticism toward orthodox scientific views of the shape of the earth.

    Do you see how consensus scientific views being disparaged as ‘orthodox’ by the dissenters? Sound familiar?

    Then here are links to websites of people who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. Some of them even have scientific credentials:

    1. THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE

    Money quote:

    What this all means is that overturning the orthodoxy is no easier in science than other disciplines, despite the professed open-mindedness of science as a vocation.

    2. The Case of HIV and AIDS

    money quote:

    To reinforce some of his points, Horton followed a pattern which has been common in the past, namely: spokesmen for the orthodox view about HIV causality evade dealing with specific previous objections, or questions, or criticisms raised about scientific articles which they uphold as evidence against those who challenge the orthodoxy; at the same time, these spokesmen introduce new articles as further evidence, before these new articles have been subjected to scientific scrutiny.

    Hurray to the Flat Earthers who are vigilantly challenging the scientific orthodoxy? So should we suppose that the earth really is flat, as they say, and HIV does not cause AIDS, as these dissenters suggest? Do the professors who support the consensus on a spherical earth do so out of fear of losing tenure at their universities by challenging it?

    LOL

    If you want to reject a consensus view on account of there being some dissenters whose arguments have been soundly refuted, then there’s nothing I can really do for you. Your ignorance, and theirs, cannot be my problem. As it is, you are not in the position of claiming that your position has valid scientific support.

    To reiterate an earlier point I made:

    Could you kindly refer me to peer reviewed scientific literature from a reputable journal that defend your view point on the matter of sexual orientation? I’ll be waiting. Being the ‘qualified’ man that you are, I’m sure you attach value to the peer review process, right? If not, then please feel free to toss your Masters’ degree in Electrical Engineering out the window, because the knowledge you attained in that mysterious university of yours was in all likelihood a product of studying literature gathered, filtered and accumulated through peer review.

    You are basically just regurgitating rumours being circulated by anti-gay activists – and that doesn’t really count as evidence, sorry. Refer me to peer reviewed scientific literature, at a minimum.

    You said:

    In any case, one must acknowledge the socio-political context in which APA and RCP officials are operating. In the present socio-political context of the West, it is career suicide for a scientist or any other professional to question the received wisdom of the influential gay lobby.

    And homophobic people don’t have a socio-political context in which they are operating?

    Religious people who take a literal interpretation of passages in their scriptures admonishing homosexuals have it in their ideological interest to undermine any research that seems to disagree with their views. Many of the anti-gay crusaders in fact openly tout their religious convictions as a motivation for attacking gay rights. Not surprisingly, the organisations who circulate the kind of false information about gay people that ends up in the mouths of people like you, Martin Ssempa and David Bahati are in fact religious organisations. (Many of them have been labelled as hate groups for precisely this reason. Not because they are religious conservatives with alternative views, but because they knowingly spread widely discredited information for the purpose of vilifying a class of people.)

    People are also motivated by religious reasons to dispute the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, origin of species, neuro-science and so on. I’d like to know, Maazi, to what extent have you factored this bias in your evaluation of the claims of these dissenters from the scientific consensus on sexual orientation. Are you saying dissenters are not prone to ‘distorting’ the facts’? Are you saying these religion-motivated dissenters don’t have a vested interest in rejecting the scientific consensus? And these people are the primary source of misinformation about LGBT people. Please answer this question. Thank you.

    You said:

    It is one thing for respectable independent-minded mainstream scientists to criticize the fraudulence of unscrupulous scientists researching backwards from a predetermined answer (i.e. “gayism is genetic”) to the question (i.e.”Is gayism genetic?”), bending data along the way to fit their pro-gay theory and another thing for the respectable scientists to risk their professional careers, research funding and university tenures by publishing any work using the conventional “question to answer” approach to produce credible information that contradicts the received wisdom of the gay sex lobby.

    What ‘mainstream’ scientists? Again, the mainstream view IS that sexual orientation is not a choice. The views you espouse are fringe views, and characteristic of the rhetoric that comes courtesy of conservative Christian anti-gay organisations in the USA who have a vested ideological interest in resisting the advancement of gay rights. You are simply regurgitating their widely discredited rumours. Flat Earthers, and AIDS deniers, say the EXACT SAME THINGS about scientists who accept the consensus view which the deniers reject… protecting their tenure, conspiracy, orthodoxy, etc… those are the typical conspiracy theory catch-phrases. I even did a podcast about this. Check it out.

    You said:

    This matter is not particularly restricted to sexuality research, one sees this threat of professional suicide facing climate science researchers— including those not on the payroll of oil companies—who express skepticism of global warming. (Just for the record, I am not questioning global warming, but I believe that science has always thrived on skepticism and its should never be stifled).

    I’m afraid you’ve bought into the anti-gay conspiracy theory. You should read the article Conspiracy Theories in Science by Ted Goertzel, that was published in the European Molecular Biology Organisation Report of November 2010.

    An excerpt:

    Conspiracy theories are easy to propagate and difficult to refute. Fortunately, until a decade or so ago, few serious conspiracy theories haunted the natural sciences. More recently, however, conspiracy theories have begun to gain ground and, in some cases, have struck a chord with a public already mistrustful of science and government. Conspiracy theorists—some of them scientifically trained—have claimed that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, that global warming is a manipulative hoax and that vaccines and genetically modified foods are unsafe. These claims have already caused serious consequences: misguide public health policies, resistance to energy conservation and alternative energy, and dropping vaccination rates.

    […]

    Even if a conspiracy theory is implausible, it can be used as a rhetorical device to appeal to the emotions of a significant public. The conspiracy meme flourishes best in politics, religion and journalism, in which practitioners can succeed by attracting followers from the general public. These practitioners might actually believe the conspiracy theory, or they might simply use it to win public support.

    As long as scientists keep away from politics and controversial social issues, they are largely immune to conspiracy theories because success in scientific careers comes from winning grant applications and publishing significant findings in peer reviewed journals. Attacking other scientists as conspirators would not be helpful for the careers of most scientists, no matter how frustrated they might be with referees, editors, colleagues or administrators who turn down their manuscripts or grant proposals, or deny them tenure. But conspiracy theories can be useful for scientists who are so far out of the mainstream in their field that they seek to appeal to alternative funding sources or publication outlets.

    This notion of there being some kind of conspiracy by scientists to prop up gay rights is, simply put, ridiculous – without merit, and without evidence. Meanwhile, the motivations of those who reject the consensus in order to oppose gay rights are crystal clear. Either they espouse extremely conservative religious views, or they are cultural extremists, like you. Throughout this exchange you have invoked the culture card, or the ‘taboo’ card, to justify your hostility against gay people. You of course reject what science has to say on the matter because it disconfirms your very apparent prejudices. That’s the thing, your motives are transparent, Maazi – and that is why your desperate appeals to conspiracy theories regarding the scientific consensus on sexual orientation ring hollow.

    The irony of it all is that it hasn’t occurred to you that any notion of a “conspiracy theory” could easily be applied to you and your fellow dissenters from the scientific consensus. As it is, you yourselves have provided ample evidence that this indeed is the case – given that you’ve worn your primary motivation on your sleeves, namely….Culture! Taboo! Disgusting!

    Do not abuse science, or promote ignorance, just so that you can prop up your prejudices.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    You said:

    POINT TWO:

    Yes, some religious groups oppose criminalization of gayism. Some do so because they believe that it is a sin which should not be criminal offence and others do so because gay sex lobbyists in their nations have managed to blackmail them. I don’t see why Uganda should be concerned about the position of some Christian groups on gayism any more than USA is concerned with the position of the EU and Vatican on the use of the death penalty.

    I was responding to your initial claim that western governments were acting solely at the behest of their gay electorate in opposing the ill treatment of LGBT people, a claim which I have soundly refuted. This is what you said:

    One needs to observe how Western governments—desperate to please their domestic gay sex electorate—are trying to blackmail other nations into accepting gayism using UN organs and multilateral gatherings such as the EU–Africa summits or Africa/Caribbean/Pacific–Europe economic forums.

    I showed you how people other than those belonging to the ‘gay electorate’ are actively involved in urging their governments to oppose the Bahati bill and unfair treatment of gays and lesbians. I gave you three examples, but I could have easily listed more, if you wanted.

    With regards to Uganda’s concern…. sure, Ugandans are not obligated to care what other people think. But throughout this exchange I have been arguing from a ‘Uganda’ basis. Even a casual perusal of this thread will show that I have cited (and quoted) articles from the Uganda constitution to demonstrate that discriminatory legislation based on cultural or religious prejudices are unconstitutional – a point which you have not refuted. Would you like to try to refute it, as I’ve been begging you to do over the last several days?

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    You continue:

    POINT THREE:

    You claimed that you were born in Japan; mentioned a gay character in a TV programme and the alleged “superficial conservatism” of the Japanese people who— according to you —are sexually repressed and love fetish pornography. You also threw in the “legendary” xenophobia of East Asia. But in the final analysis, you were still unable to disprove my opinion that gayism remains a taboo subject despite being legal in Japan. Having a token effeminate male (or gay) character in a TV drama does not mean that gayism is no longer a taboo subject in Japan. Even Nigeria’s Nollywood has managed to produce movies with gay characters in them, even though sodomy is illegal there and remains overwhelmingly rejected by society.

    Well look how things are changing in Japan. From slightly over a year ago:

    Japan has given the green light for its nationals to marry same-sex foreign partners in countries where gay marriage is legal, a justice ministry official said Friday.

    Japan does not allow same-sex marriages at home and has so far also refused to issue a key document required for citizens to wed overseas if the applicant’s intended spouse was of the same gender.

    Under the change, the justice ministry has told local authorities to issue the key certificate — which states a person is single and of legal age — for those who want to enter same-sex marriages, the official told AFP.

    Gay activists praised the move.

    “This is one step forward,” said Taiga Ishikawa, who leads a gay support group. “Gay Japanese have suffered a disadvantage… although they should be able to marry in some countries overseas.”

    Every successful journey begins with one step. It was the same for abolition of slavery, it was the same for desegregation, it was the same for women’s rights, and it is the same for LGBT rights today. The march of progress for justice cannot be stopped.

    Of course no country in the world is devoid of racists, misogynists, and homophobic people. A foreigner can live and work in Japan without much hassle, for example, even though its locals might harbour intense xenophobic/racist feelings. But does this justify their racism, and does this mean other people should be xenophobic too? Of course not. So, do all Japanese not have a problem with gay people? I can’t vouch for that. But they are certainly not intolerant of them, and they do not vilify them either. They also are very much a part of the pop culture there, so I don’t see what the big deal is.

    And yes I was born in Japan.

    About the Nigerian movies, if what you are saying is true, and that gay people are actually starting to be featured in movies (even in token roles) then that is fantastic. That is the BEGINNING of a move towards tolerance. I am therefore amused that you’d see this as a point against LGBT rights. The very fact that such movies can even be made in a country whose laws still declare same-sex relations a crime is evidence of a slowly shifting mindset. It’s no accident that I refer to this as a march towards progress.

    Marches are made of….. steps.

    By the way Japan also signed the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity which includes a condemnation of violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity that undermine the integrity and dignity.

    You said:

    POINT FOUR:

    You speak of state laws prohibiting polygamy as being unconstitutional in USA. Why not go over there and join your fellow libertarian ideologues to lobby for polygamy to be legal activity throughout America? I am sure they will be pleased to have you over there. You also seem okay with Western governments’ efforts to blackmail African nations into allowing gayism, thereby serving the interests of Western gay sex voters. But you are clearly unhappy that the vast majority of the Ugandan people wish their own government to keep gayism criminalized. Speaking of double-standards !!

    I’ll just repeat what I told you in one of my earlier comments, when you brought up Holocaust denial laws in Europe. This is what I told you:

    If I had the time I would be signing petitions to get such laws repealed, but life is short so you have to choose your fights. But this is beside the point, because I’m sure you know that two wrongs don’t make a right, right? So don’t appeal to injustices committed by some to justify the injustices you want to level at others. That’s fallacious reasoning.

    The same applies to my attitude towards anti-polygamy legislation in the US. I am in Uganda. I understand this issue. I can make a difference (and I am, just so you know). It is therefore a more strategically effective use of my time to engage in this particular debate here in Uganda rather than take on others in other countries. Don’t you think so? Or would you rather I spread myself thin and accomplish nothing?

    As it turns out my hands are quite full with other socially conscious projects, so it is not as if I am not playing my part in trying to make the world a better place.

    About double standards you accused me of… I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you asking me if it’s ok for the west to threaten to withhold aid to Uganda on account of the bill? I already told you what my views are regarding Foreign Aid. Let them cut it, I don’t really care. I am of the view that aid increases poverty, dependency and corruption, so let them stop it! I wish they stopped it yesterday!

    What does seem to be happening is a lot of lobbying, which, the last time I checked, is not a bad thing for presidents to do. If Wikileaks and ‘Cablegate’ is anything to go by, its very clear that our president prefers to maintain good relations with the west, and has very good reasons for doing so. So if they use their leverage to urge him to act one way the other, I don’t see that as a problem per se. Of course that just renders democracy a joke, but then again I’ve never been a big fan of politics – in general.

    But I do have a question for you, regarding slavery in the US. Do you remember that the Southern States had to be put at the point of a bayonet and bullied into releasing their slaves? Do you think that was a ‘bad’ thing to do? Lincoln had freed the slaves. The South did not comply. Force was used to make them comply. Think of the Serbian atrocities against the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia too, and how NATO had to intervene.

    So perhaps an argument can be made for how use of force or coercion is sometimes justified, if the aim is to protect the rights of people.

    To conclude, it is my view that laws prohibiting voluntary adult polygamy violate people’s rights (whatever the country). As far as Uganda is concerned it is my view, and I’ve been successful in demonstrating this view, that discriminatory laws against LGBT people, which are inherently based on cultural and religious prejudices are in violation of the rights of LGBT people, and therefore unconstitutional.

    My views, and my actions, are therefore consistent. It is in the interest of strategic effectiveness that my efforts are concentrated in the area in which I am more familiar, and have a better chance at impacting.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    @ Maazi NCO

    You said:

    POINT FIVE:

    I welcome the Judiciary’s declaration on the sedition law because it was not in the public interest to prevent journalists from holding government to account. If a government official feels that a press report is wrong, he or she can always sue for libel. There was never a need for the sedition law.

    Indeed there wasn’t.

    You said:

    Gayism is not a HUMAN RIGHT.

    So you keep saying like a broken record without offering a single argument! Except, of course, that weak attempt at claiming that it is not covered under the UN Declaration of Human Rights. We saw that for all intents and purposes, it is:

    Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as…

    Which part of ‘without distinction of any kind‘ don’t you get, Maazi NCO? This is the third time I’ve asked you this, and I’ve not gotten a response. Let’s see an actual logical argument , and not just a bare assertion. (I’m not holding my breath) The argument should be a syllogistic one i.e. a conclusion preceded by demonstrable premises. Just put forward a logical argument.

    You said:

    It is one thing to use privacy provisions in the constitution to get a judge to ban an obscure tabloid from publishing pictures and personal contact details of certain people (without regards to the alleged illegal activity of those people cited by the publication) and it is another thing for a judge to set free a person being prosecuted by the State after being caught red-handed violating the Sex Offenders Act because of so-called “gay rights”.

    Well, first of all, the good news is that the Rolling Stone tabloid has lost the case.

    Second of all, about being caught red-handed violating the Sex Offenders Act. One of the reasons the Anti-homosexuality bill was being pushed was that that the existing anti-sodomy laws are generally unenforceable. Unless some homosexuals decide to have sex in public, it is more or less impossible to catch them ‘in the act’ as existing laws require of prosecutors. Previous attempts at arresting alleged offenders hit a snag because they police ended up breaching articles 23, 24 and 27 of the constitution by breaking into the houses of LGBT activists. And of course they were not caught in the act.

    So you basically have nothing to go on, and unlucky for you, in all likelihood the Bahati Bill will not get passed. Not while Museveni is president, anyway. And if it does pass, it will be stuck in the courts the moment it is announced, its unconstitutionality will be made obvious, and it will end up where the sedition law did – in the dust bin.

    You said:

    I am confident that Uganda judges would never legislate from the bench.

    Sorry to tell you this, but they tend to repeal laws they find unconstitutional regardless of what legislators have to say about it.

    You said:

    I suspect the foreign-controlled gay sex advocates in Kampala know this as well hence their refusal to go to court over the sodomy law.

    Why do you assume you have to be forign controlled to advocate for the rights of all Ugandans regardless of sexual orientation? No one is paying me, for example. But I know what you’re doing. It’s basically a cheap tactic you employ to elicit cheap nationalistic support for your hate campaign. It worked for Hitler, so I guess you’re counting on it to work for you too, huh? That is what happens when reason fails to prop up a position. The proponents of such positions resort to stirring emotions, inciting hatred and making it an us-versus-them affair– its easy to do and its always the last card when use of reason fails.

    Anyway, I think if sufficient interest is generated among people the relevant laws might get challenged in the courts. Our interaction here has made clear that there are really no good arguments, besides recourse to tradition, culture or religion, put forward by intolerant people to justify the existence of these discriminatory laws – and we have already seen how such recourse ends up violating the constitution. Look out for interesting times ahead!

    You said:

    The sodomy laws are difficult to enforce because a violator needs to be caught red-handed in the act of gayism not because of so-called “privacy”. So there is need for a thoroughly revised Bahati Bill to close the gaps in the sodomy laws.

    ….which, as we have already discussed, has a near zero likelihood of ever getting passed. A cabinet committee reviewed it was well, and found most of it to be redundant.

    You said:

    BTW, judges are not robots and they do take into account the culture, traditions and religious beliefs of the society when reaching certain verdicts as was the case in Botswana when a challenge mounted against its sodomy law was thrown out three times.

    I don’t know the details of Botswana (I suppose it’s worth a look. Gosh it would be so nice if you provided relevant links like I do, for your benefit).

    I contend that there is a good case to be made for the unconstitutionality for the discriminatory laws against LGBT people, and my interest will be in circulating these arguments and encourage interest in the debate. Increased debate will generate even better arguments against these discriminatory laws. So never say never Maazi NCO. Hate never wins when under constant assault by reason and compassion :-)

    You said:

    In any case, the notion that gayism is a “human right” is in itself a prejudicial cultural belief rooted in libertarian ideology.

    Bwahahahahahaha…. dude, its prejudicial only if it violates the fundamental human rights of others. As you are not able to demonstrate how consensual private sexual acts between adults of the same sex violates the fundamental human rights of others, your point is rather moot. I invite you to try. Give it a shot, Mr. Electical Engineer :-)

    You said:

    POINT SIX:

    It is your right to circulate this thread to all your supporters. I would imagine that Warren Throckmorton will be happy with that since it boosts the number of people visiting his blog.

    Already done.

  • Maazi NCO

    I wonder why pro-gay sex advocates get overly emotional and throw cheap insults around—-I am referring to your rantings and ravings about me on your blog, which looks more like a rallying point for militant atheists and libertarian ideologues who feel that society can exist in a vacuum where morality, culture and traditions do not matter and cannot be used in framing the rules under which such society should exist and function . As your convoluted essays are unduly lengthy, I will simply concentrate on areas of your “gay apologia” that are relevant to the realities of Uganda and ignore your cheap “Maazi NCO-is-Adolph Hilter” insults and your libertarian junk.

    don’t know the details of Botswana (I suppose it’s worth a look. Gosh it would be so nice if you provided relevant links like I do, for your benefit).

    Of course, I shall not do you the favour of providing the Botswana court verdicts, but you are free to call your foreign gay propagandist friends to provide you the copies, since they sponsored the failed lawsuits in the southern African nation.

    Well, first of all, the good news is that the Rolling Stone tabloid has lost the case.

    I support Justice Victor Kibuuka-Musoke’s verdict because it puts an end to the vigilantism of the Rolling Stones. Like I said several times, since the Rolling Stones commenced operations, it is wrong for any media organization to publish pictures and personal contact details of anybody (regardless of the alleged illegal activity of that person).

    Unless some homosexuals decide to have sex in public, it is more or less impossible to catch them ‘in the act’ as existing laws require of prosecutors

    In other words, the “unenforceable” nature of the sodomy law is the perfect excuse on why you and your gay sex buddies are too scared to challenge the Sex Offenders Act of 2000

    So you basically have nothing to go on, and unlucky for you, in all likelihood the Bahati Bill will not get passed. Not while Museveni is president, anyway

    Oh, how can I forget that some cabinet ministers ruled that the Bahati Bill was “unconstitutional” and that our President called for the bill to “go slow”. I guess I am too foolish to see that you John Onen have analyzed the situation and declared the bill dead permanently

    And if it does pass, it will be stuck in the courts the moment it is announced, its unconstitutionality will be made obvious, and it will end up where the sedition law did – in the dust bin.

    The spirit of the Justice Victor Kibuuka-Musoke’s opinion on section 145 of the penal code is without a doubt the reason for the Bahati Bill. The original version of the Bahati Bill will no doubt be declared “unconstitutional”, but the thoroughly revised version of that same bill will not. As said before, the sedition act was not in the public interest because it prevented journalists from doing their jobs. Gayism is a different matter altogether.

  • Richard Willmer

    What is this ‘gayism’ that a certain person keeps citing? And what has it to do with principles of legality, fairness, etc.?

  • Jayhuck

    Maazi is a robot who only spouts the same kinds of statements/rhetoric. He’s like Fred Phelps – there’s no reasoning with him. Its not worth the effort! :)

  • Maazi NCO

    What is this ‘gayism’ that a certain person keeps citing?

    You should also ask Justice Victor Kibuuka-Musoke since the word “gayism” features prominently and is used repeatedly in the documented version of his court ruling against Rolling Stones

  • anteros

    lol! Maazi’s been OWNED, yet again. Thanks, James Onen, Richard Willmer… it’s been entertaining.

  • Richard Willmer

    Moving to considerations relating to fairness and a consistent concept of ‘legality’:-

    It is, of course, the case that certain private sexual acts which Bahati intends to proscribe for gay people (with provision for the execution of the so-called ‘serial offenders’) are, biologically-speaking, identical in the contexts of both homosexual and heterosexual consensual relations. Logically, the law should treat such acts in an identical manner, regardless of the aforementioned contexts. Laws should be about ‘regulating behaviour’, and not about discriminating between different types of people.

    No sane or logical person can support a situation where two persons of the same sex are imprisoned (or even hanged) for, say, consensual oral intercourse, when two persons of the opposite sex would not be imprisoned (or hanged) for the same activity. Any reasonable concepts of ‘logic’ or ‘fairness’ demand that the ‘legal response’ to such private consensual acts should be identical, regardless of the context in which they take place. Each of these activities should be EITHER legal OR illegal under all circumstances. If gay people are to be imprisoned for life (or hanged) for engaging in, for example, consensual oral sex, then the same should apply to straight people. (Obviously, I take the view that criminal penalties are appropriate in neither context.)

  • Richard Willmer

    To my knowledge, Victor Kibuuka-Musoke has not referred ‘gayism’ on this blog. But someone else has.

  • Maazi NCO

    Logically, the law should treat such acts in an identical manner, regardless of the aforementioned contexts. Laws should be about ‘regulating behaviour’, and not about discriminating between different types of people.

    Humans are divided into male and female (provisions can be made to accomodate people who are born with male and female organs—”hemaphrodites” or “inter-sex”—- since theirs is an immutable congenital/genetic issue). Gay sex practitioners will never be recognized as a distinct identity (akin to race or ethnicity) in Uganda and in several parts of the world. The West cannot ram that down our throats. Of course, people are free to have perverted thoughts about having deviant sex with a person of the same-sex or an animal , but must never act on it because it is illegal under the law—and if additional measures are brought by force of legislation, every Ugandan must obey that law. Ugandans who disagree have right to challenge the law in a court. If the court declares in their favour, that is okay, otherwise they must keep their activities within the boundaries of such legislation.

    Each of these activities should be EITHER legal OR illegal under all circumstances. If gay people are to be imprisoned……. for engaging in, for example, consensual oral sex, then the same should apply to straight people.

    This quote is just a fishing expedition to see how much information can be extracted about the Bahati Bill being revised. All I can say is that you should educate yourself on the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act of 2000.

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi’

    Comparing consensual same-sex relationships with bestiality is completely ridiculous (and an example of the dirty propaganda favoured by hate-filled, machete-waving lunatics). Animals cannot give informed consent; humans can.

    The point about ‘equal treatment under criminal law’ re. consensual oral sex is simply a logical one. The same applies to anal intercourse – something which is practised within both straight and gay relationships.

    Attitudes ARE changing in UG whether you like it or not (and it seems you do not like it). The weird antics of people like Bahati, Ssempa and Muhame have made people think. Even your appraisal of what might become of the Bahitler bill has ‘evolved’ (first you said that ‘the crudest aspects would be removed’; then you said the Bill would be ‘revised’; more recently it’s a ‘heavily revised’ bill that you think will become law; now you say ‘something’ might become law, which could then be effectively rendered ‘dead letter’ by the courts). Getting better and better!

  • Richard Willmer

    Come on, ‘Maazi’ – be logical, man!

    What is the OBJECTIVE difference between a woman stimulating a man’s genitalia, and a man doing so? The answer, of course, is ‘none at all’ – so why should one situation be criminalised and the other not? (Maybe you are of the opinion that the Bahitler Bill should be changed, so that oral sex involving two men or two women is not longer a criminal offence?)

    Incidentally, how involved are you with the alleged ‘revision’ and promotion of the Bill?

  • Richard Willmer

    Add ‘with her mouth’ after the word ‘stimulating’ in line 1.

  • Maazi NCO

    Animals cannot give informed consent; humans can.

    We do not seek the consent of an animal before we slaughter them for meat; ride them for fun or sport; use them as beasts of burden; use them to drive ploughs and other farm implements. We do not seek consent when we use them to test medicines which will eventually be for the benefit of humanity if test trials go well. We do not ask animals for their informed consent when we cage them in zoos for our entertainment. So if gayism in the West is okay when two men consent to it , then it should be okay for a man and his beloved pet dog in the West to engage in bestiality since “consent” has never been an issue when humans handle animals. In our part of the world, “consent” cannot be an excuse to engage in an abominable act of sexual perversion—whether with animals or with a member of the same-sex.

  • anteros

    Maazi, did you just equate private sexual relationships between consenting adults with bestiality?

    Animals have rights and how poorly those rights are respected or how badly animals have unfortunately been victimized (all of the examples you have given including bestiality) has nothing to do with whether or not the privacy of consensual (read victimless) sexual activities between adults conducted in private should be respected.

    If you’re still scratching your head, you may wanna skim through the Ugandan constitution and pick up a clue or two. I heard that repetition sometimes helps slow learners register concepts that they have problems grasping… try repeating “consenting adults” and “conducted in private”. After that, you can quit pretending not to understand the concepts of CONSENT and PRIVACY as applied to sexual activities of ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.

    I hate using caps, but it seems you may need some assistance with keeping focused on key basic concepts.

    Whether you or ninety whatever percent of Ugandans consider something “deviant” is irrelevant to the key basic concepts pointed out above, as the Ugandan constitution points out. If we ignore those key basic concepts and continue to disregard the constitution, then after the Anti-Homosexuality Act we will see an Anti-Fornication Act and an Anti-Masturbation Act and an Anti-Group Sex Act and an Anti-Oral Sex Act and an Anti-Interracial Sex Act… or maybe just one big Anti-”Deviant” Sex Act which prohibits all sex except sex between married partners (of the opposite sex and the same race, tribe and religion) conducted in the missionary position strictly for purposes of procreation, complete with penalties for touching one’s spouse with the intention of engaging in anal sex or oral sex or sex using condoms (your nodding ninety whatever percent of Ugandans would probably buy into that with little persuasion, then you can keep touting their stance on condom use being a “deviant” sex practice in defence of your disregard for the Ugandan constitution as more criminals are made out of harmless adults having consensual “deviant” sex in private) and penalties for failing to report any “deviant” sexual relationships between consenting adults conducted in private.

    Oh, I almost forgot… that’s a common and very tired tactic employed by anti-gay propagandists… playing dumb by not-so-cleverly conflating things in an attempt to distort logic and “win” their own nonsensical debates as cheap consolation… i’m waiting for you to use that tactic again, after being called on it at least twice.

  • Richard Willmer

    Anteros

    ‘Maazi’ is just being silly. He knows perfectly well that to compare consensual same-sex relationships with bestiality, rape or child abuse is just cheap, dirty propaganda of the type favoured by machete-waving lunatics.

  • anteros

    Richard, one would have hoped that by now we’d have made progress beyond having to respond to people playing dumb by repeating the same worthless rhetoric… but here we are, still responding to variations of ssempa’s rant, “as Africans, we want to ask Barak Obama to explain to us, ‘is this what he wants to bring to Africa, as a human right, to eat da poo poo of our children?’ ”

    …playing dumb… such a stale tactic.

  • Richard Willmer

    It is indeed ‘dumb’ – and less and less representative of how sensible Ugandans are thinking (opinion is shifting quite fast; Bahati has helped to promote vibrant and open discussion – inadvertently, of course!). People like Ssempa are currently an embarrassment to President Museveni, so I’m told.

  • anteros

    Richard, people like ssempa and the sheep in his national taskforce against homosexuality are an eternal embarrassment to ugandans, africans and humanity.

  • Richard Willmer

    Are you Ugandan, Anteros? (I entirely agree with you, by the way.)

  • anteros

    i’m ugandan, living in uganda.

  • anteros

    …waiting for Maazi to label me any of the usual… gay sex practitioner/promoter/propagandist/lobbyist, employee of gay agenda international, westernized, unafrican, elite, perverted… *yawn* …the usual distractions in the playing dumb game.

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi’ may have decided to stop spouting ‘the usual rubbish’. Let’s hope so!

  • Richard Willmer

    I know many STRAIGHT Ugandans (including Christians) who are fed up with all the ‘anti-gay’ hype.

  • anteros

    yeah, that stuff’s way beyond its sell-by date.

  • James

    Anteros,

    what a silly observation about Maazi and all the other anti-homo guys. Must every one submit to a perverted behaviour like homosexuality? Ssempa, Bahati, etc have never been an embarrassment to me, our president and parliament unlike you negative hate filled monsters.

    And Richard is just a misplaced one, he spews anything any time. Nothing to consider from him, nothing at all.

  • Maazi NCO

    It is indeed ‘dumb’ – and less and less representative of how sensible Ugandans are thinking (opinion is shifting quite fast; Bahati has helped to promote vibrant and open discussion – inadvertently, of course!). People like Ssempa are currently an embarrassment to President Museveni, so I’m told.

    Containing the propagation of gayism is the collective resolution of the vast majority of Ugandan people. This resolution is greater than any of the individual vocal personalities—Ssempa, Bahati, Buturo and Male—who you keep mentioning. This resolution crosses ethnic, political, religious and gender boundaries, bringing disparate people—— such as human right activist Miria Matembe, religious leaders, most opposition party politicians (excluding the few that say nonsense to receive donor funding), majority of educated professionals, el-Presidente, ruling party politicians and ordinary citizens—— together in strong unanimity. Of course, there are bound to be disagreements in the best strategy to adopt in beating gayism back. Even before Bahati came up with his extremely harsh original bill (which some Ugandans including myself criticized), there were already pending legislative work aimed at containing sexual perversion. Uganda’s deep-seated antipathy to gayism did not start with the birth of David Bahati, Giles Muhame, Stephen Langa, Solomon Male or James Nsaba Buturo. The antipathy did not start with the arrival of Scott Lively and his Band of American “Righteous” Brothers. Contrary to revisionist books written by pro-gay Western authors, the deep-seated antipathy to gayism was there before the first European set foot in the continent of Africa. [Please, don't even bother to bring up Mwanga II, the Buganda king, who in spite of having 16 wives, still engaged in the deviant behaviour of his Arab trader friends]

  • Maazi NCO

    you can quit pretending not to understand the concepts of CONSENT and PRIVACY as applied to sexual activities of ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.

    “Privacy”has never been the issue. If it was the issue then the Sex Offenders Act of 2000 would have been challenged by gay sex practitioners and their supporters. Botswana has a similar sodomy law, which was challenged unsuccessfully in 2003, 2004 and 2006. Like Justices Stella Arach and Victor Kibuuka-Musoke have alluded to in their court verdicts of 2008 and 2010 respectively , the scope of the existing Penal Code Act is narrow and therefore, cannot be extrapolated for use in situations not defined by law. No judge in Uganda has ever ruled that “gayism as a human right” or that “sodomy is okay if carried out in privacy”. It is probably the reason why MP David Bahati came up with his “improperly” written bill. If that bill was written in carefully calibrated words that tackle gaps in our sodomy law while keeping to the spirit of the constitution, it would have been rendered “bullet-proof” to frivolous Western-funded court challenges.

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi’

    Chill out! There are more important things for you to do than ‘bashing’ your gay compatriots. What have they done to you? Why not be a ‘helper’, rather than a ‘hurter’? You’ll feel much better for making that change (less angry, contorted and frustrated) – it’s always much more ‘morally-rewarding’ to support those who are treated unfairly rather than siding with the bullies.

    When you write, you ‘assert’, but never reason. You compare consensual same-sex relationships with crimes such as robbery, rape, bestiality or child abuse, yet you have NEVER offered a moral or philosophical JUSTIFICATION for such a comparison. (Little wonder, since there isn’t one!)

    As for ‘foreign funding’: Bahati, Ssempa and co. know all about that! Well, they DID (many of their backers have been ‘embarrassed’ into curtailed or ending their financial support).

    And the Bill? Admit it, ‘Maazi’: its time has passed; it will lapse when the Eighth Parliament is dissolved. Maybe someone else will have ‘another go’, but we’ll be ready for that, emboldened by our victories thus far. You see, Bahati and co. BELIEVED they could ‘get away with it’; events have proved them wrong. (Oh yes – don’t give us this stuff about UG’s sovereignty: unjust and repressive laws always have international implications. No country is an island.)

  • anteros

    Maazi, privacy has always been the issue (or at least one of the many issues), but many people just never realised it (bahati bill has fixed that!). perhaps those ‘gay sex practitioners’ you refer to have never been able to afford the ‘frivolous court challenges’ you seem to dread… and maybe that’s because they don’t receive the western funding you imagine they receive.

    i wouldnt be too confident that laws can never being challenged just because they have not been challenged yet.

    it’s becoming increasingly obvious why, after all the western funded lgbti-hating conferences, rallies, workshops, intensive media propaganda campaigns, mass hysteria, many lies about recruitment, the parading of totally unconvincing former ‘recruitees’ and their laughable tales, many lies about invisible pink dollars pounds and euros being paid to lgbti ugandans, many lies about ‘the boy child’ not being protected by law as a reason for the bill to be passed, the importation and imposition of euro-american anti gay lobbyists’ worldviews and concepts summed up as ‘the gay agenda’, stormy raids on parliament, attempts at twisting the president’s arm, religious leaders’ threats and blackmail visited on parliamentarians who failed to support the bill, months of praying and fasting, rebuking of various heads of state and development partners, and over a year of bold public statements and promises that the bill would be passed at whatever cost… the national task force against homosexuality (and all the other groups, organizations and committees formed for the purpose of forcing bahati’s unconstitutional bill into law) backed by ninety whatever percent of ugandans … all that effort and more, i doubt anyone can describe it all… all efforts to pass the bill have FAILED.

    thanks to bahati, buturo, ssempa, male and others who apparently have little regard for human rights, every thinking ugandan who has been paying attention has stopped wondering why the bill has not, cannot and will not be passed. they have been thoroughly educated on the constitutional provisions that most had taken for granted and some (like bahati and friends) had overlooked (deliberately?).

    …the processes of legal and social change have been irreversibly accelerated…

  • anteros

    Maazi, I’m amazed that you would repeat your Botswana 2003 2004 2006 line after it was taken care of by James Onen… it’s a worthless line. You can let it go now.

  • Maazi NCO

    … all that effort and more, i doubt anyone can describe it all… all efforts to pass the bill have FAILED.

    So it would seem…

    thanks to bahati, buturo, ssempa, male and others who apparently have little regard for human rights, every thinking ugandan who has been paying attention has stopped wondering why the bill has not, cannot and will not be passed. they have been thoroughly educated on the constitutional provisions that most had taken for granted

    Well if you are genuinely convinced that Ugandans are becoming more sympathetic into gayism, then I will try not interfere with your happy delusions.

    And the Bill? Admit it, ‘Maazi’: its time has passed; it will lapse when the Eighth Parliament is dissolved. Maybe someone else will have ‘another go’, but we’ll be ready for that, emboldened by our victories thus far.

    Well, I will admit to one thing—-you enjoy acting as a pundit on issues which you only have superficial knowledge of.

    Oh yes – don’t give us this stuff about UG’s sovereignty: unjust and repressive laws always have international implications. No country is an island.

    Why not ask US and EU nations to pass that message on to the Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Malaysia,Egypt and several other nations that criminalize gayism? Why not pass the message to North African nation of Egypt which receives the second heaviest donor aid from USA after the State of Israel? Why are you only interested in pushing “gay rights” in Sub-Saharan region of Africa? Does it not have something to do with the perceived weakness of these countries?—hence the belief that bullying tactics would work? I think you chaps need to re-double your efforts because Malawi expanded their sodomy laws as recently as November 2010. Burundi criminalized gayism in 2009 despite EU threats and blackmail. Despite heavy pressure, Zambia recently revised their constitution to make it “bullet-proof” to promotion of gayism. In Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe agree that the Zimbabwean constitution will never recognize gayism as a “human right”. I suggest you raise those lazy officials at the Her Majesty’s government’s FCO and demand an explanation as to why the bullying tactics is failing to get your desired result.

  • Maazi NCO

    Maazi, I’m amazed that you would repeat your Botswana 2003 2004 2006 line after it was taken care of by James Onen… it’s a worthless line. You can let it go now.

    James Onen, did not address it because it seems he doesn’t know much about it. He asked me to provide him with copies of the 3 verdicts, which I have declined to do since he can request the copies from his foreign gay sex buddies. The Botswana case is quite important because the line of reasoning employed by the judges in the Southern African nation can be relied upon by our own judges in Uganda in case any potential court challenge against the Penal Code Act and its amended descendants.

  • anteros

    ‘gayism as a human right’ … lolz!

    Maazi, we’ve been through this too many times for you to pretend like you still dont get it. there is no sexual orientation of any kind that can be sensibly described as a human right… but people of all sexual orientations, as human beings (no matter how deviant they may be considered by ninety whatever percent of ugandans), are equally entitled to the same internationally recognized human rights also found in the ugandan constitution that protect the privacy of all sexual activities conducted by consenting adults in private… and freedom of association etc …straightforward human rights which cannot be ignored nor side-stepped by bahatites… get it?

    don’t you ever get tired of playing dumb? oh, i see… if you quit playing dumb then you wouldnt be able to repeat the same worthless rhetoric, leaving you with nothing to say. It’s okay to keep quiet if you have nothing sensible to put forward.

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi’

    Why do you seem to take such pleasure in bullying your gay compatriots? What is wrong with you?

    And what is your moral and philosophical justification for comparing consensual same-sex relationships with crimes such as robbery, rape … ?

  • anteros

    James, you asked… “Must every one

    submit to a perverted

    behaviour like

    homosexuality?”

    nobody is asking anybody to submit to “a perverted behaviour” like homosexuality.

    nobody should submit to any behaviour that would be perverted for them… whether gay, straight or whatever.

    the privacy of all sexual activities between consenting adults conducted in private must be respected, that’s all. nobody should force anybody, but we should all learn to respect privacy and mind our own business instead of fantasizing over what consenting adults may or may not be doing with each other in their bedrooms…

  • anteros

    …i’m waiting for the unconstitutional Anti-’Deviant’ Sex Act of 2011 to be huffed and puffed into oblivion by ninety whatever percent of Ugandans who strongly believe that condom use (among other things) is deviant, unafrican, ungodly, unnatural, westernized behavior that should be criminalized and severly punished on the same grounds as gay sex.

  • Richard Willmer

    What ‘Maazi’ did not say about the Burundi situation is that the anti-gay laws there are mild and tokenistic compared with even current UG laws, never mind Bahati’s murder programme.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    My, oh, my….

    It’s been about a week since I last checked to see what is going on on this thread. Haha… and the decimation of Maazi’s hate campaign continues…

    it’s becoming increasingly obvious why, after all the western funded lgbti-hating conferences, rallies, workshops, intensive media propaganda campaigns, mass hysteria, many lies about recruitment, the parading of totally unconvincing former ‘recruitees’ and their laughable tales, many lies about invisible pink dollars pounds and euros being paid to lgbti ugandans, many lies about ‘the boy child’ not being protected by law as a reason for the bill to be passed, the importation and imposition of euro-american anti gay lobbyists’ worldviews and concepts summed up as ‘the gay agenda’, stormy raids on parliament, attempts at twisting the president’s arm, religious leaders’ threats and blackmail visited on parliamentarians who failed to support the bill, months of praying and fasting, rebuking of various heads of state and development partners, and over a year of bold public statements and promises that the bill would be passed at whatever cost… the national task force against homosexuality (and all the other groups, organizations and committees formed for the purpose of forcing bahati’s unconstitutional bill into law) backed by ninety whatever percent of ugandans … all that effort and more, i doubt anyone can describe it all… all efforts to pass the bill have FAILED.

    *Epic Takedown*

    Good job, anteros. I am so circulating that paragraph :-)

  • anteros

    James, you asked “Must every one

    submit to a perverted

    behaviour like

    homosexuality?”

    How is it possible for “every one to submit to … homosexuality”?

    If homosexuality were decriminalized in Uganda today, would all Ugandans including yourself become gay? Nobody’s sexuality is going to change just because of legislation.

  • Maazi NCO

    James Onen, did not address the Botswana court cases because it seems he doesn’t know much about it. He asked me to provide him with copies of the 3 verdicts, which I have declined to do since he can request the copies from his foreign gay sex buddies. The Botswana case is quite important because the line of reasoning employed by the judges in the Southern African nation can be relied upon by our own judges in Uganda in case any potential court challenge against the Penal Code Act and its amended descendants.

  • Maazi NCO

    Warren,

    I wonder why my commentary is always under moderation, but that of my challengers (who support your personal opinion) are not. Well, it is your blog. Enjoy !!

  • Maazi NCO

    Anteros, “sexual orientation” is not a human right recognized by 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. Please do not bother to claim that it is covered by vaguely defined phrase– “other status”–in the declaration. The 2008 UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity will never be approved by majority of the 192 nations of the world. As for the Botswana cases, I have prepared a response. It is up to Warren to decide whether you will view it or not.

  • Maazi NCO

    Why do you seem to take such pleasure in bullying your gay compatriots? What is wrong with you?

    I take pleasure in doing my best to counter attempts by Western governments to complicate the problems of my nation by imposing a debased way of life on my people.

  • anteros

    Maazi, my comments are also awaiting moderation…

    Who claimed that sexual orientation is a human right?

    …it’s a thin line between playing dumb and trolling.

    perhaps your comments are under moderation because you’re trolling, and mine are under moderation because i’m feeding the troll.

  • http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/ James Onen

    Maazi NCO you said:

    Warren,

    I wonder why my commentary is always under moderation, but that of my challengers (who support your personal opinion) are not. Well, it is your blog. Enjoy !!

    My comments are also always placed under moderation so stop whining.

  • Richard Willmer

    I think ‘Maazi’ is simply wanting to ‘maintain his position’, even though his has no moral or philosophical basis for so doing. Fancy citing someone like Mugabe (whom Museveni has described as an ‘embarrassment to Africa’) to support one’s case – a sure sign of intellectual desperation!

    Just because other African countries (such as Malawi, Burundi and Zimbabwe – not exactly three ‘beacons of hope’ for the Continent, incidentally!) do bad things, there is no excuse for Uganda to do something even worse, such as the mass murder proposed by David Bahati. Rwanda, on the other hand, has apparently moved in the other direction recently – their contribution to the UN debate was most correct and moving.

    One last point: isn’t it rather odd that Ugandans like ‘Maazi’ seem to think they are being ‘good little nationalists’ by ‘bashing’ … other Ugandans???!!! Mad! Completely mad!!!

  • anteros

    if, during presidential campaigns, the head of the inter-party coalition, kizza besigye (the top contestant in the upcoming presidential elections) can talk about decriminalizing homosexuality… then he’s certainly not concerned about alienating the ninety whatever percent of ugandans whose alleged sole desire is to see bahati’s bill passed into law.

    perhaps besigye is more in tune with the actual position of the *real* ninety whatever percent of ugandans who are sick and tired of hearing the bahatites’ anti-gay propaganda constantly drowning their voices and drawing attention away from their long list of pressing concerns.

    …a clear demonstration of the progress ugandans are making.

  • Richard Willmer

    I agree, Anteros.

    But the Bahitler Bill is still a serious threat – as you will see from other posts on this blog.

  • anteros

    I hear you, Richard.

    But for some reason, to me it just sounds like a lot of pride and hot air… less hot than 2010′s hot air.

    …campaigns, elections, inevitable post-election drama, a new set of governance promises and priorities after the post-election drama (the bill isnt featuring in campaigns, but decriminalization is), more focused international attention, more formidable local opposition to the bill, the exposure of the bahatites’ lies and propaganda, ssempa and friends losing credibility and audience by the day, the rolling stone’s spanking in court… I just don’t see them pulling it off before the anti-gay hype’s current anti-climax takes its toll and the bill becomes too stale for it to be mentioned ever again

    (hopefully, pretty soon).

    Perhaps it will depend on their craftiness… as we’ve seen, they can be really crafty.

    I need to read those posts again…

  • Maazi NCO

    Colonel (Dr.) Kizza Besigye is a man in need of a boost. A man in need of positive international headlines of the pro-gay western media. It is hard to fault a politician for wanting some positive headlines—even if it is from foreigners. The political life of the desperate FDC front-man is not an easy one, especially when you are tackled ruthlessly on the left, right and centre flanks by equally desperate NRM fighter-politicians using all available legal and illegal means. To further complicate matters, the vast majority of the Ugandan people cannot trust a politician whose only campaign manifesto can be reduced to the single-issue sentence—”Vote for me because I am not Museveni”. The paper-light weight of the FDC man has since been exposed in donor-funded independent polls, where majority of Ugandans expressed a feeling that “saying that you are not Museveni is not enough to swing votes heavily in your direction”. A man must sing for his supper which is supplied by foreign donors. The foreigners—who do not respect him much—want gayism to be legalized and the man whose organization they fund openly in the name of “deepening democracy” waited for the opportune “politically-safe” moment to express a view that will guarantee him nice headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post and perhaps, gladden the heart of the US Ambassador who does not have kind words for him in his diplomatic dispatches to the State Department. Of course, if religious leaders or NRM politicians were to take Besigye up on his comment about gayism, many of his would-be “gay rights” supporters will be shocked at the furious speed with which he would back-pedal claiming that he was “quoted out of context”; that he was “misquoted” or that he simply “said no such thing !!”. I am sure that his colleagues in his FDC and other allied minor parties will be grateful that he saved their careers from potential ruin by saying that his “pro-gay” comment was his “personal opinion” (i.e. the opinion of the foreign donors). I am sure that he also had FDC parliamentarians, including the Opposition Chief Whip Kassiano Wadri, who enthusiastically support the Bahati Bill in mind when he stressed the personal nature of his “pro-gay” comments.

  • anteros

    …trolling away!

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi’

    Now, let’s see if you can actually state for us any kind of OBJECTIVE moral and philosophical basis for saying that (law-abiding) people in consensual sexual relationships are equivalent to robbers, rapist or child abusers.

    (We’ve had a lot of ‘political commentary’ and rhetoric from you, but NO proper moral or philosophical justification of your views.)

  • anteros

    Maazi claimed:

    Of

    course, if religious leaders or

    NRM politicians were to take

    Besigye up on his comment

    about gayism, many of his

    would-be “gay rights”

    supporters will be shocked at

    the furious speed with which

    he would back-pedal claiming

    that he was “quoted out of

    context”; that he was

    “misquoted” or that he simply

    “said no such thing !!”

    well, Ssempa was spitting mad when he appeared on the evening news attempting to blackmail besigye into reconsidering his decriminalization statement. he’s turned himself into an embarrassment and a nuisance. besigye and all the other presidential candidates ignored ssempa’s stupid ultimatum… pushing the bill further into oblivion. go ssempa!

  • Maazi NCO

    Anteros, did you skip the part where I said it was “politically-safe” for Besigye to say what he said. If it was politically-unsafe the FDC man would have said nothing and if he did despite the unsafety of doing so, he would recant. As I told Richard Willmer, 24 hours before your latest comment, gayism has never been an election issue and never will. Please read my comments on this thread before posting any more nonsense

  • Maazi NCO

    Of course, if religious leaders or NRM politicians were to take Besigye up on his comment about gayism, many of his would-be “gay rights” supporters will be shocked at the furious speed with which he would back-pedal claiming that he was “quoted out of context”; that he was “misquoted” or that he simply “said no such thing !!”

    I stand by my statement above. if religious leaders—mainstream religious leaders— took Besigye up on his comment and if NRM senior politicians did the same, Besigye will promptly recant as I have predicted earlier. Ssempa is no doubt an influential preacher, but in my books, he does not qualify as “mainstream religious leader”.

    besigye and all the other presidential candidates ignored ssempa’s stupid ultimatum

    I am not surprised by this. Like I said to Richard the day before your post appeared here, gayism has never been an election issue, but rather a law enforcement issue, which will be tackled without fanfare as was done in year 2000 and 2005.

  • Richard Willmer

    Well, ‘Maazi’, we certainly agree on the subject of Ssempa – a way out loony if ever there was one (even his rather odd U.S. backers have ‘backed off’ – at least publically)!

    I am still very interested to know your philosophical and jurisprudential ‘justification’ for drawing parallels between things like rape, robbery and murder on the one hand, and, on the other hand, consensual sexual relations.

  • anteros

    lolz @ Maazi!

    …”back-pedal”!!

    …lolz!

  • Richard Willmer

    Anteros

    ‘Maazi’ has declined to offer any objective basis for drawing the parallel mentioned above (he more-or-less says ‘we do it because that’s what Africans do’ – i.e. he cites ‘cultural relativism’ rather than philosophy or jurisprudence).

    I’ve now moved on, and asked him this:

    “What ‘justification’ do you offer for sending gay people to prison for sexual activity X (pursuant to informed consent), while NOT sending straight people to prison for the same activity?”

  • Richard Willmer

    Anteros again

    I should also mention that, last autumn, ‘Maazi’ was challenged to present evidence of his claims of systematic ‘recruitment’ of children.

    He declined to do so.

  • anteros

    good question, Richard.

    i wouldn’t count on getting a good answer, though… especially not from Maazi.

  • Richard Willmer

    The worse the answer, the better we look!

  • Maazi NCO

    I should also mention that, last autumn, ‘Maazi’ was challenged to present evidence of his claims of systematic ‘recruitment’ of children. He declined to do so.

    Richard,

    I never said anything about child recruitment. I spoke only of attempts to sensitize vulnerable young people who the gay sex advocates allege are “confused with their sexuality”. I have been consistent about this and have written several times on it in this blog. This is easily verified when checking my commentary from last year. You do not need to resort to lies to concur with “Anteros” who seems incapable of analyzing simple information.

  • Maazi NCO

    ‘Maazi’ has declined to offer any objective basis for drawing the parallel mentioned above (he more-or-less says ‘we do it because that’s what Africans do’ – i.e. he cites ‘cultural relativism’ rather than philosophy or jurisprudence)

    If you are expecting me to quote Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Voltaire, then you are wasting your time. There is no reason for me to justify myself to a foreigner or the western-centric African liberal elite types and their gay sex buddies. If you are expecting me to quote the late British Judge, Lord Alfred Denning (Master of the Rolls, 1962-1982), then you are wasting your time equally. The only reality that matters is that gayism is opposed by Africans for reasons I have given previously. This is analogous to the German/Austrian view of holocaust denial as a taboo and a terrible crime.

  • anteros

    “…who seems incapable of

    analyzing simple information.

    anybody who follows this blog, even anti-gay closet DL ugandan readers and their trolling partners, would quicky identify who has consistently demonstrated limited reasoning ability (i may have been too generous earlier when i described it as “playing dumb” and later as “trolling”) in their comments.

    …classic projection?

  • anteros

    i find it offensive when people claim that their brand of stubborn close-minded anti-reasoning brick-wall dumbness is an African thing.

    but that’s what many hateful extremists do.

    joseph kony offends many christians in a similar way… same goes for bin laden and many muslims.

    they attempt to disenfranchise those who fall outside their self-suited but warped definitions of those identities… “un-whatevertheidentity” or “sell-outs” or “phonies” or “westernized” or influenced by supposedly negative elements floating through the air.

  • guest

    My 2d post found by me today. Again, want to remain anonymous so as to avoid harassment so don’t want to give email. If any want to refute me then please do so here. Thoughts-have any of you asked gay bashers why they did it? I have & what I’ve found is that most ‘gay bashings’ happen because a homosexual harasses another man or pinches another man’s butt or groin against will which causes the man to react violently. If a man were to pinch a woman’s butt or boobs against her will, most people won’t feel sorry for him if the woman reacts by bashing the man. Yet with ‘gay bashings’ I consistently hear that a man should have to tolerate a homosexual committing a crime whether it’s harass-such as propose after the man said no or a homosexual pinching his butt or groin against will.

    I’ve also noticed that some lesbians hate ‘gay bashngs’ & the reason I believe this is because some of them hate straight men. Mentioned on my 1st post that some women say they became lesbians because they were raped in their youth & came to hate men. Lesbians such as Pam Spaulding seem to think that if a homosexal pinches another man’s butt or groin, the man should just take the abuse & she hates it when the man reacts by ‘gay bashing’ because she hates it that the straight man wouldn’t take the abuse. Please share your views here. I don’t know if Mod will approve but I learned about ‘gay bashing’ just by asking gay bashers why they did it & all of them have told me that they bashed the homosexual after the gay 1st committed a crime against them such as pinch their butt or groin against will.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    ah coldweather is fun is back with a new IP address. Banned again, for what is it now the third time?

  • guest

    Learned about this site on Monday. Perhaps you’re confusing me with another commenter-did he or she say the same thing because other have said the same thing I have over the Net.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X