AFA takes a stand on religious freedom

While this is not a perfect statement (see this post for a critique), the AFA decided to oppose Bryan Fischer’s narrow view of the First Amendment. Earlier this week, the AFA issued the following statement.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR ALL 

An American Family Association Policy Statement 

The American Family Association celebrates Religious Freedom for all people and for all beliefs as one of the foundational values that make the United States of America a great nation.  

Historical Background 

America’s Founders disagreed how broadly the First Amendment extended Freedom of Religion.  Since James Madison, known as the Father of the Bill of Rights, insured that the Congressional debates over the Bill of Rights were conducted in secret, Americans must look to later sources to understand the positions taken by their Founders.  Thomas Jefferson and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, whom Madison appointed to the Supreme Court and who later founded Harvard Law School, openly debated over the place of Christianity in American law.  Jefferson advocated a broad view that that all religions, not merely variations of Christianity, were to be protected.  In his autobiography Jefferson wrote: 

[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.’ The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination. 

Joseph Story stated a contradictory view in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:  

The real object of the [First] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”  

Jefferson’s position has ultimately prevailed; under American law all religions enjoy freedom from government interference.  However Joseph Story’s view continues to have proponents, including Bryan Fischer, one of American Family Radio’s talk show hosts.   However, the American Family Association (“AFA”) officially sides with Jefferson on this question.   AFA is confident that the truth of Christianity will prevail whenever it is allowed to freely compete in the marketplace of ideas.  

In other words, on one of the fundamental issues the AFA speaks about, they have a spokesperson who takes the anachronistic view with which they disagree.

Now I would like to see the AFA come out and issue a statement regarding Bryan Fischer’s position on the nobility of displacing and eradicating indigenous people from the land. It appears that they now understand a little better that silence communicates consent. So now there are several statements they need work on.

Print Friendly

  • Maazi NCO

    ****Time for me to interfere a little bit in the internal Affairs of USA for a change ***** :-).

    AFA takes a stand on religious freedom

    That is interesting !! Wow, I thought AFA believed that anyone who disagreed with their religious convictions ought to be burned at the stake !!

    ….Jefferson’s position has ultimately prevailed; under American law all religions enjoy freedom from government interference. …

    Oh, what a sweet lovely story !! This of course wouldn’t be the same Thomas Jefferson that owned and bred armies of negro slaves? In any case, most of the American founding fathers were no christians. Yes, they pretended to be one because back then it was fashionable to be an upstanding christian man. Most of them were freemasons and couldn’t careless about any religion. They emphasized separation of Church and State so that they can indulge in their private hedonistic orgies and fantasies without the having to worry about a moralistic State intruding into their private space. In the case of Jefferson, it was making sure that the State did not disturb him as engaged in illicit sexual relations with his black slave-girl. Lets say the truth. America’s concept of “Separation of Church and State” was not necessarily a product of some elightened thinking drawn from sad experiences about state-sanctioned religious oppression in Europe. It was a product of a longing for personal freedom to engage in free range hedonism.

    Since James Madison, known as the Father of the Bill of Rights, insured that the Congressional debates over the Bill of Rights were conducted in secret…

    Yes, Father of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights for who? Was it for negros, women, chinese, jews, native americans, etc, etc. Or was it The Bill of Rights For White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men. Hmmm…. intriguing question…

    Bryan Fischer’s position on the nobility of displacing and eradicating indigenous people from the land.

    I don’t know who this Bryan Fischer character is. I haven’t been to the United States in ages, but it does seem to me that he is merely wanting to follow in the footsteps of the founding fathers who massacred, maimed, killed and dispersed the indigenous Amerindian ethnic nationalities in order to create what is now called The United States of America for European immigrants (especially for those of Anglo-Saxon descent).

  • Richard Willmer

    I entirely understand Maazi’s robustly-expressed scepticism. It is too often the case that the pursuit of high – or otherwise – ideals is accompanied by bloody and reprehensible measures. This can be seen to have been the case in human history time and again; similar patterns are also all too evident today in many places.

    I absolutely agree with Warren that the AFA should reflect very seriously on what it actually believes, and to clarify its position with respect to the statements of some of its members and affiliates.

    (Of course, I completely respect Maazi’s right to comment as he sees fit on the history and/or internal affairs of the USA, the UK or anywhere else he pleases.)

  • stephen

    As ever, Maazi brings crazy to delusion.

    As I understand it, the first official colony of what would become the US was Plymouth. They were Brownists, Christian communists, come here to wait for the second coming in a place where their children wouldn’t grow up Dutch (their reason for leaving Leyden. They didn’t flee Britain). The Plymouth colony did almost everything wrong and within a very few years the Mass Bay Colony was the de facto organizing authority. They imposed mosaic law on the colony. This was, of course, a disaster. Hello, Salem? It was also in direct contradiction of Jesus’ instructions before the sermon on the mount. So when the leaders of the various colonies, hanging out in Philadelphia as the French fought the British – the so-called revolutionary war is best understood as a civil war between loyalists and republicans, the main event was fought as a proxy war between the two major European powers of the time – the would-be parliamentarians of the new united colonies thought back to what had been the main weakness in their past and concluded that it had been the over-radicalized religion used as social control. So, to protect the fledgling union and avoid sectional strife they tried to declare religion out of bounds.

    Personally I regret the fact that we have disestablished religion. By doing this we commercialized it. Instead of requiring minimum education for our ministers we’ve got Tammy Faye and Ted Haggard: religion as spectacle and circus. As Ron Hubbard once remarked: The easiest way to make a fortune in America is found a religion.

    So the protestant tradition has been splintered and exploited. The civil rights of gay tax-paying Americans are used as fuel to stoke the fundie fire to send cheques to the nearest Republican. Hence we have evolved this most peculiar form of dissent: the conservative evangelical. I really need to have someone explain what that could possibly mean.

  • Maazi NCO

    As ever, Maazi brings crazy to delusion….As I understand it, the first official colony of what would become the US was Plymouth. They were Brownists, Christian communists,

    Christian communists? Buahahahahaha Now who is the crazy deluded one here? :D :D

    As Ron Hubbard once remarked: The easiest way to make a fortune in America is found a religion.

    Well he was right and he has got Tom Cruise and Johnny Boy Travolta hasn’t he?

    I entirely understand Maazi’s robustly-expressed scepticism. It is too often the case that the pursuit of high – or otherwise – ideals is accompanied by bloody and reprehensible measures.

    Is that way you want to spin it? To rationalize centuries of the British killing, plundering and pillaging and also founding expatriate colonies after decimating local populations in what is now New Zealand, Australia, the Anglophone parts of Canada and of course the 13 original states of the USA prior to the so-called US War of Independence between French-backed British colonist-settlers (some of Dutch heritage) and His Majesty’s Imperial Red Coat Army. Of course, the victorious colonist-settlers led by General George Washington and their descendants could never be content with 13 small states. So like a small chip off the old British block, the independent Euro-American colonist-settlers engaged in their own round of colonial warfare against local amerindians, Hawaiians and Mexicans to expand their territory. They bought land from other colonial lords like France and Russia and then waged more war against the amerindians and the Spanish colonial lords. So that today they have 50 states which all cannot have an individual star on the blue patch of the US Flag due to lack of space !!!.

    In order to get their hands on spanish possessions, the highly racist and quasi-imperialist American libertarian colonist-settlers staged a fake attack on themselves and spread lies in order to justify war against the spanish colonies of Florida, Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba and Philippines. Since the end of the Spanish-American War, successive US governments have used the same devious misinformation and disinformation technique to invade under people’s countries to fight wars over natural resources while pretending that its all about human rights and democracy. One of the most recent examples being brutal war cheekily codenamed OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM in which one White Anglo-Saxon colonist-ruler called Mr. George Bush Jr. lied and lied again just like the Mckinley Government of the late 19th century and the early 20th century.

  • Richard Willmer

    And your point, Maazi, is … ?

    (Just about every war in history has, ultimately, been about economics. And, yes, many lies were told before that Iraq adventure – and many of us have made plain our displeasure both at the time and since.)

  • Richard Willmer

    Of course, there is an irony here with respect to ‘western’ views on the Bahati Bill in Uganda. The AFA (or at least Bryan Fischer and his cronies) is part of the constituency that supports at least some of what Bahati wants to do, while those like Warren and I (who are quite prepared to face up to the less illustrious aspects of our respective countries’ past – and present – behaviour) oppose Bahati’s efforts in their entirety. But there we go: life is full of ironies!

    It could be argued that Bahati’s US chums (and financial backers?) like Africans when they bash their gay compatriots, but assume a rather more ‘white supremacist’ attitude otherwise. Awkward for the likes of ‘Maazi NCO’, perhaps?

  • Maazi NCO

    And your point, Maazi, is … ?

    Western governments, particularly the US government, want to be the Lord of Planet Earth, micro-managing to every sovereign nation outside their rich Northern Hemisphere. This is not acceptable to many people across the world, especially those of us in the Southern hemisphere.

    The AFA …… is part of the constituency that supports at least some of what Bahati wants to do, while those like Warren and I…… oppose Bahati’s efforts in their entirety. But there we go: life is full of ironies!

    Thats exactly my point !! Westerners always want to control situations outside the borders of their own country. They want to control the social lifestyles, natural resources, law-making, governments etc, etc, of other countries. This is highly unacceptable to us. Bahati is a Ugandan MP and has legitimate right to present any bill for consideration in parliament. Parliament has right to examine such a bill on its own merits and demerits and then decide to amend or discard such a bill. Parliament of Uganda does not deserve to have foreigners in far-flung nations angling to exercise veto power over it simply because the foreigners happens to come from powerful imperialist nations. Warren and yourself are not Ugandan citizens and have no locus standi to interfere in our affairs especially when you have bluntly refused to interfere with the enforcement of extremely harsh sodomy laws in the oil-producing fiefdoms of the Arabian Gulf run by your theocratic head-chopping royalist allies who buys billions of dollars worth of military hardware from your weapons-manufacturing companies almost on an annual basis.

  • Richard Willmer

    I understand your point, Maazi. But has it not occurred to you that what people like Warren and I are doing with regard to the Bahati Bill is being done so in order to serve the legitimate interests of citizens of your country. We are not about to invade you and grab your oil!!! (In any case, you don’t know the full extent of my connections with Ugandans, or their nature.)

  • Richard Willmer

    (When I say ‘we’, I mean Warren and I … though I very much hope it is also the case that there are no invasion plans anywhere else as well! What’s happening with the Tullow Oil situation, by the way? Not heard much about that recently. I believe that it is an Anglo-Franco-Chinese affair now. I’ve heard whispers of a pending ‘backroom deal’ which might benefit some UG politicos along the way.)

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi NCO’ says of Bahati’s ‘Slaughter-the-gays’ Bill:

    [The Ugandan] Parliament has [the] right to examine such a bill on its own merits and demerits and then decide to amend or discard such a bill.

    I agree with ‘Maazi NCO’. But then other countries also have the right to respond as they fit to outcomes that they regard as being ‘beyond the pale’, and it is perhaps only fair that those countries should make their feelings known in advance so that Ugandan MPs can make a properly informed choice.

  • Richard Willmer

    In a sense, the same would be true if the UK Parliament decided to vote on bringing back capital punishment (for murder, say – and not for private consensual sexual acts!), in breach of the European Union Treaty. If a bill proposing the aforementioned were to be enacted, there would almost certainly be ‘consequences’, and British MPs would need to make a judgement as to whether passing such a bill was ‘worth the candle’.

  • Maazi NCO

    In a sense, the same would be true if the UK Parliament decided to vote on bringing back capital punishment (for murder, say – and not for private consensual sexual acts!), in breach of the European Union Treaty….

    EU has legitimate right to interfere because Britain belongs to the EU. Uganda is an independent sovereign state and does not answer to USA and Britain. If Western nations don’t like our attempt to legislate against gayism in Uganda then they can withdraw their useless donor funds quietly and leave us alone.

    BTW, the EU refused to intervene when Belgium and France passed legislation banning muslim women from exercising right to wear facial veils. Even the eurocentric busy-bodies like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International remained silent. Just the other day, President Kagame of neighbouring Rwanda was blasting Westerners for arrogating themselves the power to divide the world into two categories, namely “those who have the right to define the meaning of human rights” and “those who must be coached on the meaning of human rights”.

    All these human right groups —Amnesty International, HRW et al —-rarely condemn human rights violations by Western nations because their jobs are to focus almost exclusively on third-world nations and sometimes provide propaganda that can be used as pretext to launch military invasion of other nations for the purposes of resource control.

    Consensual incest between adult relatives and polygamy (i.e. “bigamy”) are crimes in many Western nations, but Amnesty International will never criticize it because Western nations are above reproach. Western nations such as Switzerland can ban muslims from erecting minarets on their mosques and not draw a rebuke from HRW because Western nations can do no wrong. The only time I can recall Amnesty International rebuking a Western nation was when United States Government established USSR-style gulags in Guantanamo Bay Cuba and those secret renedition flights of kidnapped terror suspects.

    Apart from these rare verbal disapprovals, international (i.e. Western) human rights groups studiously refrain from rebuking Western nations for what they perceive as “human rights violations”, but are vociferous in condemning the third world nations are behind the perceived human rights violations. Human Rights Watch condemned Ugandan parliament for proceeding with the HIV/AIDs Control Bill even though most Western nations prosecute a person who deliberately infecting another person with the AIDS Virus. I remember a story of a Ugandan guy who was jailed in Canada for deliberately infecting another person with AIDS. I also recall reading on BBC website about a German singer who was jailed for deliberately infecting men with HIV. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch raise any concerns in any of these cases, but has cheek to raise concerns with Ugandan Parliament.

    Westerners are world-renowned for their double-standards and hypocrises and the worst thing is that they are not even ashamed of it !!!!!

  • Richard Willmer

    There are many problems in western societies, and all countries are often very ‘touchy’ about being criticized. But neither of these things makes the Bahati Bill right.

    Of course, if Bahati gets his beloved slaughter programme, the western response should be in line with what international law permits.

  • Maazi NCO

    POINTS OF CORRECTION:

    I also recall reading on BBC website about a German singer who was jailed for deliberately infecting men with HIV. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch raise any concerns in any of these cases, but has cheek to raise concerns with Ugandan Parliament.

    It should have read as follows :

    I also recall reading on BBC website about a German singer who was jailed in Germany for deliberately infecting men with HIV. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch DID NOT raise concerns with the Canadian or German prosecutions, but the two groups have the nerve to raise concerns with Ugandan Parliament’s attempt to make deliberate HIV transmission a crime.

    Apart from these rare verbal disapprovals, international (i.e. Western) human rights groups studiously refrain from rebuking Western nations for what they perceive as “human rights violations”, but are vociferous in condemning the third world nations are behind the perceived human rights violations.

    It should have read as follows :

    Apart from these rare verbal disapprovals, Western-run international human rights groups studiously refrain from rebuking Western nations for what they perceive as “human rights violations”, but are vociferous in condemning the third world nations whenever they are perceived to be behind human rights violations .

  • Maazi NCO

    Of course, if Bahati gets his beloved slaughter programme, the western response should be in line with what international law permits.

    First of all, there is no slaughter programme. Its just gay propaganda. Secondly, you can inform your Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we are going to pass a revised version of the Bahati Bill. If they like they can throw tantrums from morning till night, we will never back down on our sovereign right to enact legislation. Those who don’t like such legislation can always go to court. No foreigner shall be allowed to veto the Parliament.

  • Richard Willmer

    Re. the Ugandan HIV Prevention and Control Act: I don’t believe that it was per se the deliberate act of infecting someone with the virus that was seen as the problem; rather it was some other aspects of the Act that gave cause for concern, on both human rights and public health grounds.

    Even the current ‘revised’ version of the Bahati Bill allows for the hanging of ‘serial offenders’, even if the ‘offence’ is merely something along the lines of publically defending the personal honour of a gay friend or family member. We can read English, and that what the Bill would say, even after the changes proposed in May. It’s no good ‘Maazi NCO’ or anyone else trying to pretend otherwise. It won’t wash.

    The best solution to this mess is very simple: the UG Parliament should veto Bahati! But that’s up to the MPs, of course (just as any response to the Bill being enacted is up to others).

  • Maazi NCO

    The best solution to this mess is very simple: the UG Parliament should veto Bahati! But that’s up to the MPs, of course (just as any response to the Bill being enacted is up to others).

    Colonial rule is over. Ugandans will not be instructed by any foreigner. Do not delude yourself that this a Bahati matter. This a Uganda parliamentary matter. The Bahati Bill now belongs to the Parliament. It is no longer the private property of David Bahati MP

  • Richard Willmer

    But it’s still the ‘HANG-the-gays-and-anyone-who-speaks-out-on-their-behalf’ Bill, isn’t it? I notice that you, ‘Maazi NCO’, did not contradict or contest that part of my statement.

  • Maazi NCO

    It is not compulsory for Bahati to personally introduce it. There are many MPs who can do it without any problems. Quit deluding yourself that this an exclusive Bahati matter. It has not been an exclusive Bahati–Ogwal matter since the bill was introduced in October 2009.

  • Maazi NCO

    But it’s still the ‘HANG-the-gays-and-anyone-who-speaks-out-on-their-behalf’ Bill, isn’t it?

    No it isn’t at all. Thats just gay propaganda to win sympathy in the Western world and mobilize western government to interfere in the affairs of Uganda. You can call the bill anything you like, but I want to let you know in advance that a revised version of it shall be passed into law regardless of current subterranean attempts by Western embassies here in Kampala to throw childish tantrums and issue useless threats.

  • Richard Willmer

    Read the text of the Bill, and of the Tashobya Committee’s recommendations, and everything is perfectly clear. You are wrong, ‘Maazi NCO’.

    Oh, and another thing: all this rubbish about gays getting loads of western cash. The fact is that comparatively vast sums of money have been given to the likes of Ssempa and their ‘churchlets’ under the PEPFAR programme – far far far more than any human rights organization might dream of receiving. Is the ‘Ssempa et al approach’ working? No. HIV transmission rates in UG are rising, not falling.

    Perhaps you might consider Deng Xiaoping’s advice: “Seek truth from facts.

  • Maazi NCO

    Perhaps you might consider Deng Xiaoping’s advice: “Seek truth from facts.“

    Given our context, I would rather prefer to follow this advice from Deng Xiaoping:

    "Keep a cool head and maintain a low profile. Never take the lead - but aim to do something big".

    That is exactly what Parliament of Uganda is going to be doing soon. Something real big

  • Richard Willmer

    So, you DO accept that it is truly the “Hang-the-gays-etc Bill”. Big and bad, I’d say!

    (I seem to recall something ‘big’ happening in Rwanda in 1994.)

    If you still maintain that the Bill doesn’t mean what it actually says, perhaps you would care to explain to us how and why this is the case?

  • Maazi NCO

    So, you DO accept that it is truly the “Hang-the-gays-etc Bill”. Big and bad, I’d say! (I seem to recall something ‘big’ happening in Rwanda in 1994.)

    I reiterate again that your statement above is just gay propaganda. There is no genocide-in-the making. No slaughter programme. Gayism is already illegal in Uganda and punishable with life imprisonment (even that punishment has never been enforced). What we are doing is expanding the scope of the law to meet new challenges from external forces using paid-up domestic puppets. All this talk about genocide, Rwanda, Nazi Germany, etc, etc is just fake propaganda and nothing more.

  • Richard Willmer

    Bahati has said otherwise: http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/08/10728/

    So does his bill. Read it.

    ‘Maazi NCO’: you are wrong.

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Maazi NCO’ can ‘reiterate’ his position as much as he pleases (and it clearly pleases him to repeat himself ad nauseam), but the facts do not support such ‘reiterations’.

    It isn’t just Bahati’s past open admissions that demonstrate that killing is the agenda, it is also the disingenuous shenanigans we witnessed in May, when the wording of Clause 3 was changed, but its meaning was not. Noone with more than two brain cells was fooled by that attempt at deception. All that tawdry little episode did was to put us even more on our guard. (I suspect that it also convinced certain governments that, in the event of the Bill passing, more than just ‘formal protests’ would be a good idea.)

  • Maazi NCO

    It isn’t just Bahati’s past open admissions that demonstrate that killing is the agenda,

    Get it through your skull that the Bahati Bill is now a property of the Parliament of Uganda. It is no longer the private property of David Bahati MP. It is not mandatory for David Bahati to personally take the lead in re-introducing the Bill. Quit this single-minded attempts to delude yourself that demonizing Mr. Bahati will some how cause a bill that now belongs to the entire parliament to be dumped into a trash can.

    I suspect that it also convinced certain governments that, in the event of the Bill passing, more than just ‘formal protests’ would be a good idea.

    We have been through this already. I am not going to repeat myself again about the geo-political and geo-strategic consequences of Western governments acting “emotionally” to please the Euro-American Gay Lobby. They must think of their interests in the Great Lakes Region of Africa and war-torn Somalia before they make threatening noises to the executive branch of the Ugandan State. On the other hand, Parliament of Uganda has already vowed not to give into any colonial bullying from foreign interests.

  • Richard Willmer

    Hello again, ‘Maazi NCO’!

    I assume that you now accept that the Bahati Bill contains provisions to hang ‘serial offenders’ (where the ‘offences’ include what most civilized people, in Uganda and elsewhere, would regard as entirely reasonable ‘freedom of expression’), since you have apparently given up trying to claim otherwise.

    I’m sure that various governments have given careful thought regarding how they would respond were the Bill to become law, including considering measures to minimize damage to their own vital interests.

    Finally, Mr. Bahati has done an excellent job demonizing himself and (unfairly, I submit) soiling Uganda’s image.

  • Maazi NCO

    I assume that you now accept that the Bahati Bill contains provisions to hang ‘serial offenders’ (where the ‘offences’ include what most civilized people, in Uganda and elsewhere, would regard as entirely reasonable ‘freedom of expression’), since you have apparently given up trying to claim otherwise.

    Your comment above is just Gay Propaganda not based on facts

    I’m sure that various governments have given careful thought regarding how they would respond were the Bill to become law, including considering measures to minimize damage to their own vital interests.

    Your sabre-rattling is a pathetic joke and Parliament of Uganda is not fazed.

    Finally, Mr. Bahati has done an excellent job demonizing himself and (unfairly, I submit) soiling Uganda’s image.

    On the contrary, the mindless vilification of Bahati by Westerners have actually helped mobilize support for him here in Uganda. Those of us who initially thought the bill wasn’t necessary have since changed their minds. Like I said earlier, the bill is now the property of Parliament of Uganda. It is no longer the private property of the Ndorwa West MP

  • stephen

    It seems clear that anti-gay animus is stoked by ambitious, money-hungry politicians and church leaders in Uganda just as it is in the States.

    Interestingly, Uganda is one of the few remaining countries where income disparity is even worse than it is here.

  • Richard Willmer

    It is ‘Maazi NCO’ who is ‘factually-challenged’. Notice how he makes claims, but cannot back them up with logical argument (i.e. he asserts, but never reasons).

    Under Clauses 3 and 13, and the definition of ‘serial offender’, anyone who repeatedly advocates basic human rights for LGB persons could be sentenced to death by hanging. And I think it is only fair of foreign governments to point out that, should the Bill be adopted by the Ugandan Parliament, there could ‘negative consequences’ (including self-inflicted* ones, of course) for Uganda.

    * In a sense, all negative consequences of the Bill would be ‘self-inflicted’.

  • Richard Willmer

    It might just be worth ‘Maazi NCO’ reflecting on the possibility that the Bahati Bill could be part of a wider crackdown on what many would regard as lawful dissent.

    I’m not certain, but suspect that ‘Maazi NCO’ is not a member of the governing party (he has, in the past, been critical of Ugandan Government on this blog). Perhaps he ought to ask himself if, by supporting this measure, that could lead to the physical elimination, through state-sponsored execution, of ‘dissenters’, he might eventually be signing his own death warrant?

    Just a thought … (maybe a little far-fetched – the NRM is not the Nazi Party – but in line with those famous words of Martin Niemoller: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392)

  • Maazi NCO

    I’m not certain, but suspect that ‘Maazi NCO’ is not a member of the governing party….. Perhaps he ought to ask himself if, by supporting this measure, that could lead to the physical elimination, through state-sponsored execution, of ‘dissenters’……?

    Gayism is just sexual deviance and nothing more. Equating it to political dissent is just stupid and no intelligent person can fall for such a silly cheap trick. Only a fool will equate a sex crime with political dissent.

    Your bizzare attempts to draw comparisons between two unrelated things reminds me of several frantic attempts by gay sex militants to mobilize our female MPs to oppose the Bahati Bill on grounds that the bill will somehow affect “women rights”.

    I recall laughing when I heard about these frenzied attempts to use our distinugished female colleagues as cannon fodders for Euro-American Gay Lobby. My friend Richard, Ugandans are no fools. We are intelligent people and we can reason properly. Please allow Pastor Martin Niemoller to rest in peace. Do not drag his memory into your gay propagandist campaign. Okay?

  • Ann

    Gayism is just sexual deviance and nothing more.

    Maazi NCO,

    Gayism – is that a verb or noun?

    Only a fool will equate a sex crime with political dissent.

    Ok, for sure I don’t want to be a fool, so can you tell me what a sex crime is? If you say same gender sex, is it still a crime if it is between two consenting adults who are private? How would this be monitored? Who would monitor the ones being monitored for their sexual activity?

  • Richard Willmer

    But, ‘Maazi NCO’, you forget that the Bill provides for people who repeatedly express a view contrary to that held by Bahati and his brownshirts to be hanged. That is what I meant by ‘dissent’. It’s basically all there in Clause 13. I suggest you read it, as you seem to unaware of key aspects of the Bill (unless you’re lying, of course – and that wouldn’t be the first time … remember all those false claims about so-called ‘recruitment?).

    I know of plenty of Ugandans who are not fools, by the way.

  • Richard Willmer

    It really 13 (1) (e) that’s key. It’s a ‘catch all’ provision which could indeed be used to deal with ‘dissent’, even if it just saying something like “gay people who do what straight people do with impunity should not be punished.” Say it once = fine and/or prison; more than once = possible death by hanging.

    (@Ann – Yes, it really is that bad!)

    By the way, when he said what he said, I suspect that Niemoller might even have hoped that, later, he would be quoted when appropriate. In this situation, I take the view that it is highly appropriate.

  • Jayhuck

    Richard,

    Its just not worth engaging Maazi in a conversation. I wondered why he started posting in threads that didn’t have anything directly to do with Uganda and now I see its probably for some much needed attention :)

    Re: the AFA – well, they just gained some points as far as I’m concerned :)

  • Richard Willmer

    Jayhuck

    Actually I’m not engaging Maazi in conversation. That’s not what it’s about …

    As for the AFA: well, it was perhaps the least they could do.

  • Richard Willmer

    Perhaps I should explain further …

    There are reports that, last Wednesday, the Ugandan Cabinet met and reaffirmed its opposition to the Bahati Bill, probably because it is judged to be ‘more trouble than it is worth’ (a fair assessment, I think). A source close to the Ugandan Government has, in the past, told me that the Government’s priority is to overhaul the laws on rape, which are not currently ‘gender-neutral’ (unlike those on child sexual abuse, which are ‘gender-neutral’). Of course, such an ‘overhaul’ is entirely logical – all manifestations of rape need to addressed.

    ‘Maazi NCO’ claims to represent the views of the Ugandan Parliament, which he says wants the Bill. (He also claims to speak for the Ugandan people as a whole, of course.) From other sources, I am aware that Ugandan MPs want to debate the Bill, though not necessarily to pass it (this is perhaps more about the Parliament asserting its right to debate private members’ bills than about the Bill itself). This is why we keep talking to ‘Maazi NCO’; in amongst all the whacky rhetoric, he offers certain insights into what is – or might be – happening in parliamentary circles. For example, he dropped a hint that the view that the Bahati Bill might be back in the Parliament in November is flawed, and that the Bill could reemerge before then. I have heard the same from other sources, by the way.

    Does that make sense?

    (It might be worth pointing out that the political system in Uganda is not the same as that in the USA, despite outward similarities. It is effectively a parliamentary system: i.e. the Government, and specifically Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi, must have the confidence of the Parliament, and the party of government is ipso facto the party with a parliamentary majority. Actually, the French system is pretty similar to that in Uganda.)

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Richard – Your sources appear to be correct, see the newest post.

    I think you have it sussed out properly. Parliament may not pass it in its present form but will press hard for the right to debate it. I think there is a conflict between govt and parliament over this.

  • Maazi NCO

    Richard – Your sources appear to be correct, see the newest post..

    Well, Bahati said it well when he called on the executive to stop playing “hide and seek” games with the property of the Parliament of Uganda. I have nothing much to add at this time. Bye for now chaps !!! :D

  • Richard Willmer

    Warren

    As I mentioned earlier, Uganda’s really a parliamentary, not a presidential, system. In parliamentary systems, the government of the day usually gets its way, as long as ‘party discipline’ is operating efficiently.

    The ‘wildcard’ here is probably the extent of the desire of NRM MPs to defy the Government. The Opposition is divided over the Bill ([at least?] two party leaders are dead against it, as you may know); it will be how NRM votes divide up that will decide the issue – if a vote there ever is.

    I wonder if the ‘unnatural carnal knowledge’ laws will also be applied to heterosexuals? ‘Certain activities’ (designed to ‘avoid pregnancy’) are quite widely practiced in Uganda, I gather. (How does one makes these points without sounding crude?)

  • Pingback: Institute on the Constitution: Post Civil War Amendments Undo The Bill Of Rights — Warren Throckmorton


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X