Ing’s Finished Peace project & LGBTQ Youth 2014
At Hetrick-Martin Institute, Newark, NJ
Comments on “What does Peace mean to you?”
And artworks, during fall and winter 2013
Organized by Gabriela C. Celeiro, Bilingual Counselor
By Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts
Peace is Love. Settle into your skin.
Peace is being comfortable.
Peace is equal rights, marriage equality & respect for all in our Nation!
Peace is Tranquility. Live Laugh Love
Peace is Unity Peace is Nelson Mandela.
Peace is Lady Gaga
Peace is Solidarity. Happiness
Lives for peace Animals bring Peace Freedom I Love You
Peace Equality Happy Peace is Loyalty Peace is Unity.
Peace Love Unity Respect responsibility Love Amour Peace is Equality
Peace is Paige Pride
Human Rights for All Nations
Waving a strand of colors
At the corner of LGBTQ youth’s Comments
About “What does Peace mean to you?”
On my Peace Project
A range of colors of the rainbow
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green and Violet
Carefully exams their thoughts
Peace is Unity
Peace is Tranquility
Peace is Solidarity
Peace is Love
Peace is Paige
Peace Is Lady Gaga
Peace is Nelson Mandela
Peace is Equality
Peace is Freedom
Peace is Pride
Peace is Loyalty
Peace is being Comfortable
I Love You
Live Laugh Love
Settle into your Skin
Animals bring Peace
Peace is Love Unity Responsibility
Peace is Equal Rights, Marriage,
Equality and Respect for all
In our Nation
My response for the last comment
I wish this not only for our Nation
But for all the Nations on Earth
As stated in United Nation’s
***All human beings are born free
And equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason
And should act towards one another
In a spirit of brotherhood
*** (Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
The United Nations
Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Saturday, March 29, 2014
Sexual orientation and gender identity
See also: LGBT rights by country or territory
Sexual orientation and gender identity rights relate to the expression of sexual orientation and gender identity based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of “other status” as defined in various human rights conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights andarticle 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights.
As of 2011, homosexual behaviour is illegal in 76 countries and punishable by execution in seven countries. The criminalization of private, consensual, adult sexual relations, especially in countries where corporal or capital punishment is involved, is one of the primary concerns of LGBT human rights advocates.
Other issues include: government recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual orientation and military service, immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws regarding violence against LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and equal age of consent for same-sex activity.
A global charter for sexual orientation and gender identity rights has been proposed in the form of the ‘Yogyakarta Principles‘, a set of 29 principles whose authors say they apply International Human Rights Law statutes and precedent to situations relevant to LGBT people’s experience. The principles were presented at a United Nations event in New York on November 7, 2007, co-sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.
The principles have been acknowledged with influencing the French proposed UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which focuses on ending violence, criminalization and capital punishment and does not include dialogue about same-sex marriage or right to start a family. The proposal was supported by 67 of the then 192 member countries of the United Nations, including all EU member states and the United States. An alternative statement opposing the proposal was initiated by Syria and signed by 57 member nations, including all 27 nations of the Arab League as well as Iran and North Korea.
Please visit the following link for more information:
Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014
An Act to prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; prohibit the promotion or recognition of such relations and to provide for other related matters.
|Citation||Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014|
|Territorial extent||Whole of Uganda|
|Enacted by||Parliament ofUganda|
|Date passed||20 December 2013|
|Date signed||24 February 2014|
|Signed by||Yoweri Museveni|
|Date commenced||24 February 2014|
|Bill citation||Anti Homosexuality Bill, 2009|
|Bill published on||14 October 2009|
|Introduced by||David Bahati|
Broadens criminalisation of same-sex relations in Uganda
Status: In force
The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously called the “Kill the Gays bill” in the media due to the originally proposed death penalty clauses) was passed by the Parliament of Uganda on 20 December 2013 with the death penalty proposal dropped in favour of life in prison. The bill was signed into law by the President of Uganda on 24 February 2014.
The legislative proposal would broaden the criminalisation of same-sex relations in Uganda domestically, and further includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that know of gay people or support LGBT rights.
The private member’s bill was submitted by Member of Parliament David Bahati on 14 October 2009. Same-sex relationships are currently illegal in Uganda—as they are in many sub-Saharan African countries—punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years. A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held in which three American Christians asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. Several sources have noted endemic homophobia in Uganda has been exacerbated by the bill and the associated discussions about it.
According to human rights organisations, at least 500,000 gay people live in Ugandaout of a total population of 31 million, though the government of Uganda contests that number as inflated; the BBC states that it is “impossible” to determine the actual number. Existing laws criminalise homosexual behavior with prison sentences lasting up to 14 years. These laws are remnants of British colonialism designed to punish what colonial authorities deemed “unnatural sex” among local Ugandan people. Human Rights groups are now demanding reform of colonial-era laws and decriminalisation of homosexuality as new laws like the one in Uganda only reinforce existing prejudices and increase penalties. Although many societies in Africa and elsewhere view homosexuality as a decadent practice imported by outsiders, it existed before European colonisation, often varying in practice depending on individual cultures. In some, male homosexuality was age-stratified, similar to ancient Greece where warriors purchased boys as brides, common when women were not available, or manifested as fleeting encounters as in prostitution.
Despite this past, colonial influence has been pervasive; according to a reporter in Africa, “Africans see homosexuality as being both un-African and un-Christian”. Thirty-eight of fifty-three African nations criminalise homosexuality in some way. In sub-Saharan Africa, the government of South Africa and of Namibia are the only official entities to support LGBT rights, but even there curative rape is used against men and women, such as in the murder of Eudy Simelane, and sometimes met with police inaction and apathy. Like the conditions in many other African nations, gays in Uganda currently face an atmosphere of physical abuse, vandalism to their property, blackmail, death threats, and “correctional rape”.
From 5 to 8 March 2009, a workshop took place in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, that featured three American evangelical Christians: Scott Lively, an author who has written several books opposing homosexuality; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-professed former gay man who conducts sessions to heal homosexuality; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, an organisation devoted to promoting “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ”. The theme of the conference, according to The New York Times, was the “gay agenda“: “how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how ‘the gay movement is an evil institution’ whose goal is ‘to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity’ “. An Anglican priest from Zambia named Kapya Kaoma was in attendance, and reported on the conference. Ugandan Stephen Langa organised it, and was supported by Lively, who asserted in his workshops that homosexuality was akin to child molestation and bestiality, and causes higher rates of divorce and HIV transmission. Lively’s emphasis was on the cohesion of the African family, that he said was being threatened by “homosexuals looking to recruit youth into their ranks”. According to Kaoma, during the conference, one of the thousands of Ugandans in attendance announced, “[The parliament] feels it is necessary to draft a new law that deals comprehensively with the issue of homosexuality and…takes into account the international gay agenda… Right now there is a proposal that a new law be drafted.”
The bill, the government of Uganda, and the evangelicals involved have received significant international media attention as well as criticism and condemnation from many Western governments and those of other countries, some of whom have threatened to cut off financial aid to Uganda. The bill has also received protests from international LGBT, human rights, civil rights, and scientific organisations. In response to the attention, a revision was introduced to reduce the strongest penalties for the greatest offences to life imprisonment. Intense international reaction to the bill, with many media outlets characterising it as barbaric and abhorrent, caused President Yoweri Museveni to form a commission to investigate the implications of passing it. The bill was held for further discussion for most of 2010. In May 2011, parliament adjourned without voting on the bill; in October 2011 debate was re-opened. Bahati re-introduced the bill in February 2012.
In November 2012, Uganda agreed to pass a new law against homosexuality by the end of 2012 as a “Christmas gift” to its advocates, according to the speaker of parliament. Although the death penalty was originally planned to be included in the bill, the Legal Affairs Committee has reported verbally that there is the recommendation to drop the death penalty. The final version did not include the death penalty.
Overview of provisions
In April 2009, the Ugandan Parliament passed a resolution allowing Member of Parliament (MP) David Bahati to submit a private member’s bill in October to strengthen laws against homosexuality. The bill was proposed on 13 October 2009 by Bahati and is based on the foundations of “strengthening the nation’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family”, that “same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic”, and “protect[ing] the cherished culture of the people of Uganda, legal, religious, and traditional family values of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on the people of Uganda”.
The bill divides homosexual behavior into two categories: “aggravated homosexuality”, in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or “the offence of homosexuality” in which an offender would receive life imprisonment. “Aggravated homosexuality” is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV-positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders. “The offence of homosexuality” is defined to include same-sex sexual acts, involvement in a same-sex marriage, or an attempt to commit aggravated homosexuality.
The legislation would have strengthened the criminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda by introducing the death penalty for people who considered serial offenders, who are suspected of “aggravated homosexuality” and are HIV-positive, or who engage in sexual acts with those under 18 years of age. People who are caught or suspected of homosexual activity would be forced to undergo HIV tests. Ugandans engaging in same-sex sexual relations outside Uganda would have fallen under the jurisdiction of this law, and would have been subject to extradition and a felony charge. Furthermore, the bill would have required anyone aware of an offence or an offender, including individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations who support LGBT rights, to report the offender within 24 hours. If an individual did not do so he or she would also have been considered an offender and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 250 “currency points” or imprisonment of up to three years.
At the time the bill was introduced, an independent MP stated he thought it had about a 99% chance of passing. Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni openly expressed his support for the bill, stating “We used to say Mr and Mrs, but now it is Mr and Mr. What is that now?” After facing intense international reaction and promises from Western nations to cut financial aid to Uganda, on 9 December 2009, Uganda’s Minister of Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo said that Uganda will revise the bill to drop the death penalty (substituting life imprisonment) for gay people with multiple offences. Initially, however, Buturo stated Uganda’s government was determined to pass the bill “even if meant withdrawing from international treaties and conventions such as the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and forgoing donor funding”, according to an interview in The Guardian. Since then, however, The Guardian has stated that David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, has denied these reports. On 23 December, Reuters reported that Buturo again said that the death penalty would be dropped from the bill. He claims, however, that the protest from the Western nations did not have an effect on this decision. He stated, “There have been a lot of discussions in government … regarding the proposed law, but we now think a life sentence could be better because it gives room for offenders to be rehabilitated. Killing them might not be helpful.”
On 8 January 2010, Bahati again asserted he would not postpone or shelve the bill, even after Minister of State for Investment Aston Kajara stated the Ugandan government would ask Bahati to withdraw it, and President Museveni asserted he thought it was too harsh. Bahati stated, “I will not withdraw it. We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality). The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on.”
On 12 January 2010, President Museveni expressed to the media that there is need to exercise “extreme caution”, and his cabinet members will speak to Bahati to reach a compromise to satisfy Bahati’s concerns weighed with the calls he is receiving from throughout the world.
Parliament adjourned in May 2011 without voting on the bill; Bahati stated that he intended to re-introduce the bill in the new parliament. In August 2011, the cabinet discussed the bill, deciding unanimously that current laws making homosexuality illegal were sufficient. Parliament voted to reopen debate in October 2011, with Speaker Kadaga stating that the bill would be sent to committee. According to Bloomberg News, President Museveni would probably veto the bill under international pressure. Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga has vowed to pass the bill in 2012.
The bill is now listed as number eight under “Business to Follow” for 2013. At this stage, no changes to the bill have been presented. It has been reported that the members of the Ugandan Parliament are looking to hold debate behind closed doors. National Youth MP, Monica Amoding, told The Observer that some MPs on the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee proposed the move because of the sensitive nature of the bill. “This subject is very sensitive and some of us fear that if it is discussed in public view, we will be persecuted for holding particular views,” Amoding said.
On 20 December 2013 the Ugandaparliament passed an anti-homosexuality law with punishments up to life imprisonment. Not reporting gay people is also made a crime punishable with imprisonment.
On 14 February 2014, Museveni announced his decision to sign the bill. According to the government, his decision was based on a report by “medical experts” who say “homosexuality is not genetic but a social behavior.” A few days later, he retracted this announcement, and asked the United States for scientific advice as to whether homosexuality is genetically pre-determined or a choice. He indicated he needed to know “whether, indeed, there are people who are born homosexual”, in which case it would be wrong to punish them; he would not sign the bill until that matter had been clarified. Museveni publicly signed the bill into law on 24 February, and afterwards said that, based on a scientific study he commissioned, people are not born homosexual.
Within Uganda, gay and human rights advocates were alarmed. Before the proposed legislation, many had felt a gradual easing of enforcement of laws designed to punish people for homosexual behavior. Amnesty International, however, reports that arrests of people suspected of having homosexual relations are arbitrary and detainees are subjected to torture and abuse by authorities. Within the latter part of 2009, many felt they must leave the country or go into hiding. Kapya Kaoma characterized the attempts to portray homosexuals as a threat to the African family as especially egregious, putting people’s lives in danger: “When you speak like that, Africans will fight to the death.”
Apart from the legislation to punish homosexuals, Ugandan human rights have been a concern for Amnesty International, who highlighted issues such as threats to freedom of expression and association, and the use of torture by law enforcement, among their major concerns in their 2009 report. American evangelists active in Africa are being criticised for being responsible for inspiring the legislation by inciting hatred with excessive speech by comparing homosexuality to paedophilia and influencing public policy with donations from American religious organisations. Among the critics are The Times, Jeffrey Gettleman in The New York Times, Time, PublicEye.org, The Guardian, a pan-African internet news journal for social justice named Pambazuka News, and an international organisation with a similar objective named Inter Press Service.[note 1]
American evangelicals such as Scott Lively and California pastor Rick Warren have a history of involvement in Uganda where they focus their missionary work. As a result, Warren and others have become influential in the shaping of public policy in Uganda, Nigeria and, to a lesser extent, Kenya. Stephen Langa, the March 2009 workshop organiser, specifically cited an unlicensed conversion therapist named Richard A. Cohen, who states in Coming out Straight, that was given to Langa and other prominent Ugandans,
Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; homosexual teachers are at least 7 times more likely to molest a pupil; homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.
These statements were based on faulty studies performed by Paul Cameron, who has been expelled from the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association, and Cohen confirmed their weaknesses, stating that when the book will be reprinted, these statistics will be removed.
Pambazuka News stated “It’s worth noting that it costs a considerable amount of money, time and processes to table a private-member’s bill, which begs the question of how the MP from Kabale District [Bahati] is financing this process? It has also been common practice for the mushrooming pastors and churches to use homophobic attacks on opponents as a way to discredit each other and sway faithfuls.” Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor and former affiliate of Warren, has endorsed the bill. Warren however later publicly denounced the bill, calling it “un-Christian”. In February 2010, to counter opposition to the bill, Ssempa showed gay pornography to 300 members of his church, shocking them with images of explicit sexual acts, and implying that all gay people engage in them, but straight people do not.
During March 2009, Scott Lively met with several legislators and Minister of Ethics and Integrity James Buturo. He followed his visit with a post to his blog saying that he was “overjoyed with the results of our efforts and predicted confidently that the coming weeks would see significant improvement in the moral climate of the nation, and a massive increase in pro-family activism in every social sphere. [Conference organiser Stephen Langa] said that a respected observer of society in Kampalahad told him that our campaign was like a nuclear bomb against the ‘gay’ agenda in Uganda. I pray that this, and the predictions, are true.” However, Lively has responded to the bill, saying “I agree with the general goal but this law is far too harsh… Society should actively discourage all sex outside of marriage and that includes homosexuality … The family is under threat… [Gay people] should not be parading around the streets.” Lively has said the bill is a reaction to attempts by Americans and Europeans to “homosexualize” Ugandan society. He further claimed that Ugandan leaders who created the bill are worried about “the many male homosexuals coming in to the country and abusing boys who are on the streets”. Richard Cohen has stated he condemns the bill, and that the punitive measures in it are “incomprehensible”. Don Schmierer expressed his shock at the legislation, telling The New York Times that although he outlined how homosexuals could change to heterosexual in the March 2009 conference, his involvement was limited to giving seminars to Africans about better parenting skills: “[The bill is] horrible, absolutely horrible… Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”
On 22 December 2009, several hundred people gathered in Kampalato show their support for the bill, protesting against homosexuals. Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports, “The protesters, led by born-again clerics, cultural leaders, and university undergraduates, marched to the parliament where they presented a petition.”
On 11 January 2010, Uganda’s Media Centre, a government-sponsored website, released a statement titled “Uganda is being judged too harshly”, reacting to the worldwide media attention the country has received about the bill, stating that, in response to the negative press they have received, it is obvious that “Ugandans (read Africans) have no right to discuss and no right to sovereignty”. The message asserted “It is unfortunate that Ugandais now being judged on the actions of opportunists whose ideas are based on violence and blackmail and even worse, on the actions of aid attached strings. (Homosexuality). It is regrettable that government is pretentiously expected to observe their ‘human rights’, yet, by their own actions, they have surrendered their right to human rights.”
In April 2009, a local Ugandan newspaper printed the names of suspected homosexuals, another printed tips on how to identify gays for the general public, and, in October 2010, another named Rolling Stone (unaffiliated with the American Rolling Stone) published a story featuring a list of the nation’s 100 “top” gays and lesbians with their photos and addresses. Next to the list was a yellow strip with the words “hang them”. Julian Pepe, a program coordinator for Sexual Minorities Uganda, said people named in the story are living in fear and attacks have begun prompting many to abandon their jobs while some have relocated. The paper’s editor justified the list to expose gays and lesbians so authorities could arrest them, while Nsaba Buturo dismissed complaints from gay people and sympathisers by stating that protests about the outing is part of a campaign to mobilise support and sympathy from outside the country.
On 26 January 2011, Uganda’s most prominent gay activist, David Kato, was found bludgeoned to death in what authorities in Uganda are characterising as a robbery. His photograph had been published in Rolling Stone; the high court in the country ordered the newspaper to stop publishing images of gay and lesbian people after Kato and several others sued the paper. Kato spoke at a United Nations-sponsored conference on the bill in December 2009. His words were barely audible because he was nervous; information in U.S. embassy cables revealed that Ugandan human rights activists and anti-homosexuality bill supporters vocally mocked him during his presentation. The U.S. diplomat reporting, whose communiques were exposed through Wikileaks, wrote that the political and economic problems in Uganda were being channeled into “violent hatred” of gay people, and David Bahati, Martin Ssempa and James Buturo were primarily responsible for promoting the wave of intolerance. The diplomat further stated that, even if the bill does not pass in Ugandan parliament, “rampant homophobia in Uganda won’t go away”.
Several leaders from other nations have expressed their concerns. On 27 November 2009, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, expressed his opposition of the bill to Uganda president Yoweri Museveni. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also expressed opposition privately to Museveni during the Commonwealth leaders’ meeting. The Canadian Transport Minister John Baird stated to The Globe and Mail, “The current legislation before Parliament in Uganda is vile, it’s abhorrent. It’s offensive. It offends Canadian values. It offends decency.” Australia’s government reiterated its opposition to the criminalisation of homosexuality in the Sydney Morning Herald, but as of 8 January 2010 had not made a statement to the Ugandan government, despite activists’ efforts for it to do so.
On 8 October 2011, Andrew Mitchell, the UK’s Secretary of State for International Development, announced that African countries that persecute homosexuals will face cuts in financial aid from the British government. Mitchell specifically warned Museveni that his country faced reductions in aid unless it abandons the bill.
The government of France has also criticised the bill, citing a “deep concern”. The European Parliament on 16 December 2009 passed a resolution against the bill, which threatens to cut financial aid to Uganda. On 3 December 2009 the Swedish government, which has had a long-term relationship with Uganda, said that it would revoke its $50 million (£31 million) development aid to Uganda if the bill passes, calling it “appalling”. Sweden’s Development Assistance Minister Gunilla Carlsson stated that she “thought and hoped we had started to share common values and understanding”. Dirk Niebel, the Federal Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development in Germany, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur that financial aid to Uganda will be cut, a stepwise plan for this has already been made. In December 2009, the neighbouring countries of Rwanda and Burundi also discussed legislation that would criminalise homosexuality.
The White House released a statement in 2009 to The Advocate, stating that United States president Barack Obama “strongly opposes efforts, such as the draft law pending in Uganda, that would criminalize homosexuality and move against the tide of history”. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed her opposition of the bill and U.S. congressmen Tom Coburn (R-OK), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) have likewise stated theirs.
Since the law’s passage, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the World Bank have cancelled aid to Museveni’s government amounting to more than 118 million USD in protest of the law, with the United States and other Western countries promising a review of ties to Uganda as well. In March 2014, the U.S. announced an unspecified amount of aid would be suspended to Uganda’s Ministry of Health. The aid was estimated by Ugandan officials to be between 4 million and 6 million USD annually.
Religious and human rights organizations
Several Christian organizations oppose it, including the Anglican Church of Canada, Integrity Uganda, Exodus International, Accepting Evangelicals, Changing Attitude, Courage, Ekklesia, Fulcrum, Inclusive Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. Exodus International sent a letter to President Museveni stating, “The Christian church … must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.” A group of U.S. Christian leaders have released a statement to Uganda about the bill, one of these leaders being Thomas Patrick Melady, former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda. The Anglican Reverend Canon Gideon Byamugisha said that the Bill “would become state-legislated genocide“.
Following private discussions with the Ugandan Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams has said in a public interview that he did not see how any Anglican could support it: “Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.”
Divisions emerged in the Anglican community however. In response to the Anglican Church of Canada intervention, the Bishop of Karamoja Diocese, Joseph Abura, wrote an editorial saying, “Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti-Gay laws in place. It is then that we become truly accountable to our young and to this country, not to Canada or England. We are in charge!” While the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty, its archbishop, Henry Luke Orombi, has not taken a position on the bill. Some individuals within the Anglican church, such as retired bishop Christopher Senyonjo, from the West Buganda diocese, have been vocally opposed to the bill and supportive of LGBT rights in Uganda. In 2010, Bishop Senyonjo was touring the United States to draw attention to the bill.
Evangelical organisation Andrew Wommack Ministries declared support for the bill. “I knew this information was wrong and the punishments were vastly exaggerated as is so often the case. I met with the member of parliament responsible for this bill and he gave me his reasoning for introducing this legislation. Uganda had just had the United Nations try to pressure them into passing pro-homosexual legislation in order to obtain a large sum of money offered to them (a bribe). They responded with this legislation in order to stop the strong arm tactics of the pro-homosexual western influence. Would to God American leaders had enough integrity to not be bribed or badgered into compliance. Although I knew the situation was being misrepresented, I didn’t feel qualified to deal with this personally. But Leland Shores who runs our office in Kampala, Uganda is well aware of the details and has written a response worthy of everyone who has an interest in this reading. He has included a letter from over 200 Ugandan Christian leaders explaining the situation.” 
Uganda’s Catholic Archbishop of Kampala Cyprian Lwanga stated in December 2009 that the bill was unnecessary and “at odds with the core values” of Christianity, expressing particular concerns at the death penalty provisions. Lwanga argued that instead homosexuals should be encouraged to seek rehabilitation. For its part, the Holy See has maintained excellent relations with Uganda, with Pope Benedict XVI receiving the Ugandan ambassador in December 2009 and commending the climate of freedom and respect in the country towards the Catholic Church. During this meeting, there was no mention of the anti-homosexuality bill. However, three days earlier the Vatican legal attaché to the United Nations stated that “Pope Benedict is opposed to ‘unjust discrimination’ against gay men and lesbians”.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, urged Uganda to shelve the bill and decriminalise homosexuality. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned the bill, calling it a product of a campaign by evangelical churches and anti-gay groups that has led to death threats and physical assaults against Ugandans suspected of being gay. John Nagenda, Senior Presidential Advisor to the president of Uganda, has expressed that he does not think the bill should be passed. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS has stated that excluding marginalised groups would compromise efforts to stop the spread of AIDS in Uganda where 5.4% of the adult population is infected with HIV. Elizabeth Mataka, the U.N. Special Envoy on AIDS in Africa expressed her concern with the bill as it will dissuade people from getting tested for HIV if they will subsequently be punished with the death penalty. Uganda experienced a rare and very successful drop in HIV transmission in the 1990s. The 16,000 members of the HIV Clinicians Society of Southern Africa sent a letter to the Ugandan president stating, “Encouraging openness and combating stigma are widely recognized as key components of Uganda’s successful campaign to reduce HIV infection” and the bill threatens to enact a “profoundly negative impact on Uganda’s efforts to combat HIV”.
One of the first newspaper editorials condemning the nature of the bill was from the South African paper The Sunday Times, which warned Uganda is in danger of being “dragged back to the dark and evil days of Idi Amin“. The UK newspaper The Guardian has said that the bill confirms the country’s status as “unjust and infamous”, calling the law a “wretched piece of legislation”. London-based newspaper The Times also criticised the proposed law and the BBC for sponsoring a debate titled “Should homosexuals face execution?” The Times commended recent headway in Uganda’s banning female genital mutilation, but stated that the anti-homosexuality bill “…must be seen for what it is: a bigoted and inhumane Bill that will cause suffering for thousands of innocent people”. The Irish Times similarly characterised the bill as “medieval and witch-hunting” and stated that even with the change from the death penalty to life imprisonment, “will remain utterly abhorrent”.
American television host Rachel Maddow has been running a continuing segment on the bill, entitled “Uganda Be Kidding Me” on The Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow asserted that Richard Cohen had “blood on [his] hands” for providing the false inspiration for the legislation. She has also questioned the truth in Pastor Rick Warren’s statements when he said in an interview “…it is not my political calling, as a pastor in America, to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations”,. Maddow highlights his actions supporting Uganda’s break with the Anglican Church for being “pro-gay”, and asserts Warren has contradicted his condemnation of its anti-homosexuality bill. Lisa Miller in Newsweek likewise cast aspersions on Warren’s actions.
An editorial in The New York Times stated, “The United States and others need to make clear to the Ugandan government that such barbarism (in the bill) is intolerable and will make it an international pariah” and chastised evangelicals for stirring hatred: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.” Similarly, The Washington Post wrote that the bill is “ugly and ignorant”, “barbaric”, and “(t)hat it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations”. Douglas Foster, writing in The Los Angeles Times, focused on the paradox of the majority of Africans’ belief that homosexuality as a Western affectation while simultaneously being influenced by American conservative evangelical dogma. He wrote that gay Africans face an “impossible, insulting, ahistorical, cruel and utterly false choice” of having to choose between being gay and being African.
The Observer, a Ugandan bi-weekly newspaper, printed a response to the international attention the bill is getting by stating homosexuality is not a right, not included in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the U.S., where much of the media attention originates, still remains controversial. It furthermore criticised the disparate reaction to other human rights violations and genocide in Uganda’s history that did not attract the same amount of attention. It went on to state “… this is my major discomfort with homosexuality—it is not emerging naturally but rather as a result of intense campaigns in schools, luring people with money and all sorts of falsehoods … Gays target other people’s children because they don’t have their own to enlist. Advocates of homosexuality should think about the broader impact of their crusade. Homosexuality destroys man’s capacity for procreation, the taste of human life and eventually life itself.” An editorial in The Australian, read “It would be wrong … to believe that the Ugandan case is simply a matter of national self-determination clashing with Western sensibilities”, and stated that it is cultural relativism at play in Uganda, not pluralism that is at the root of human rights violations such as the ones in the proposed legislation there. However, similar to The Observer, The Australian stated, “It is easy to stand up for universal values of liberty against a small nation in east Africa; yet are we prepared to do so against more formidable powers that abuse the human rights of their citizens?”
- Jump up ^ See also editorials addressing US evangelist influence in Africa from Australian newspaper The Age: “It used to be easy to identify homophobia. But now even homophobes fail to recognise their prejudice. Bigotry is reassuringly cosseted by an evangelising rhetoric of love, and reinforced by a medicalising language that veils the savagery of its aims.” (Phoon, Adrian [11 January 2010].The role of US evangelists in Uganda’s ‘kill the gays’ bill, The Age. Retrieved 11 January 2010.); openly gay libertarian conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan asked of the evangelists “… now that they have unleashed a proto-fascist pogrom against gay, bi and trans people in Africa, have they finally come to terms with the actual consequences of what they actually believe?” (Sullivan, Andrew [4 January 2010]. American Christianism In Africa, The Daily Dish. Retrieved on 11 January 2010.); a Kenyan journalism professor writing for New America Media wrote of the poverty and still-present effects of colonialism that translates into black Africans’ collective feelings of inferiority to whites with money that makes them susceptible to Western influence: “…American evangelicals are going to Africa to satisfy that calling. Is there a better place to create Christian nations than in a continent with nearly 500 million impoverished believers, and easily corruptible governments?” (Okong’o, Edwin [12 January 2010]. Why Ugandans Embrace U.S. Christian Right’s Anti-Gay Agenda, New America Media. Retrieved on 12 January 2010.); The Seattle Times wrote, “The three evangelists are an embarrassment to the Christian faith and the values that inspire selfless, hardworking missionaries to work in the far corners of the Earth to help people and truly change their lives.” (A malicious blasphemy in Uganda, The Seattle Times [7 January 2010]. Retrieved on 12 January 2010.)
Please visit the following link for more information:
Ugandapoliticians celebrate passing of anti-gay laws
President Museveni’s supporters revel in new anti-gay laws passed despite pressure from US, EU, western donors and rights groups
- Amy Fallon in Entebbe and Owen Bowcott
- theguardian.com, Monday 24 February 2014 14.23 EST
- Jump to comments (1032)
Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni has signed off a bill introducing anti-gay laws.
Uganda‘s president hassigned a controversial law allowing those convicted of homosexuality to be imprisoned for life, defying international disapproval from western donor nations.
At a public ceremony in a packed room at the State House in Entebbe, Yoweri Museveni formally initialled the anti-homosexuality act, which also outlaws the promotion of homosexuality and requires citizens to denounce to the police anyone suspected of being gay. “No study has shown you can be homosexual by nature. That’s why I have agreed to sign the bill,” Museveni said in a speech at the presidential palace near the capital,Kampala.
“Outsiders cannot dictate to us. This is our country. I advise friends from the west not to make this an issue, because if they make it an issue the more they will lose. If the west does not want to work with us because of homosexuals, then we have enough space to ourselves here.”
Supporters clapped during the press conference. One MP sitting at a white table in the front row, said: “I hope the Obamas are receiving it live, Desmond Tutu, Cameron … [Museveni] has resisted them.” The ethics and integrity minister, Simon Lokodo, said: “I feel very fulfilled, very elated, because at last my head of state has pronounced it on behalf of the entire nation, Uganda, that this is a bill that was worth putting in place.”
David Bahati, the MP who introduced the bill, added: “This is a victory for the family ofUganda, a victory for the future of our children…”
The US announced on Monday night that it would begin an internal review of its relationship with Uganda’s government, including assistance programmes. Barack Obama had warned Museveni that ties between Kampala and Washington would be damaged if the bill was passed.
The British foreign secretary, William Hague, said: “I am deeply saddened and disappointed that the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda has been signed into law. The UK strongly opposes all discrimination on any grounds. “We question the [law’s] compatibility with Uganda’s constitution and international treaty obligations. There can be no doubt that [it] will increase persecution and discrimination of Ugandans, as well as damage Uganda’s reputation internationally.We ask the government of Uganda to protect all its citizens and encourage tolerance, equality and respect.”
Museveni, a key African ally of the US and the EU, had already come under fire from western donors for alleged corruption and had been under increasing pressure to block the legislation.
The anti-homosexuality bill passed through parliament in December after its architects agreed to drop a death penalty clause. The legislation requires those found guilty of repeat homosexuality to be jailed for life.
The South African Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu said at the weekend that the law recalled attempts by the Nazi and apartheid regimes to “legislate against love”. Amnesty International called the bill a “horrific expansion of state-sanctioned homophobia”.
Homophobia, supported by many US-funded evangelical Christians, has become more virulent in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. In 2011, a prominent Ugandan gay rights campaigner, David Kato, was bludgeoned to death at his home after a newspaper splashed photos, names and addresses of gay people in Uganda on its front page along with a yellow banner reading “Hang Them”.
This month Museveni, a devout evangelical Christian, also signed into law dress code legislation that outlaws “provocative” clothing, bans scantily-clad performers from appearing on Ugandan television and closely monitors what individuals view on the internet.
A coalition of UK gay rights groups and charities has written to the Foreign Office calling on Britainto withdraw its high commissioner in Kampala.
Jonathan Cooper, chief executive of the Human Dignity Trust and one of those who signed the letter, said: “[This] law promises to tyrannise the lives of the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. This is a huge blow for anyone who values basic human rights. This bleak situation will have an immediate effect on countries like the UK, the rest of the EU,Canada and US, as people flee and seek sanctuary.”
Please visit the following link for more information:
BOSTON— In the majority of African countries, homosexuality is illegal. A month ago,Uganda signed a particularly harsh anti-gay law. The very next day, a national newspaper printed the names and where abouts of 200 gay citizens. Among them: John Abdallah Wambere.
But his where abouts have changed. He is no longer in the capital city of Kampala. He is now based in the Boston area.
‘We’ve Become Criminals’
Wambere is often called “Long Johns” because he’s so tall. He has dreadlocks and a little gray in his beard. He’s staying in a third-floor apartment in Cambridge. But he says his journey began in Uganda.
Over the past five years, his home country has been galvanized by an anti-homosexual movement. Wambere believes the campaign is politically driven and based on a religious agenda.
“First and foremost, we saw it became a unifying factor between the Christians and the Muslims,” he said. “Even Christians went to mosques. The Muslims went to the churches. All to preach about hate speeches on homosexuals.”
He says the rhetoric among religious leaders conflates gay people with pedophiles, even though the law does not.
“They claim that homosexuals are going into schools to recruit children by giving them gifts,” he said.
Under the new law, homosexual men and women can be sentenced to prison, in some cases for life. And anyone who does not report a gay person can also be locked up.
“It was a big blow, and now we’ve become criminals to the state,” Wambere said.
In response, the World Bank suspended $90 million in funding to Uganda.Denmark,Norway and the Netherlands redirected their aid.
But Wambere, who is 40 years old, says the law capped several intensely difficult years. He works for a gay rights health NGO in Kampala named Spectrum Uganda and has become a leader in Uganda’s gay community. That image was solidified when he was featured in “Call Me Kuchu,” an international award-winning documentary.
Publicly, Wambere has been bold. But privately he developed safety strategies. Stay in doors after media exposure. Never be alone: he needs a witness in case anything happens. Destroy evidence of advocacy work.
Helping From Afar
These strategies worked, but as friends and colleagues were arrested, even before the law, Wambere began to break.
“I would sit and imagine someone coming and stands at my house door and points a finger and says, ‘That’s him,’” he said. “I was, like, getting these illusions. And I couldn’t stop crying most of the time. And I felt my head was getting hot each other time. I just got tired and sick of everything. It was so traumatizing.”
It was then that a musician and DJ from the Boston area, Nathanael Bluhm, reached out over Facebook. Bluhm organized a benefit concert to raise money for Wambere to come here. The next thing Wambere knew, he was on a flight to the United States.
The U.S.has a complicated role in all of this. On one hand, American evangelical Christians helped spur Uganda’s anti-gay movement during a visit there in 2009. On the other hand, members of the Obama administration have spoken out strongly against the new Ugandan law.
Wambere hoped the U.S.would offer him some respite, but the reality has been different.
“It’s good because I’m safe. I can sleep without worrying that I will be arrested and charged with homosexual acts,” he said. “But I am still worried, and I feel helpless.”
He added, even though he’s no longer fearful, “I spend the whole day indoors on emails.”
From Cambridge, Wambere is strategizing with fellow advocates back home in Kampala. How can they keep the gay movement alive, even if it’s underground? How can they support those fleeing to neighboring countries? Should Africans take the lead in this fight?
Wambere is resisting seeking asylum in theU.S.He feels that would be failing his family and community.
“The thing is, failures in life can never know how far they have come and give up at the last minute,” Wambere said he tells himself. “That’s why you see, even if it’s hard, it’s tough, I still know I need to do what I should be doing.”
He’s focusing his efforts on the Ugandan courts. Gay rights advocates have petitioned for the new law to be struck down.
“I’m very optimistic, because from the past, the judiciary has been very, very fair, and the judiciary has always examined these cases, and we’ve always won them,” Wambere said.
But personally, he’s cautious.
“I’m gay. I’m proud to be gay, but I wouldn’t even wish someone to be gay,” he said. “The stress, the stigma, the discrimination. Gone are the days where we felt excited about being who I am. Gone are those days.”
For Wambere, these are days for action.
Wambere hopes to return to Uganda soon. But he worries that, given his public profile, he will be arrested at the border. Even if he does get through, he says the work has only just begun.
Please visit the following link for more information:
Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda’s Anti-Gay Crackdown
Scott Lively has stirred up hate from Moscow to Kampala. Watch him in action.
—By Mariah Blake
| Mon Mar. 10, 2014 3:30 AM GMT
In late February, when Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed the nation’s harsh new anti-gay bill into law, he claimed the measure had been “provoked by arrogant and careless western groups that are fond of coming into our schools and recruiting young children into homosexuality.” What he failed to mention is that the legislation—which makes homosexuality a crime punishable by life in prison in some cases—was itself largely due to Western interlopers, chief among them a radical American pastor named Scott Lively.
Lively, a 56-year-old Massachusetts native, specializes in stirring up anti-gay feeling around the globe. In Uganda, which he first visited in 2002, he has cultivated ties to influential politicians and religious leaders at the forefront of the nation’s anti-gay crusade. Just before the first draft of Uganda’s anti-gay bill began circulating in April 2009, Lively traveled to Kampala and gave lengthy presentations to members of Uganda’s parliament and cabinet, which laid out the argument that the nation’s president and lawmakers would later use to justify Uganda’s draconian anti-gay crackdown—namely that Western agitators were trying to unravel Uganda’s social fabric by spreading “the disease” of homosexuality to children. “They’re looking for other people to be able to prey upon,” Lively said, according to video footage. “When they see a child that’s from a broken home it’s like they have a flashing neon sign over their head.”
Lively is not the only US evangelical who has fanned the flames of anti-gay sentiment in Uganda. As they lose ground at home, where public opinion and law are rapidly shifting in favor of gay equality, religious conservatives have increasingly turned their attention to Africa. And Uganda, with its large Christian population, has been particularly fertile ground for their crusade. Journalist (and past Mother Jones contributor) Jeff Sharlet has reported at length on the Family, a politically connected US-based ministry, which promotes hard-line social policies in the East African nation.
But, according to Ugandan gay rights activists, Lively has played an unparalleled role in fostering the climate of hate that gave rise to Uganda’s anti-gay law. “The bill is essentially his creation,” says Frank Mugisha, director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition of gay rights organizations. Mugisha’s group has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit inUS federal court, accusing Lively of international crimes against humanity on the grounds that he and his Ugandan allies allegedly conspired to deprive gay Ugandans of basic human rights.
“These people had never heard of anything called the gay agenda,” recalls Anglican priest Kapya Kaoma. “But Lively told them that these predators were coming for their children. As Africans hearing it for the first time, they believed it was true—and they were burning with rage.”
Lively, who is currently running for governor of Massachusetts as an independent, calls the allegations “ridiculous.” “Basically, a Marxist law firm in New York City is trying to shut me up because I speak very articulately about the pro-family issues,” he says. But video obtained by Mother Jones—including footage of Lively’s 2009 presentation and a little-known follow-up meeting where influential Ugandans resolved to petition parliament for a harsh new law against homosexuality—lends credence to the allegations that Lively’s fierce message paved the way for the nation’s anti-gay crackdown.
Lively has an unusual history for a family-values crusader. A former alcoholic, he spent his late teens and 20s drifting around the country, occasionally sleeping under bridges and begging for spare change. After finding God in a Portland,Oregon, treatment center in the mid-1980s, he joined a conservative evangelical church and took a job as communications director for the Oregon Citizens Alliance, which was loosely affiliated with the then powerful Christian Coalition and was deploying radical tactics to fight abortion and the gay rights movement. In 1992, OCA introduced a ballot initiative with the first faint outlines of the legislative strategy Lively would later deploy abroad. Measure 9, as it was known, barred the state government from offering any “special rights” to gays or “promoting” homosexuality. It also required public schools to treat “homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism” as “abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse.”
The backlash was fierce. Opponents likened Lively and his colleagues to Nazis and lobbed bricks wrapped in swastika flags through the windows of businesses supporting the measure. OCA’s aggressive campaign, likening gays to pedophiles, was also blamed for a steep uptick in gay hate crimes. In the end, Measure 9 was defeated by a 13-point margin. Undeterred, OCA began promoting measures barring special protections for homosexuals on the city and county levels. Lively, who bristled at the Nazi comparisons, also threw himself into studying the Third Reich and eventually grew convinced that gay men—some of whom occupied senior posts in the Nazi regime—were the driving force behind the Holocaust. “Everything that we think about when we think about Nazis actually comes from the minds and perverted ideas of homosexuals,” he told an Oregonpublic access television station in 1994. OCA also began deploying messages reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. One OCA-published cartoon resembled the infamous Nazi caricature showing a Jew manipulating the strings of government and economy. As Deborah Geis and ?Steven Kruger observed in their 1997 book Approaching the Millennium, the group had merely replaced “the stooped, hooked-nose puppeteer with a fresh-faced gym boy.”
These tactics paid off: OCA managed to push through more than two dozen county and municipal ordinances. While the Oregon Legislature later rendered them unenforceable, OCA’s efforts kept the issue on the conservative agenda and showed the grassroots appeal of the group’s message. In 1994, the organization sponsored another statewide ballot initiative similar to Measure 9. It was defeated, too, but only by a 3-point margin.
After his bare-knuckled legislative battles in Oregon, Lively retreated to California, where he earned a law degree and a Ph.D. in theology. He also became a prolific author. In 1995, he coauthored what would become his signature book, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. It argued that gay elements in the Nazi regime tried to wipe out the Jews because their religion condemned homosexuality. And it claimed that gays intentionally spread immorality and corruption so others were “less likely to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.” Pornography, according to this theory, is a “tool of ‘gay’ social engineering.” The rising rates of divorce, substance abuse, disease, and violent crime, are all a “direct consequence of embracing the ‘gay’ ethic.” In subsequent books, Lively laid out detailed tactics for battling this menace—including stressing the supposed danger homosexuality poses to young people. “Public sympathy for ‘gays’ as victims is not grounded in logic, but in emotion,” he wrote. “An effective strategy is to emphasize the issue of homosexual recruitment of children…”
Lively’s ideas have proven too radical for the mainstream family values movement, but they’ve gotten some traction on the far right. Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis for the influential American Family Association, regularly parrots his arguments linking gays to Nazis. (“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler,” he opined in a 2010 post on the organization’s website, “and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”) Lively’s theories have also gained currency in foreign countries, including former Soviet republics, where he has helped advance anti-gay legislation. But nowhere has his influence been more keenly felt than in Uganda. During his first visit there in 2002, he spoke at an anti-pornography conference and warned participants that Western cultural Marxists, backed by liberals (such as George Soros), were trying to erode Uganda’s independence by attacking family values—a message that played on lingering colonial-era resentments. One of their core tactics, Lively argued, was deploying homosexuals to infiltrate Ugandan society. “The cultural Marxists go into these countries, they buy media and they set up these street activist organizations to recruit,” Lively tells me. “I said, ‘Okay, this is what’s going on here. The way to respond to that is to focus on affirming family values—and discouraging the alternatives.'” Lively, who was used to being heckled, was stunned by the positive reception he received at the gathering.
“Public sympathy for ‘gays’ as victims is not grounded in logic, but in emotion,” Lively wrote. “An effective strategy is to emphasize the issue of homosexual recruitment of children…”
Later the same year, an influential Ugandan Assemblies of God pastor named Stephen Langa invited Lively and his wife, Anne, back toKampalafor a barnstorming tour. Lively met with lawmakers, lectured at universities, and gave a number of media interviews. He and Langa also hosted an all-day conference with local pastors. The event was closed to the media and the public, but Lively later recalled that the pastors who attended were “very grateful” for his insights “about the way in whichAmericawas brought low by homosexual activism.”
Following the trip, Lively kept in contact with Langa, whom he calls his “ministry partner,” and another influential Ugandan pastor named Martin Ssempa. Both men would ultimately be at the vanguard ofUganda’s anti-gay crackdown.
In early March 2009, Lively returned toUgandaat Langa’s invitation.Uganda’s High Court had recently found that the government overstepped its authority by detaining two gay activists simply because they were gay. In response, a Langa-run group called the Family Life Network planned a three-day conference to expose what he called the “hidden and dark” gay agenda. On the last day, Lively gave a marathon five-hour presentation, which was broadcast on Ugandan television. He claimed that homosexuals were aggressively recruitingUganda’s children and argued that human rights protections shouldn’t be extended to these “predatory” figures.
Lively also told attendees—among them Ugandan cabinet members—that the gay movement was an “evil institution” that sought to “defeat the marriage-based society” and crush anyone who stood up to its nefarious agenda. At one point, he scrawled “Causes and Types of Homosexual Dysfunction” across the top of a white board and, beneath this, drew a continuum with what he claimed were the various types of gay men. On one extreme sat the transsexuals and transvestites; on the other were what Lively called the “super machos” and “monsters.” “The Nazis were super machos,” he said. “You also see them in prisons…brutish, brutish, animalistic, men that want to hurt other people…men having sex with boys and other men, usually in some sort of aggressive way.”
Moving on to “the monsters,” Lively continued, “They are so far from normalcy that they’re killers. They’re serial killers, mass murderers. They’re sociopaths. There’s no mercy at all, there’s no nurturing, no caring about anybody else…This is the kind of person it takes to run a gas chamber. ” He added that the genocide in neighboring Rwanda”probably involved these guys.”
Lively also likened homosexuality to a disease, and suggested that if Uganda didn’t “actively discourage” same-sex relations, the nation’s children might soon be throwing orgies and performing oral sex on school buses. “That’s what happens when the immune system becomes overwhelmed. The body begins to suffer, disintegrate,” he said. “We need public policy that discourages homosexuality.”
According to Kapya Kaoma, an Anglican priest from Zambia who attended the conference as part of an investigation for the liberal think tank Political Research Associates, Lively’s remarks landed like a bombshell. “These people had never heard of anything called the gay agenda,” he recalls. “But Lively told them that these predators were coming for their children. As Africans hearing it for the first time, they believed it was true—and they were burning with rage.”
Page 1 of 2Next
Please visit the following links for more information:
- Following the publication of this story, Scott Lively contacted Mother Jones to say that he wanted to respond. We stand by our reporting, but here is his response in
full. —Mother Jones
Harvard, Mother Jones and the “Gay” Bullies
By Dr. Scott Lively
Recently I participated in a debate at Harvard Law Schoolon the issue of criminal justice. It featured five candidates for Governor of Massachusetts, of which I am one. The event was marred by the infantile antics of Harvard’s homosexual student group, Lambda, whose members stood and turned their backs to the stage whenever it was my turn to speak, and laughed and sneered loudly at all of my comments throughout the evening. The topic of the debate was entirely unrelated to homosexuality or the LGBT sub-culture, yet these overgrown adolescents forced themselves on the crowd and their agenda into the debate. Their complaint against me echoed almost verbatim the slanderous rhetoric of last week’s Mother Jones article, “Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda’s Anti-Gay Crackdown.”
I am the man being portrayed as a monster in that myth, writing not only as a candidate but as a pastor. I am greatly concerned about the decline of personal integrity and civility as American cultural values, which I attribute to the rise of cultural Marxism, exemplified in part by the cult of “gay“ bullies who now dominate our public discourse in virtually every sphere of society, but also by the parallel cult of pro-LGBT “advocacy journalists“ who routinely bear false witness to the public in furtherance of their shared ideology.
I value my integrity, and speak plainly and unapologetically about what I believe, without regard for political correctness or the opinions of my adversaries. I do not hesitate to define homosexuality as a behavioral disorder with serious, moral, sociological and public health consequences. I am proud to say that I advocated for the Russian ban on advocacy of LGBT propaganda to children and that I want other nations to follow suit. I declare frankly that my opposition to so-called “gay” marriage and “gay” adoption of children derives from my belief that homosexuality itself is wrong and harmful to the people who practice it and to society. Note carefully that I am not parsing my words or spinning euphemisms. I say what I believe and believe what I say. I say it without malice, or an intention to provoke malice in others. This is simply objective truth from a Biblical worldview, shared (largely in silence) by millions of good-hearted Americans.
Hate me for my views, if you must, but do not doubt my honesty. When I tell a reporter, such as Mother Jones’ Mariah Blake, that I do not support the Ugandan anti-homosexuality law as written, you can bank on it. She obviously did not believe me. I can forgive that, since leftist journalists who trade in spin and propaganda naturally assume everyone is a liar. What I cannot leave unchallenged is her omission of my many comments and observations which would have contradicted her premise that I am to blame for that law, and shown the law’s implications to be less draconian than appears at face value. A partial list of these follows:
First, it was not my idea to go to Uganda, I was invited by the government to educate key leaders on the strategies and tactics of the “gay” political movement. I was there to serve, not to lead.
Second, suggesting that my preaching overpowered the will and reason of an entire nation of Africans is breath takingly racist. These people are not children, nor ignorant jungle savages. Most of the democratically elected government officials of Uganda whom I met are as or more intelligent and competent than Ms. Blake (whom I perceive as very bright and talented).
Third, Ugandans are far more familiar with the negative aspects of homosexual orientation than Americans are. Every June 3rd is Martyr’s Day, memorializing the brutal slaughter of 22 young men and boys by the homosexual King Mwanga in the late 1800s for refusing to submit to sodomy. It is one of the reasons why Uganda criminalized homosexuality many years before anyone there ever heard of Scott Lively.
Fourth, it was the Ugandans themselves who requested information about the homosexual recruitment of children, wanting to better understand this phenomenon that they had observed in their midst. Most of the complaints that I heard from average people in Ugandarelated to male homosexual sex tourism corrupting boys and young men. I probably would not have addressed the topic on my own. My lectures tend to emphasize the history of the “gay” movement and the socio-political ramifications of its agenda, not the sexual activities of the LGBT community.
Fifth, I did not participate in the drafting of the Ugandan law and opposed it’s harshness from the very beginning. The Ugandans did not adopt my suggestions to emphasize therapy and prevention rather than punishment. That having been said, the hysteria about the law in the west is dramatically overblown, since virtually all African criminal law is overly harsh in the letter, but lenient in the application. Poor countries rely on deterrence since they don’t have money for jails. It is highly unlikely that anyone will serve any more time in jail for breaking this law than under the anti-sodomy laws of our own country in the 1950s (was your grandmother a “vicious homophobe” for supporting those U.S. laws?).
Sixth and finally, the veiled implication that Ugandais a blood thirsty nation bent on genocidal extermination of homosexuals is outrageous and absolutely false. There is greater violence committed by revelers in Chicago after a singe Bulls game than a decade-worth of “homophobic” persecution of “gays” in Uganda. Indeed, even the absurd lawsuit against me for “Crimes Against Humanity” lists only a handful of relatively minor civil rights abuses over a 10 year period. My inbox is filled with hate-mail and death threats accusing me of complicity in torture and murder of “thousands” of homosexuals in Uganda, but the only homosexual activist murder that I know of is David Kato, whose “gay” lover is serving 30 years in prison for the crime.
Blake is entitled to her personal opinion. But neither she, nor any of her journalistic peers who have repeated the identical false narrative about me, are entitled to make the news fit their subjective opinions while posing as objective reporters. This deceptive ideological advocacy in place of objectivity is unfortunately what journalism has degenerated to in our increasing post-Christian society.
Americans once had a greater ability to tolerate opposing views. We didn’t accuse people of “hate” for disagreeing with us, or for pointing out the flaws in each others’ conduct or political philosophy. We didn’t break up public meetings and shout down speakers with opinions opposed to our own. That was what other, less civilized, societies did: the right-leaning Marxist Brownshirts of Germany, the left-leaning Marxist Bolsheviks of Russia. We believed in civility, and indeed, the tolerance for differences that we cherished was the very soil in which the “gay” sub-culture once thrived, when it’s stated (largely accomplished) goal was “the right to be left alone.”
But now our own version of Brown shirts and Bolsheviks run the show. Armies of “gay” bullies pummel anyone who disagrees with them on any point of LGBT doctrine, from Anita Bryant in the 1970s to Phil Robertson in 2013. (Try to name a single public figure in the past decade who has criticized homosexuality in theU.S.and not been targeted for destruction.) Careers are ruined, businesses bankrupted, reputations destroyed, families terrorized, sometimes merely for whispering that authentic marriage is one man and one woman. Anti-discrimination laws, passed on the promise that they would be a shield to protect innocent people from malicious prejudice, are transformed almost immediately into swords for LGBT activists to attack people of faith. Compromises by groups like the Boy Scouts, made to accommodate “gay” demands, do nothing but harden the implacable LGBT militancy.
In lock step, armies of ideologically unified, pro-LGBT “journalists” routinely paint the bullies as victims and the victims as “homophobes.”
At the Harvard debate I was an invited guest, yet I was subjected to a humiliating two-hour barrage of mockery, invective and slander by a handful of childish boors, emboldened by Mother Jones‘ assassination of my character. My hosts did not even ask them to behave. No one dared to applaud any of my comments, though my views on the restorative model of criminal justice were undoubtedly shared by many of the roughly 200 people in attendance (heads were nodding perceptibly in agreement). Everyone in that room, except me, was intimidated by the “gay” bullies.
At the root of all of this is a contest of ideas and ideals between Christians and Marxists. Our society is coming apart at the seams because the Marxists are winning, and replacing the Christian ideals of tolerance, mutual respect, self-restraint and personal responsibility with political correctness, factionalism, moral anarchy and statism. They’re invoking all of the terms associated with Christian culture, but redefining them to suit the Marxist model. Objective truth is the only remedy, so I will keep on speaking it despite the bullies at Harvard and their apologists at Mother Jones.
Please visit the following link for more information:
Who are Marxists? Mr. Scott Lively uses McCarthyism tactics. He uses the Marxism to incite others who hate communists evoking negative actions. “—- the Christian ideals of tolerance, mutual respect, self-restraint and personal responsibility with political correctness, factionalism, moral anarchy and statism.” On this comments he implied that his version of Christian culture is so virtuous. He will not harm a fly but his visited to Uganda and his lecture preaching in March 2009 must have given a strong impression to the Uganda government causing them wanting to kill every homosexual. If it were not for the protest from US government, EU and others the law will not merely change to imprison for life. If he is such a virtuous Christian, why did he not ever protest such a barbaric and inhuman law.
He identifies his version of Christian culture as one of moral excellence, but why does he see homosexuality in such an inhumane way. Are they human like you too? Do you think they want love, kindness and equal rights the same as you? He thinks he is smart and able to convince others who are weaker to hate another human being. Those he persuades are then willing to be murders, if not directly, then by ordering others to kill that person. Mr. Scott Lively, you are not smart nor have the virtue you proclaim because you bring destruction to others so that hatred and killing will never end. By inciting others to hate and kill you are far more dangerous than the one who actually commits the act because you will go on to convince more people as Hitler persuaded his people to kill millions. If you proclaim that you are an educated man of moral excellence you would show your kindness toward all mankind. You would bring a unity among people. You would bring peace and happiness to society as a whole then you could be proud of yourself and worthy to be born and be a part of all humankind.
People who train themselves to talk and write well can be two sides of razor edge, they can be a positive and negative to society, because these people can out smart others and turn black to white with their wit, cleverly convincing others in their own belief to achieve their goal.
Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Saturday, March 29, 2014
“In early March 2009, Lively returned to Uganda at Langa’s invitation. Uganda’s High Court had recently found that the government overstepped its authority by detaining two gay activists simply because they were gay. In response, a Langa-run group called the Family Life Network planned a three-day conference to expose what he called the “hidden and dark” gay agenda. On the last day, Lively gave a marathon five-hour presentation, which was broadcast on Ugandan television. He claimed that homosexuals were aggressively recruiting Uganda’s children and argued that human rights protections shouldn’t be extended to these “predatory” figures.”