UGANDA and Anti-homosexuality! Update # 4

Background. (See resources at end of this post):
The Anti-homosexuality bill introduced in the Ugandan Congress in October 2009 and which was roundly criticized by Western Nations in December, received a positive boost this month but this does not mean that all provisions set forth in the bill will be eliminated.

In mid January 2010, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni began to withdraw his support for the bill and appointed a cabinet committee to review and the bill.

Very recent events.
In Mid May, the committee  recommended that the bill be withdrawn !!!

It seems that the two  most odious and hate-filled sections will be eliminated: 1) the death penalty for homosexuals under a variety of circumstances,  and 2) that parents, teachers, clergy persons, etc. report to law enforcement any homosexuals they know about. This move is good. They are also the provisions that the Vatican and other religious groups, human rights groups and western governments strongly opposed.

However, the committee also recommended that other provisions in the bill be kept and inserted into existing sexuality laws. In fact, it specifically recommended that Clause 13 of the bill "was worthy of consideration." If Clause 13 is retained, it will forbid the "promotion of homosexuality." Even if revised, this clause might include negative sanctions against Sex education and AIDS awareness programs, advertising AIDS treatment programs, Condom and free needle distribution and other very important health-related programs, as well as discussions of homosexuality in newspapers and on TV and publicity or  advertisements by Gay clubs and other Gay-related entertainment or social and artistic events.

Possibilities for the near future.
All this means that the worst of the bill almost certainly will be eliminated and many other provisions of the bill are already in existing sexuality laws. The single most problematic issue is that related to "promoting homosexuality." There are still strong elements in the government who will fight to keep that provision. I suspect they could gather enough votes to keep clause 13 with the support of very larger numbers of Ugandans who are anti-homosexual. One admittedly unlikely but potential source of support might come from major religious groups who provide AIDS health care and other services to AIDS victims or sex education to youth an adults. I admit this is a slim hope.

The Future.
In a few weeks or months parliament will vote to kill the bill as it is and consider what to do with the remaining provisions. Of course an underlying difficulty for those who accept homosexual equality and freedom, are the extremely conservative attitudes and cultural norms in Uganda and much of Africa regarding patriarchy, family, and sex. The Roman Catholic Church and most "mainline' Protestant denominations will be caught in the middle, while Evangelical Christians and Muslims will support the conservative population.

Resources:
See the following articles on the recent events in Uganda:
"Uganda's Ugly Anti-Homosexuality Bill is Almost Dead"
"Is Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill Dead?"

See also my previous posts about Uganda:
UGANDA: Homosexuality and the Church
UGANDA UPDATE: Homosexuality and the Church
UGANDA UPDATE # 2
UGANDA UPDATE #3: Good news, sort of...

NOTE: The photograph in this post is a picture of Mahmud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, who were sentenced to public execution for being homosexuals in Iran. 18 July 2005. What happen to these young men may be avoided in Uganda.

UGANDA UPDATE # 3 Good news, sort of...

On 14 January The Guardian (London, UK) reported that Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni announced that the Anti-Homosexual Act of 2009, "had become a 'foreign policy' issue and needed further consultation before being voted on in parliament." The Guardian reported in the same article that, "James Nasba Buturo, minister of state for ethics and integrity, who is a strong supporter of the bill, said, before Museveni's speech that it was likely that the death penalty provisions would be dropped because of the international outcry." Who made the outcry?

The Gay community.
Gay, human rights organizations and Amnesty International immediately expressed strong opposition to passage of this bill which would restrict the rights and endanger the lives of the estimated 500,000 gays and lesbians in Uganda.

Western Governments.
The international outcry from governments was not immediate but it came. Many western industrialized nations criticized this legislation, including: Australia, Canada, the UK and France. The European Parliament and Sweden threatened to reduce economic aid if the law passes. Former President Clinton, Secretary of State Clinton and four U.S. congress persons have made individual public statements opposing the law. After a telephone call from Hillary Clinton, "...to express strong concerns about the proposed law, [Museveni, the President] said, 'It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests'."

Part of the reason that governments (and, as will be mentioned below, international religious leaders) were slower to act, is based on the complexity of the situation and international relations. Anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda were introduced by the British during the colonial period. Also, the general Ugandan (and African) culture is very conservative with regard to family and sexual mores. In more recent years, conservative Evangelical Christian missionaries have reinforced and expanded upon the traditional mores to intensify and provide a new rationale for anti-gay norms and laws, attitudes and values. Finally, the opposition of the West to anti-gay norms, laws and behavior is seen by many African governments as just a new version of colonialism: to shove down the throats of the people of Africa the "decadent" and "immoral" lifestyle of the West, including homosexuality. As a result, Western governments took stock to see if their "interference" would help the situation or merely increase the nationalist feelings in Uganda. It seems to me that the tide turned as gays and straight supporters mounted ever greater pressure on their governments and that Uganda "backed down" once Western nations threatened to withhold financial aid.

What about the international religious community? They too had the same concern as governments about whether their speaking out would help or hinder passage of the bill. For the churches, the decision was doubly difficult: they had only moral suasion and no money to withhold and for two important religious communities, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, there were internal issues that had to be considered.

The Anglican Communion.
Uganda is an anglophone nation and the Anglican church there is quite significant. Many, if not most, of the Anglican bishops (E.g. Ugandan bishop Joseph Arbura of the Karamoja Diocese) in Africa hold very conservative positions regarding sex, especially regarding gay marriage, gays and women as priests and, especially active gays as bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury was caught between this group and, for example, the practice of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., most of which accepts and supports gays and a minority of parishes that wish to join African Anglican dioceses or the Roman Catholic Church. After much private communication, On December 12th the Archbishop Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in an interview with the Telegraph (a London newspaper) [See sixth paragraph in the interview]:

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.

Finally, the Archbishop of York (UK), John Sentamu, himself a Ugandan spoke out publicly on December 24th, saying, "I'm opposed to the death sentence. I'm also not happy when you describe people in that kind of language you find in this private member's bill, which seems not only victimizing but also a diminishment of the individuals concerned."

The Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has its own difficulties with homosexuality but is unalterably opposed to capital punishment and the harassment or oppression of innocent individuals. Although the Church speaks of homosexuality as "objectively disordered" (whatever that really means), it clearly accepts that gay orientation is a "given"  for gays. This means that some people are simply born with a homosexual orientation, period. On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that the only legitimate sex is between a married male and female. (There are a number of Catholic moral theologians, and a majority of  Catholics in the U.S. who do not not accept this position).

The Vatican felt it had to condemn capital punishment and the harsh punishments in the law and affirm its teaching that gays should be treated with respect and compassion as are any other citizens. The Vatican, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, realized the danger to priests, counselors, social workers, etc. if they were required to report homosexuals to the authorities and, themselves, face prison. As often happens with the Vatican, its position was made indirectly but officially. In a statement to the UN Panel on Anti-Gay Violence, on December 10th, the Rev. Philip J. Bene, the Vatican's Legal attache said,

Thank you for convening this panel.... My comments are more in the form of a statement rather than aquestion.

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.

As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State...

Finally, after the Anti-Homosexual bill was tabled in the parliament, the Catholic bishops of Uganda made a public statement. Admittedly, it was not as clear, direct and forthright as some hoped for. Dr. Cyrian Kizto Lwanga, Archbishop of Kampala, began the statement with, "We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government's effort to protect the traditional families and its values." [After following this debate and the language used, I wonder if this opening statement is not a code for, "We affirm the idea of keeping the fact of being homosexual illegal]. He continues,

The recent tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of Christian caring approach to this issue. The targeting of the sinner, not the sin, is the core flaw of the proposed Bill. The introduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts targets people rather than seeking to counsel and to reach out in compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope...

Furthermore, the Proposal to prosecute those who fail to disclose information regarding homosexual acts puts at risk the breach of confidentiality and professional ethics of persons such as Parents, Priests, Counselors, Teachers... at a time when they offer support and advise [sic] for rehabilitation of homosexuals. The Proposed Bill does not contain clauses encouraging homosexuals to be rehabilitated.... [All bold print in the original].

This is a rejection of the bill, at least a rejection  of the death and harsh punishment of homosexuals as well as protection for parents, priests and others who have knowledge about homosexuals. However, the statement clearly proffers an explanation of  homosexuality as something learned or chosen and therefore in need of "rehabilitation." I wonder what kind of support and advice the bishops have in mind: to learn to be "chaste." One can hope it doesn't hearken to "restorative therapy" as recommended to the Ugandan Government by three invited conservative Evangelical preachers. In any event, the Ugandan Bishops' statement seems at the very best to be lukewarm.

Recent examples of Gay marriage and homosexuality in "Catholic" Latin America:
We Do: Mexico City Blazes Trail with Legalisation of Same-Sex Marriage. (22 Dec 2009)
Vatiacn: Gay: deserve respect, compassion.
Argentina men become first same-sex married couple. (29 Dec 2009) (Pic, without DSL may load slowly)

Other Religious influences.
On December 7th, sixty-six U.S Christian Leaders issued a public statement opposing the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 in Uganda. It says in part:

Our Christian faith recognizes violence, harassment and unjust treatment of any human being as a betrayal of Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves. As followers of the teachings of Christ, we must express profound dismay at a bill currently before the Parliament in Uganda.

....Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children worthy of respect and love.

The first signers of the statement were Thomas P. Melady, Former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda and the Vatican; Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action; and Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners.

This statement is welcome, as are those by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Catholic bishops of Uganda, for clearly opposing the severe penalties against homosexual persons and those who know and/ or support homosexual persons.

However none of these statements speak to or supports decriminalization of homosexuality or homosexual behavior. This is a challenge that most Christians have not yet faced; nor have they seriously been able to dialogue about other fundamental issues related to the very nature and morality of homosexual behavior.


Evangelicals.
Conservative Evangelical Protestants in the United States and in Uganda, itself, have spoken out in favor of the bill or have remained silent about it. However some, like Rick Warren have spoken out against the excessive punishments in the bill. Still Warren and many other Evagelicals maintain strong opposition to homosexuality. At best, they espouse the idea of  "love the sinner, hate the sin." Like the Ugandan Catholic bishops?

Four Evangelical clergymen are now trying to distance themselves from the three-day conference they presented in Uganda to thousands of police, national politicians, teachers and others in March, 2009, one month before MP David Bahati first introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The following list of articles discuss this issue further, some including hateful and vicious comments made about homosexuals:
Americans' Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push (NYT 4 Jan 2010)
Hate Begets Hate NYT editorial 5 Jan 2010
R.W. Johnson: The Battle Over Homophobia in Africa  (National Post, Canada. 12 Jan 2010

My Reflections.


1. It appears that the death penalty, and possibly the requirement to report homosexuals, with be removed from the proposed legislation; that is a battle won but not the war. Uganda will still have a host of harsh anti-homosexual laws as do many other African nations, some of which have the death penalty.

2.The leading nations of the "West" (since the fall of the Soviet system and the move toward market-based economics in China, more suitably called the "The North") and two (Anglican and Catholic) of the three (Pentecostals) most important Christian communions in Uganda, spoke in opposition to the harsh penalties in the law. This may have been politically prudent to help lessen an outcry from Africa that this move was merely a new form of colonialism and to assuage the ire of their own more conservative hierarchs and members. In my opinion, none of the groups placed their responses in the larger context of society. 

3. Here the immediate issue related to this extremely inhuman proposal  is, and let us put it plainly, to kill homosexual people. But an underlying issue is how the countries of the South and North will relate on a whole host of issues, only some of which are related to sex (E.g. the AIDS epidemic, the use of condoms, the nature of marriage and the family).

In the area of what Catholics call "social justice" issues there is great potential for disagreement and conflict between North and South. In Uganda more than a few leaders railed against the North for interfering with their culture (the homosexuality issue) and said the North ought to be more concerned with "justice issues" such as economic development, the plight of the poor, and the environment. However, many in Africa, and Latin America even more so, are negative on globalization, the capitalist system, and modern forms of democracy, and especially the supremacy of the United States and its spreading of a degrading materialistic and highly individualistic culture.

4. Somehow real homosexual people seem to have been left out of the equation. Reading all the material I have on this issue, other than a few mentions of "compassion" for "them," no one's head or heart seemed to take into account that homosexuals are people just like every one else. Gays are born, live and die just like everyone else, Homosexual persons have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else, Many engage in selfless, altruistic behavior and some do not-- but not any more or less than heterosexuals! Most of all, LGBT individuals have the same goal in life as straights: to be happy and, in the end, to have lived a life well lived. Gays want to love and be loved just like others do; gays are not sex-crazed, selfish people who seek only their own pleasure. Unless one has shared an intimate connection to a homosexual person, it is often difficult to get beyond stereotypes and homophobia. I am sad that the the kind of values, attitudes and behavior that arise out of real intimacy with gays (certainly not always, and perhaps, almost never physical) is not more common. I'm sad too that the public statements by government and religious bodies did not show at least some appreciation for LGBT people as people. Finally, I look forward to, and will continue to work for the day when a distinction between gay and straight will enter conversation no more frequently than whether one is left or right handed. That will be the day when any two people who love each other can express that love and, perhaps, marry each other; that will be the day when no one will be oppressed by harsh and negative laws that say gays are "different."

UGANDA UPDATE: Anti-homosexuality! and the Church

An article in the London Guardian has reported that the proposed Ugandan Anti-Homosexual law is moving  through the legislature and could easily be in force by the middle of February, 2010.

Besides a life and death issue for LGBT persons  --especially gay males,who seem to be the primary targets of the law-- the whole issue has become a major debate on "human rights" and the question of "interference" with other cultures.

Generally speaking, Westerners stand for non-interference in the cultures of other peoples. In the U.S. today we may argue and debate the issue of immigrants maintaining cultural practices and the language of their homelands, but by and large, the government in the U.S. and the majority of our citizens accept "cultural diversity" in principle if not always in practice.

Of course there are well-known exceptions, in which we feel that certain cultural practices are serious violations of human rights and that they  must be discontinued;  for example Western opposition to forced  female circumcision / mutilation because it is a violation of human rights. In other parts of the world, people may agree that no one should interfere in other cultures. They might also agree that some laws or  behavior in another culture violate human rights. But...

Right now many public officials, citizens of note, and the general public in Uganda believe that homosexuality is evil and that to engage in same-sex behavior is, itself, a violation of human rights. They cry out that opposition to the anti-gay  law shows lack of respect for Ugandan culture and social practices. Proponents of the law also claim that pressure from Western nations and groups is inappropriate interference in Uganda and will lead to greater support for the law within Uganda. The extent to which this is true is unknown, but it seems to cause Western leaders to take pause.

Religion may play a central role in how the vote turns out. Uganda is 85% Christian  (40% are Catholic and 35% are Anglicans). Most of the rest are either Muslim or members of tribal religions.

Worldwide the institutional Catholic church is unalterably opposed to any form of same-sex behavior. However it understands gay orientation as a given and not merely "learned." It also claims to oppose any discriminatory behavior against LGBT individuals. Regarding penalties in the proposed law, the popes and the Vatican have strongly condemned torture and capital punishment.

To my knowledge the Vatican has issued no official statement on the Ugandan law. We will discover "where the Church stands" when we hear from or see what actions the Ugandan bishops take. Their commitment to Catholic social justice (which is clear and strong) might lead them, at least, to influence the legislators to mitigate the harsh penalties. On the other hand, as is true with many, many Africans, the African bishops seem to oppose homosexuality on cultural grounds as much as on religious grounds. Whether or how the Vatican or the Ugandan bishops will enter the conflict and what they will do remains open. If they do intervene, they will have influence. I wonder what you think!!

With thirty-five percent of the Christian population in Uganda, one might expect the Anglican church to play a major role here. Unfortunately, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has been very quiet. He and the Anglican Communion are nearly a shambles  regarding GLBT issues. The majority of institutional Anglicanism in the UK, U.S., Canada, and Australia, accept gays, welcome them into the church, and usually support same-sex unions as well as gay priests and bishops. In fact, there are two openly gay Episcopal bishops in the U.S. However in the U.S., UK. and large, westernized commonwealth countries, there is a conservative and growing minority who oppose gays in ordained priestly ministry, especially as bishops, same-sex marriages or unions blessed by the Church and there even remains  opposition to women  priests.

The Anglican bishops in Uganda, and much of Africa oppose the same things that the conservative minorities do in places  like the U.S. (This is one reason why many conservative Episcopal groups in the U.S. are seeking union with African dioceses). The Ugandan bishops attempt to justify their position on the basis of protecting traditional culture and a theology fitted to agrarian life. Unless churches in Canada, Australia and the UK can bring pressure on the Anglican bishops in Uganda, there is little hope that they will influence oppositions to the bill. One fear remains, that this "outside" pressure could turn the local bishops toward greater support for the law.

With the exception of a few individuals, one  can expect almost the entire Muslim community to support the law. In fact a number of Muslim and conservative Anglican and Catholic bishops have entertained the idea of cooperating in support of opposition to homosexuality, if not the entire bill.


As reported in another article in the Guardian,.a very significant event took place. Conservative anti-gay Christian leaders from the U.S.met with Bahati, just weeks before he authored the anti-gay bill. The well-known anti-gay leaders at the meeting included: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer, and Caleb Lee Brundige. At this conference, "...they pledged to 'wipe out' homosexuality." This being the case, why is it that these visitors are not considered "interfering outsiders?"

The next two months will be critical. Learn more about what is happening in Uganda and its implications the the world. Figure out how you can influence the outcome. If you have any specific ideas or actions, put them in a comment.  "If you want peace, work for justice."