Prediction: Here’s why Museveni will sign anti-gay bill
by Colin Stewart
The
Rev. Canon Kapya Kaoma, an Episcopal priest and a project director at
Political Research Associates, wrote this commentary about the influence
of Russian homophobia on Africa and what to expect with regard to the
Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. A native of Zambia, Kaoma wrote the reports Colonizing African Values and Globalizing the Culture Wars.
Uganda President Museveni Will Likely Sign Anti-Homosexuality Law
While
international media praises Ugandan President Museveni for “blocking”
the Anti-Homosexuality bill—in reality he’s politically weak, trying to
appease both sides, and will likely sign the bill.
My
tweet was a response to news stories claiming that Uganda President
Yoweri Museveni had blocked the “anti-gay bill,” which was passed in
Parliament on December 20, 2013 despite objections by Prime Minister
Amama Mbabazi over the lack of a quorum. Previously known as “Kill the
Gays” bill, the version passed in December had eliminated the death
penalty but maintained a punishment of life imprisonment for
“aggravated” homosexuality—namely, having sex with a person who is under
18 years old or disabled, or instances in which the “offender” is HIV positive .
The
penalty also holds for “serial offenders”— people who have been
previously convicted for the crime of homosexuality. As noted by the
Uganda Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, the bill targets
the promotion of homosexual acts “ in public institutions
and other places through or with the support of any government entity
in Uganda or any other non-governmental organization inside or outside
the country.”
As international leaders called on Museveni to veto the legislation, Yasiin Mugerwa of Uganda’s Daily Monitor reported
on January 17 that Museveni had blocked the bill. Mugerwa cited a
letter written by Museveni to Speaker Rebecca Kadaga and other MPs from
December 28: “How can you pass law without the quorum of Parliament
after it has been pointed out? What sort of Parliament is this? How can
Parliament be the one to break the Constitution and the Law repeatedly?”
(see the full letter below)
International media outlets immediately echoed the Monitor
article, asserting that President Museveni had blocked or even vetoed
the bill—which was far from the truth—even after Pepe Julian Onziema,
Director of Programs at leading Ugandan LGBTQ advocacy organization Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) tweeted that the Monitor article was misleading.
Museveni
didn’t even officially receive the anti-gay bill until January 23,
2014, and has 30 days from then to respond. Museveni did not say
that he won’t sign the bill into law. Rather, he promised to take the
issue to his party’s caucus, which met on January 24, 2014. At the
meeting, the caucus wanted Museveni to sign the bill. But, according to the Daily Monitor, Museveni pushed back by demanding “scientific evidence” to establish whether or not gays are abnormal.
While some might consider this a promising development, there is still much reason for worry. I have met many scientists across the world who are homophobic and who would be likely to side with anti-gay activists if consulted (or paid). Moreover, the quorum issue has been overblown: Anti-LGBT MPs have many votes in Parliament, and the bill would still pass if re-introduced. In this regard, the quorum question is a dead end.
While some might consider this a promising development, there is still much reason for worry. I have met many scientists across the world who are homophobic and who would be likely to side with anti-gay activists if consulted (or paid). Moreover, the quorum issue has been overblown: Anti-LGBT MPs have many votes in Parliament, and the bill would still pass if re-introduced. In this regard, the quorum question is a dead end.
Like
others concerned about human rights for all people, I read Museveni’s
letter with interest. But after reading it, I realized that Museveni is
hedging, clearly playing to both sides. As such, people can interpret
the letter according to their own views—as we are now clearly seeing.
For
example, Museveni’s letter advocated the criminalization of advocacy
(including organizations and individuals supportive of LGBT persons)
even as it sought to connect Uganda’s contemporary politics around LGBT rights
to traditional African culture. Museveni’s letter characterized gays as
abnormal and lesbians as sexually starved individuals (a statement that
could all too easy be manipulated to promote corrective rape), yet he
also pushed back against certain Christian conservative arguments, which
claim the Bible condemns same-sex relationships (i.e. “Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve”). Museveni called such arguments a “fallacy.”
Moreover, he cited African names for gays, transgender, and intersex
persons as proof of the existence of sexual minorities in Uganda long
before colonialism.
Ultimately,
Museveni’s letter sought to portray the President as defending the
traditional values of Uganda. In making this argument, he accepted the
existence of gays on African soil … with some major qualifications—they
are abnormal persons who should be treated accordingly.
At
least superficially, Museveni may appear more supportive of LGBT
persons. Yet his true position has changed little. He made a similar
argument during the installation of the new Archbishop of Anglican
Church of Uganda, Most. Rev.
, in Kampala, on December 17, 2012. Before Europeans reached Uganda, Museveni told the audience ,
“I knew of two kings and one chief who practiced homosexuality. They
were not persecuted, discriminated or killed. The chief actually did
very good work but homosexuality was not promoted. People would whisper
and ignore, the issue now is promotion as if it’s good, that we can’t
accept.” Museveni echoed this claim
in his letter but added that Uganda should stop those who “lure” young
people into homosexual acts: “We should legislate harshly against these
people with money, from within and without, who take advantage of the
desperation of our youth to lure them into these abnormal and deviant
behaviors.” Museveni went so far as to support a life sentence for those
who “[lure] normal youth” into homosexual acts—on this point, he wrote,
“I would agree with the Bill passed by Parliament.”
Even
as I recognize certain positive elements of Museveni’s letter, it is
critical to address his ongoing support for other aspects of the
anti-gay bill. Additionally, Museveni will certainly pander to religious
leaders, who are demanding that some form of the law be passed. Since
Museveni approves of a “life sentence” for those who “lure” young people
into homosexuality, the new bill, which will come from Parliament, will
likely crack down on advocacy efforts. The bill Museveni will end up
signing will also most likely outlaw same-sex marriages and adoption by
gay and lesbian couples. This modified legislation will be celebrated by
religious leaders in Uganda and put the country in line with Russia and
Nigeria, where similar laws have been passed with the pretense of
protecting the young people from “the promotion of homosexuality.”
These
transnational linkages exist—and the international community must wake
up and recognize the influence of Putin and Russia on efforts to
criminalize advocacy in African nations. Putin’s recent anti-LGBT
actions have provided African nations with momentum and increased
credibility as anti-gay laws move from the margins of global politics
into the mainstream. As Jeff Sharlet rightly noted , “Russian anti-gay laws give license to smaller nations to follow suit. It isn’t fringe anymore”
U.S. conservatives, who have exported (see here and here ) regressive, deeply homophobic ideologies across the globe, will celebrate the criminalization of advocacy as a victory. Scott Lively , Sharon Slater , Lou Engle ,
and many other U.S. conservatives have been pressing for similar bills
not only in the U.S., but also in Russia, Nigeria, Uganda, and other
countries.
They
have been asking nations to criminalize the promotion of homosexuality
and the “recruitment” of young people into homosexuality.
And
religious leaders are likely to line up in support for the outlawing of
advocacy—a measure they can market as relatively moderate and tame as
compared to the earlier iteration of the “Kill the Gays” bill. Such has
already been the case in Nigeria, where Cardinal John Onaiyekan, a
number of Roman Catholic bishops, and many evangelical leaders have
celebrated the passage of the Nigeria anti-gay bill. Yet we cannot
accept such attempts to re-brand. Silencing advocacy is inciting
genocide of our fellow human beings. Museveni’s letter is not a cause
for celebration.
For more information, see President Museveni Letter on Anti-Homosexuality Bill – December 2013.
This commentary also was published by Political Research Associates of Somerville, Mass., United States.
Related articles
- Report: Uganda president blocks anti-gay bill (76crimes.com)
- Uganda leader: If folks are born gay, I'll nix anti-gay bill (76crimes.com)
- Uganda president: I might not sign anti-gay bill (76crimes.com)
- Reports: Ugandan anti-gay bill not blocked, or was it? (76crimes.com)
- Even if Uganda's anti-gay bill dies, more worries ahead (76crimes.com)
- Signs of trouble for Uganda's anti-gay bill (76crimes.com)
- Uganda's Museveni Wants Scientific Proof Gays Are Born Not Created (lezgetreal.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment