I have no issue with allowing Jan Moir to have said the disgusting, hateful, homophobic things which she did about Stephen Gately after his death. Nor do I have an issue with the Daily HateMail having the right to publish them. Freedom of speech after all means you must champion speech you dislike, as well as speech you like, but it does have other provisos too, which I believe the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) wilfully ignored. Its argument was as follows:
In a ruling, the commission said it was “uncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist’s remarks” but that censuring Moir, and the paper, would represent “a slide towards censorship”. It added: “Argument and debate are working parts of an active society and should not be constrained unnecessarily.”
The PCC’s director, Stephen Abell said the article contained flaws, but the commission had decided: “It would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist’s right to offer freely expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention.”
It’s a ridiculous argument. The PCC was set up because there is no such thing as absolutely free speech, yet now they conveniently champion absolute free speech, when their code was flagrantly breached? They have it entirely the wrong way around – censoring her would be the problem, not censuring her. For speech which is constrained there have to be consequences, which the PCC was set up to enforce. Yet PCC director Abell persists with a thoroughly absurd argument – the article doesn’t just contain flaws, but untruths, and in the name of denigrating Gately for his sexual orientation. I don’t think for a moment that an article can only be homophobic if it uses outright homophobic language; the subtext of her hate-filled rant couldn’t have been more homophobic. The PCC disagrees there too:
Gately’s civil partner, Andrew Cowles, said he was disgusted by the article and claimed the Daily Mail had broken the PCC’s code of conduct on three grounds, arguing that it was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and contained homophobic remarks.
The code says that the press must avoid making pejorative references to a person’s sexual orientation, but the commission said that Moir did not use any abusive or discriminatory language.
“While many complainants considered that there was an underlying tone of negativity towards Mr Gately and the complainant on account of the fact that they were gay, it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language in the article,” it said.
The PCC added that a distinction should be drawn “between critical innuendo which, though perhaps distasteful, was permissible in a free society – and discriminatory description of individuals, and the code was designed to constrain the latter rather than the former”.
So a homophobic subtext is now ‘critical innuendo’? Whilst it’s entirely possible that 25,000 could be wrong, that is the biggest disgrace of all. Whilst making Moir and the HateMail pay a price wouldn’t be unnecessary constrain argument or debate – her column contained neither, just underhanded homophobic slurs, and the PCC has impressively absolved itself of its own remit. If the quick way around it is merely not to use proscribed words in combination (ie. ‘fag’, ‘poof’, ‘homo’, ‘queer’) then the Commission and its code might as well not even exist.
When Christians, Jews and others feel that the ideology of human rights is threatening their freedoms of association and religious practice, a tension is set in motion that is not healthy for society, freedom or Britain. Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.
It’s the same logic which Lillian Ladele and others have tried to justify, but he masks it in the language of human rights. But look how he misuses it:
We all have an interest in freedom, the freedom to act differently from others. Indeed, at the core of human rights is a religious proposition: that we are all, regardless of colour, creed or culture, in the image of God.
No. At the core of human rights is a proposition that we’re all equally deserving of fundamental dignity and rights. It’s a secular argument, which presumes that we’re all entitled to the same treatment before civil law, which in turn should protect those things equally for everyone, and under all circumstances. So when he suggests that human rights threaten freedom of religion he’s operating under an entirely false premise. Human rights don’t threaten the right to religious association, but they do presume that no organisation or association has the right to discriminate against people for being gay. And religion is far from fundamentally predicated on the right to discriminate, which Ratzinger clearly believes to be the case. The government ultimately remains short sighted in having allowed this clash to happen, and to continue. Having equality legislation which equates inherent characteristics such as age or gender with the imagined quality of belief makes a mockery of equality. Human rights are not about justifying discrimination or legitimising bigotry.
Posters have also been placed around Belfast encouraging people to download the song [Mrs Robinson by Simon & Garfunkel] and it is currently at number 45 in Amazon’s download charts. The Official UK Charts Company told AFP yesterday that download sales of the song in Northern Ireland last week were up 1,200 per cent on the week before.
The song was made famous in the 1960s film The Graduate, in which a much older woman seduces a young man. Robinson, 59 at the time of the affair, reportedly took 19-year-old Kirk McCambley into her marital bed while her husband Peter, Northern Ireland’s first minister, was away.
It contains the lines: “It’s a little secret, just the Robinsons’ affair. Most of all, you’ve got to hide it from the kids” and “God bless you please, Mrs Robinson. Heaven holds a place for those who pray”.
Robinson, an evangelical Christian, said God had forgiven her for the affair. She said in 2008 that gays were an “abomination”.
Brilliant. Now if there’s going to be a rigging of the charts, this makes far more sense than a crazy, staged battle by the record label between Rage Against the Machine and X-Factor winner Joe McElderry. Do it! Buy your copy now! Celebrate Iris’ love of hot twinks!
In an attempt to limit the damage caused by the Iris Robinson scandal,the Democratic Unionist Party moved today to expel her from the party.
Robinson will also leave her Westminster and assembly seats early this week as the DUP punishes her for the furore over her toyboy lover and the £50,000 loan she secured for him.
Her husband, Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland’s first minister, also came under further pressure tonight in his fight to maintain his position and remain leader of the DUP.
The East Belfast MP has one week to turn his fortunes around as he faces allegations that he failed to report the loan given to his wife, which is a breach of the ministerial code.
The Free Presbyterian church founded by his predecessor, the Rev Ian Paisley, and which is inextricably linked to the DUP, dealt a blow to Peter Robinson today when a senior minister and close confidant of Paisley, the Rev David McIlveen, called on the first minister to step down. “I do believe that his position is becoming increasingly untenable,” McIlveen said. “He has a major problem with regard to solving his own family difficulties and I personally cannot take the view that a person’s private life does not affect their public life.”
Allegedly raising £50,000 for your teenage lover whom you’re committing adultery (and betraying your friend) with, and allegedly choosing to retain £5,000 as a kick-back were never really signs of mental illness were they? They were signs of greed, arrogance and double standards. So next time a Christian fundamentalist politician starts pontificating on the evils of homosexuality you know they’re either a) gay or b) up to no good somewhere. It’s certainly clear who the most moral turned out to be after all. The real danger of course is that her disgusting, hypocritical behaviour actually has an impact on the Northern Irish peace process.
As Mrs Robinson’s lover was named as Kirk McCambley, a 21-year-old cafe owner, it emerged she was facing allegations over a business venture she supported on his behalf.
The 60-year-old mother-of-three, an MP since 2001, admitted on Wednesday that she had a brief relationship 18 months ago with someone she had been supporting after a family death, and that her guilt led her to try to kill herself last March.
He was named by the BBC as Mr McCambley, a Catholic man, who was 19 at the time of the affair.
He confirmed to the Spotlight Programme that he had an affair with the married woman.
It is understood that the lover set up his business in a building constructed by Castlereagh Borough Council, supported by the EU Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme and administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
It has emerged that 24 hours before the surprise announcement, a BBC documentary team had confronted her husband, Peter Robinson, at Stormont with questions about the couple’s financial affairs.
Asked if he was confident that neither he nor his wife had done anything illegal, Mr Robinson said: “I am absolutely certain that everything I have done has been done as it should.”
According to a BBC Spotlight programme broadcast last night, Mrs Robinson, 60, also demanded a £5,000 kickback from Mr McCambley for helping arrange the transaction.
Today, her husband Peter Robinson, who is Northern Ireland’s first minister, denied he had done anything wrong.
It was claimed he knew about the solicitation and had demanded the return of the money, but had not alerted parliamentary authorities.
So Iris, who famously said gay people were an ‘abomination’ and likened us to paedophiles and murderers isn’t just an adulteress but she’s facing an allegation of corruption too. Talk about pigeons coming home to roost! The allegations against her include:
• that she gained £50,000 for her 19-year-old lover Kirk McCambley from two property developers.
• that she took £5,000 of the money for herself.
• that when Peter Robinson found out about the loan and his wife’s affair he insisted she pay the money back but that he did not inform the authorities about his wife’s conduct.
• that when her relationship with the young man broke down she demanded the loan back and wanted £25,0000 paid into the account of her church, the Light and Life Free Methodist Church in East Belfast.
• that the payments which were used to fund McCambley’s refurbishment of a riverside cafe outside Belfast came from two major property developers, Ken Campbell and Fred Fraser.
• that Iris Robinson lobbied on behalf of Ken Campbell for a building scheme he was involved with in her Strangford constituency.
It doesn’t look good for Iris and her ‘mental illness’.
It’s now pretty easy to see Iris’ attack on gay people as the cynical embarrassment most rational people took it as. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a clash of gay rights and religious rights – it was a vile attempt to legitimise the basest of bigotries – her thoroughly immoral behaviour has proven that – and she should be as condemned now as she was then. Yesterday Iris said God had forgiven her. But what do you think? Vote here.
Dij’s mother Christine Davies was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia. Christine, who was 47, was being treated at the Western General in Edinburgh and was doing well until she developed an infection that meant she needed a transfusion.
“They asked my uncles, my brother, all of her work colleagues if they would be willing to see if they would be a match and I said ‘can I be tested?’ It might have been that I was the wrong type of blood group, but my brother and uncle were approached. They knew my sexual orientation. I was in a monogamous, stable relationship so it wasn’t as if I was at high risk of HIV.”
Then on August 14 last year, Christine developed an infection on her brain. She died 10 days later. “My eyes have been opened to this since my mum died,” says Dij. “Maybe gay men do have a right to give blood if they want to. Certainly for me, who was in a monogamous relationship, I think it would have been acceptable in these circumstances.”
The Scottish Blood Transfusion Service says it has a duty to ensure a sufficient supply of the safest possible blood for patients and that it believes there is no scope for a relaxation of the rules without a reduction in blood safety.
A spokeswoman told The Herald: “To minimise the risk of a blood transfusion transmitting an infection to patients, all donations are tested for viruses such as HIV. However, the tests are not completely infallible, particularly in the early stages of infection.
“To reduce this risk, the current policy is to ask those groups who have an increased risk of blood-borne viruses not to donate blood on a temporary or permanent basis. Currently, men who have sex with men are asked not to give blood permanently, with the exclusion resting on specific sexual behaviours, rather than sexuality.”
Campaigners have argued that if it is certain behaviours that are risky, then it is those behaviours that should be excluded rather than all gay men.
Bentley is right when he says the ban misses the point entirely about the management of risk. This homophobic obsession with gay=AIDS=death masks the reality that other dangerous infections will be coming through from straight men and women, without any orientation-based bans there. The ban should be lifted, as it has been in Sweden.
Mrs Robinson was not to be seen at her luxury home today, but in her penitential statement she spoke about how severe bouts of depression had altered her mood and personality.
She said: “I fought with those I loved most, my children and friends; saw plots where none existed and conducted myself in a manner which was self-destructive and out of character.
“During this period of mental illness I lost control of my life and did the worst thing that I have ever done. Over a year and a half ago, I was involved in a relationship.
“It began completely innocently when I gave support to someone following a family death. I encouraged friends to assist him by providing financial support for a business venture.
“Regrettably, the relationship later developed into a brief affair. It had no emotional or lasting meaning, but my actions have devastated my life, and the lives of those around me.”
Mrs Robinson, 60 and an MP since 2001, added: “Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions. Psychiatrists may suggest that my mental illness was a significant factor explaining my irrational behaviour.
“I do not in any way question or doubt their judgement. But in order to master my life, I do not want to dilute the blame or resist taking full responsibility for my actions. I am completely ashamed and deeply embarrassed.”
She said she had hurt her husband, family and friends, let down thousands of people who had placed their faith in her and – though her medical condition was a factor – she had not been true to the values she professed.
It’s a common factor with these religious zealots, who use their devoutness to attack people they don’t like, never to be able to live up to the moral standards they accuse others of breaking. Iris Robinson comes from a proud tradition of born again hypocrites who ask for forgiveness when they sin, yet have no issue with condemning gay people for indulging in the love their religion preaches. And personally I’m sick of them, I’m sick of her and the apology she isn’t making is deafening by its absence; the ‘word of God’ only suits her some of the time it seems. And it really does seem to matter to her:
“I am aware that I did not only hurt Peter, I hurt my family and friends. I let down thousands of people who placed their faith in me and though my medical condition was a factor, I was not, at this time, true to the values, I professed. I grieve that I have damaged my profession in Christ, but I am comforted that He was able to forgive even me.
“I would pay any price on earth to take back the wrong I have done and the hurt I have caused to those around me. I love my husband more than I can ever say. I know this more now than ever before.
“So great was my guilt and regret that I tried to take my own life ten months ago. I have received the best of care and support both from family members and from health professionals. While, as might be expected, I am struggling at present with my illness and receiving treatment I am determined to regain my health and strength, and work to repair the damage I have caused to my marriage and family.
“I do not deserve a second chance but I have been given one. Nothing is more important to me.
“I sincerely apologise to all those I have hurt and let down. I have inflicted deep pain on my husband Peter, my family, friends, staff and all those who have supported me. I am so, so, sorry.”
Nice for her to have been so easily forgiven, and so quickly. And yet she can’t extend this new-found self awareness to the reality that as head of the Stormont health committee she was responsible for causing immense hurt to gay people across the province when she said homosexuality was an ‘abomination’. So some hurts she’s caused remain more important than others (when they actually affect her). Very sad on a human level if she really did try to kill herself, but her behaviour as an MP is no less abominable for it.
“Over the years, I have undergone a long series of operations and, though I have never talked about it publicly, I have also battled against serious bouts of depression.
“Only those who have faced similar challenges in life will know the ordeal faced by those who are profoundly depressed, and the distress caused to those around them as they grapple with personality-changing illness. One in four of the population struggle with mental illnesses at one level or another, yet few talk about it openly.
“The stress and strain of public life comes at a cost and my health has suffered. Regrettably, I have concluded, after considering the matter over Christmas and discussing it with Peter, who has always been most supportive and caring, that I can no longer maintain the high standard of service I require of myself, meet the demands of office and cope with the pressures of public life, without my health deteriorating further.”
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Last year Iris compared gay people to murderers and child abusers, and we’re now supposed to be sympathetic towards her because of ‘depression’? I’m sorry, I have no sympathy at all with unashamed homophobes, particularly when they’re elected representatives who make abusive expenses claims against the taxpayer:
Records showed the Robinsons received more than £500,000 a year in salaries and expenses, while a further £150,000 in wages was paid to four relatives – including their daughter Rebekah and son Gareth – for constituency and other work.
The Ugandan minister for ethics and integrity has suggested that the country will ditch its plans to execute gays in favour of life imprisonment.
James Nsaba Buturo said this would allow authorities to rehabilitate gays.
According to Reuters, he said: “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.”
He denied the country had bowed down to international pressure. World powers such as the US, UK, France and Sweden had all heavily condemned the proposed law and Sweden had mooted the idea that aid could be cut to Uganda.
Instead, Buturo said: “It’s really out of our consultation with various groups, including religious leaders. It has nothing to do with external forces.”
Sure it isn’t. I would hope however that the Western governments which have threatened withdrawal of aid because of this disgraceful attack on human rights will stand for life imprisonment equally as little. Deutsche Welle points out:
The bill, which is yet to be debated in Uganda’s parliament, would have gay men and lesbians sentenced to life in prison for having sex. In cases of sex with minors or sexual acts leading to HIV infection, the penalty would be death. The bill also proposes that anyone who fails to report a homosexual act committed by others would face up to three years in jail.
Insane. State dehumanisation of minorities is what led to the Holocaust. Uganda is clearly indifferent to that; I hope the EU governments are not.
An Islington registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships for gay couples has lost her appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled today that Lillian Ladele had not been discriminated against. She had said she could not hold the ceremonies because of her Christian beliefs.
Lord Neuberger expressed some sympathy for her position but said that in a “modern liberal democracy”, only “very limited exceptions” could be made.
The Christian Institute, which is supporting Ladele, has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ruling was welcomed by Stonewall.
Director of public affairs Derek Munn said: “Stonewall are pleased that the Court of Appeal has upheld the right of lesbian and gay people to receive public services from public servants. We are glad that Islington council have seen this through for the sake of their lesbian and gay council tax payers.
“You can’t refuse a service to a person based on their gender, race or disability and you can’t on the basis of their sexual orientation either.”
You may remember civil registrar Ladele was fired by Islington Council for refusing to perform civil partnerships, and then took them to a tribunal, alleging religious discrimination. It’s becoming a reassuringly familiar refrain that appeals tribunals and courts, despite the appalling way in which gay and religious rights have been set against one another by this government, have brooked none of this from her or her ultra religious friends. The Christian Legal Centre however thinks otherwise:
“Civil partnerships were not being discriminated against, they were able to be performed by other registrars. Lilian Ladele has been discriminated against because of her Christian convictions.
“In a tolerant and civil society, we should be able to accommodate different groups.
“There will be serious consequences for religious freedom, conscience, acts and speech if we can’t learn to accommodate different groups.”
Except that wasn’t the issue – it was about Ladele refusing both to abide by her employer’s equal opportunities policy and then refusing different work, when offered, for the same pay. She felt that her religion afforded her what would have been essentially special rights – the right to discriminate in her employment on the grounds of belief. Now noone has suggested that she or any other theist should believe anything other than what they want, but their actions in civil society are governed by civil, not religious law. And despite the flaws in our equality legislation under civil law, she’s not allowed to act in a way that is detrimental to gay people. Accommodating the right to discriminate on the grounds of belief would not be the hallmark of a tolerant and civil society, and it’s something Symon Hill acknowledges:
Christians can welcome the court’s decision. We can emphasise that it is not an affront to Christian values – it is a victory for Christian values. Using traditional Christian terminology, we can point that it is not homosexuality, but homophobia, that is sinful. Those of who have gone along with homophobia in the past can declare our repentance of it.
In Jesus Christ, we have a messiah whose life embodied a message of radical inclusivity, a man who challenged religious hypocrisy and the abuse of power, who socialised with outcasts, broke religious and secular laws and forgave his persecutors as they killed him.
The New Testament’s ethical message is that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). It’s time for pro-equality Christians to make clear that our commitment to equality is not in tension with Christianity, or incidental to it, but flows naturally from it. Occasionally, I hear someone say “Symon’s against homophobia, even though he’s a Christian”. That’s just not true. I’m against homophobia because I’m a Christian.
Hill acknowledges the absurdity of Ladele’s position – her objection isn’t to anything she finds abhorrent to her zealous beliefs, just the gay bits. It’s an intellectually vapid take on religion, and fortunately one which neither the legislature nor the judiciary have any interest in enshrining into law.
You’d think it unlikely that our largest public service broadcaster should become part of the problem in relation to Uganda’s push towards gay genocide, but look at this:
Should homosexuals face execution?
Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.
The bill proposes:
Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act
The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a “serial offender” or the other person is under 18.
Imprisonment for seven years for “attempted homosexuality.”
The bill claims to ‘protect the…traditional family values of the people of Uganda’, but it has prompted widespread international condemnation.
Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.
Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual ‘offences’ be monitored? Send us your views.
Should Jews be gassed? Would that be going too far? Should there be any level of legislation against Judaism? If the BBC actually posed those questions and asked for people’s views they’d be in breach of all sorts of incitement and hate speech legislation, yet in the name of ‘impartiality’ they’re actually not just prepared to debate the merits of executing gay people, but are prepared to defend doing so:
The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.
We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.
If Uganda’s democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.
We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.
I’ve always used the tag line from ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ to deal with so-called journalism like this: just because there are two sides to an argument doesn’t mean they are both equally true or equally valid. There is no valid pro execution argument here, and to entertain the notion under the guise of ‘impartiality’ is quite simply indefensible. The title is far more than just ’stark and disturbing’ – by implying it’s a valid subject for ‘debate’ it’s inciteful to homophobic hatred. Join with me and complain here. This blog’s friends at Soho Politico have posted an excellent article with a form letter for you to copy or draw from here.
UPDATE: The title’s been changed to ‘Should Uganda Debate Gay Execution’ but the page is no less offensive or inflammatory.
When Rowan Williams became Archbishop of Canterbury there was a presumption that because he was a more thoughtful, seemingly more liberal man than his predecessor, the Church of England might begin to liberalise from its more recent mysoginistic and homophobic past. Yet at every turn Williams has sought for expediency’s sake to appease the extremists in his camp, so scared is he of leading the Church towards schism. And yet again, with the election of out lesbian bishop Mary Glasspool by the Episcopal Church in the United States, Williams is at it again:
“The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.
“The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees.
“That decision will have very important implications.
“The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.”
“The trouble with a lot of Government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, it’s an eccentricity, it’s practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities.
“The effect is to de-normalise faith, to intensify the perception that faith is not part of our bloodstream. And, you know, in great swaths of the country that’s how it is.”
And yet faith is a problem, he himself uses it justify bigotry, by implying that the primacy of faith is more important than the rational world of human rights. Faith is not part of our bloodstream, it’s an outmoded habit, but it could quite effectively be brought into the mainstream if the organised religions underpinning it had the guts to stand up against bigotry and for human rights. Although cases do exist where this actually happens (I’m thinking the response by the leaders of all Christian Churches in Liverpool to the murder of Michael Causer and the attack on James Parkes), Anglicanism’s leadership still cravenly panders to the worst bigotry rather than displaying any principles at all. As long as that persists, faith will remain a problem.
The proposed law is more a rant against homosexuality and the west than a workable piece of legislation intended for Uganda itself. Much of it consists of a list of unfounded claims, starting with the statement that “same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic”. Infamously, it calls for the execution of gay men found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” – by which it means those who are HIV positive, or who have sex with someone who is under 18 or disabled. The bill may be amended during its passage through parliament to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, but that change would be only a gesture to spare the blushes of Uganda’s aid donors. If passed – which looks likely, since its sponsor is a member of Uganda’s ruling party – the bill will continue to write hate into law.
To say that acceptance of homosexuality is a ‘liberal’ or ‘Western’ perspective is essentially to collude in the abuse of gay people around the world. Of course being gay is an innate and immutable characteristic, and to propose the death penalty for HIV positive men and jail for everyone else isn’t just immoral it’s backward. Some will say such a statement is racist, but when was it true that all Ugandans, Africans or black people were homophobic? On the contrary, considering the wide-ranging dangers the bill poses, should we not be allying ourselves with Ugandans opposed to this hate law?
David Bahati, Ndorwa County West minister of parliament, tabled the Bill saying Uganda needed comprehensive legislation to prohibit any form of sexual relations between people of the same sex.
The Bill, according to Bahati, seeks to plug gaps in the Ugandan constitution, and stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Other unions will not be recognised. And if same sex couples are married abroad, they face life imprisonment.
Practising homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda and is listed in the penal code, though police say it is hard to investigate this crime because “homosexuals operate under cover”.
But the new Bill now forces people in authority to report offences to the police within 24 hours, or they themselves will face fines or up to three years in prison.
Anyone found guilty of committing homosexuality, or advocating homosexuality to a group or assembly, will face a prison sentence. The penalties are up to 10 years in prison or a fine not exceeding $5,500 or both.
The Bill also seeks extra territorial jurisdiction and will apply to any Ugandan involved in a LGBT relationship outside of the country. The Bill also seeks to extradite any Ugandan guilty of the offences it lists.
Under the terms of Britain’s Extradition Act Uganda is covered as a category 2 territory, which, whilst not allowing the extradition of an HIV positive Ugandan, would certainly allow for the extradition of any other Ugandan covered by the country’s gay hate legislation. Should it pass, the Home Office must make it clear that the Act will not be used to allow the infringement of human rights by the Ugandan government, and separately that gay asylum seekers will under no circumstances be returned to Uganda.
This is a law attacking basic human rights and should it pass it must have consequences. The Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL) acknowledges the scope of this attack:
“In reality this would involve Uganda withdrawing from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its protocols, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.”
The Swedes, who currently hold the rotating EU presidency, and who donate $50 annually to Uganda, have said they’ll rescind their annual contribution should the law pass. Britain should not just call for the country to be immediately suspended from the Commonwealth, but she should follow Sweden’s lead.
Last January Christianist counsellor Gary McFarlane lost his appeal against dismissal for religious discrimination. McFarlane had argued that as a devout Christian he was entitled not to have to work with gay couples on religious grounds, even though his employer Relate was publicly funded. The tribunal found unanimously against him, arguing correctly that he was fired for not abiding by his employer’s equal opportunities policy, yet he’s tried again:
A Christian relationship counsellor who refused to work with gay couples has lost his appeal for unfair dismissal.
Gary McFarlane, from Bristol, was sacked by Relate last year after saying he would not “encourage sin” in gay and lesbian couples.
He said that he had “overcome” his prejudices against same-sex couples since he began working as a Relate counsellor in 2003, but when beginning training to be a psychosexual therapist, he said his Christian beliefs meant he could not help gay and lesbian couples with intimacy issues.
Let that be the end of the line for this nasty bigot, trying to dress his prejudices up as somehow justified under religious equality legislation. Time for Lillian Ladele to exit the same stage shortly too, I think.
Recent Comments