Uganda

LookingFor · 08-12-2009 5:22pm #1

This issue has been sort of running for a while now but I haven't seen it raised here, so I thought I'd link to this to raise some awareness :

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/08/uganda.anti.gay.bill/index.html

As a gay man in Uganda, Frank Mugisha is used to the taunts, the slurs and the daily harassment of neighbors and friends.

But if a new bill proposed in the east African country becomes law, Mugisha could be put away for life, or worse, put to death for having sex with another man.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill features several provisions that human rights groups say would spur a witch hunt of homosexuals in the country:

• Gays and lesbians convicted of having gay sex would be sentenced, at minimum, to life in prison

• People who test positive for HIV may be executed

• Homosexuals who have sex with a minor, or engage in homosexual sex more than once, may also receive the death penalty

• The bill forbids the "promotion of homosexuality," which in effect bans organizations working in HIV and AIDS prevention

• Anyone who knows of homosexual activity taking place but does not report it would risk up to three years in prison

Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda under colonial-era laws. But the bill, introduced in October, is intended to put more teeth into prosecuting violators.

It applies even to Ugandans participating in same-sex acts in countries where such behavior is legal.

"They are supposed to be brought back to Uganda and convicted here. The government is putting homosexuality on the level of treason," Mugisha said.

It has the blessing of many religious leaders -- Muslim and Christian -- in a country where a July poll found 95 percent opposed to legalizing homosexuality.

The Rev. Esau Omara, a senior church leader, said over the weekend that any lawmaker opposing the bill will pay for it during the next election, according to local newspaper reports.

And a leading Muslim cleric, Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, has called for gays to be rounded up and banished to an island until they die.

In April, the Observer newspaper published tips to help readers spot homosexuals. And over the summer, the Red Pepper tabloid outed 45 gays and lesbians.

Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni has not publicly stated his position on the bill, but last month blamed foreign influence in promoting and funding homosexuality.

In the United States, a coalition of Christian leaders released a statement Monday denouncing the bill.

"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 statement read.

Human rights groups have called on Western nations to withhold aid from Uganda if the measure passes. About 40 percent of the country's budget comes from international aid.

"This draft bill is clearly an attempt to divide and weaken civil society by striking at one of its most marginalized groups," said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "The government may be starting here, but who will be next?"

So...if this passes, how will Ireland respond? I note according to the Dept. of Foreign Affairs that we sent €44m in foreign aid to Uganda last year. It'd be also interesting to know the treatment of asylum cases here from countries like this wrt persecution on grounds of sexuality.

Anyway...yeah. It's really horrible to know that this kind of stuff still goes on.

Rev Hellfire · 08-12-2009 6:04pm

LookingFor wrote: »

So...if this passes, how will Ireland respond?

I'm sure a sternly worded letter will be in post.

LookingFor wrote: »

I note according to the Dept. of Foreign Affairs that we sent €44m in foreign aid to Uganda last year. It'd be also interesting to know the treatment of asylum cases here from countries like this wrt persecution on grounds of sexuality.

Blocking aid to an impoverished people is hardly the way to win their support. Or do we only help those who have reach our level of enlightenment ?
The Bush administration was rightly condemned when it sought to impose preconditions upon their aid packages; the Irish blocking aid would be no different.

LookingFor wrote: »

Anyway...yeah. It's really horrible to know that this kind of stuff still goes on.

Its hardly surprising now is it ?

xxlilyxx · 08-12-2009 6:15pm

God when ya read that its horrible, i couldn imagine livin like that, im proud to be gay and im out to everyone, imagine wat it must be like to be too scared to be yourself incase you get killed. I know we're all hopin that we can equalize marraige here and get the equalities we deserve which is only right, but on hearin things like this goin on in other parts of the world, aint ya glad your irish and can at least LIVE your life without gettin the death penalty coz if we had a law like that id be six feet under.

LookingFor · 08-12-2009 6:32pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm sure a sternly worded letter will be in post.

:rolleyes:

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Blocking aid to an impoverished people is hardly the way to win their support.

I'd first say that my OP doesn't sway one way or the other on what should be done. I'm just pointing out the relationship we have with the country. My post didn't outline what I thought should be done, but was inviting a debate on it.

Here I will outline what I think about that, though: aid given to on-the-ground charities shouldn't be blocked. However money given directly to the Ugandan government? I think that might be another matter, and why I'd be interested to see how the aid we give is distributed. I wouldn't have any qualms about blocking financial support to a government that implements policies like this, if indeed we are sending aid to that government directly. What if that money is used to hire police that enforce these laws for example? Supporting a government that does this is no better than sending financial aid to Hitler's Nazi party. If we can leverage our financial support of these governments to make a point on what's acceptable we should.

I'll admit, though, that I simply don't know how this aid is divvied up. But stuff like this invites the question.

yupyup7up · 08-12-2009 6:35pm

nothing to do with our country.

big AIDS problem in Uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda

woudlnt really blame them...(bit harsh alright though!)

Rev Hellfire · 08-12-2009 6:51pm

LookingFor wrote: »

Here I will outline what I think about that, though: aid given to on-the-ground charities shouldn't be blocked. However money given directly to the Ugandan government? I think that might be another matter, and why I'd be interested to see how the aid we give is distributed. I wouldn't have any qualms about blocking financial support to a government that implements policies like this, if indeed we are sending aid to that government directly. What if that money is used to hire police that enforce these laws for example? Supporting a government that does this is no better than sending financial aid to Hitler's Nazi party. If we can leverage our financial support of these governments to make a point on what's acceptable we should.

Its not quite as clear cut though in this case. If it was say a government imposing its will against the wishes of the population should could indeed separate the two.

But that's not the case here. Clearly if we take your quoted article as accurate then this proposed piece of legislation has the support of the Ugandan people. On this issue the government and the people are one, and by 'punishing' one you appear to punish the other.

Withholding aid simply makes aid appear as an instrument of western control, rather than a genuine attempt at assistance.

LookingFor · 08-12-2009 7:11pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not quite as clear cut though in this case. If it was say a government imposing its will against the wishes of the population should could indeed separate the two.

That's sort of dangerous, don't you think? A people can be easily manipulated into support of all kinds of bull**** that ought not to be acceptable to anyone.

If you did a poll in Nazi Germany circa 1940 regarding treatment of Jews, I wonder what the results would have shown...

yupyup7up wrote: »

nothing to do with our country.

Human rights is a global concern. Countries often pressure each other on it.

Would you take the same attitude when they go to other countries with cap-in-hand looking for money? You can't have your cake and eat it.

When people are abused to the extent suggested in this bill by their own country and government, they often can only turn abroad for support, and I wouldn't feel comfortable shrugging my shoulders and saying it's not our problem.

yupyup7up wrote: »

big AIDS problem in Uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda

woudlnt really blame them...(bit harsh alright though!)

You'll probably need to explain this a bit more.

Rev Hellfire · 08-12-2009 7:23pm

LookingFor wrote: »

That's sort of dangerous, don't you think? A people can be easily manipulated into support of all kinds of bull**** that ought not to be acceptable to anyone.

I'm not to sure how its dangerous, it simply just is. tbh I don't think this is an agenda driven by individual or individuals in government. Rather its a symptom of beliefs of Ugandan people.
So the question is, is it productive to punish the Ugandan people. When really such beliefs would appear to be common across under-developed countries. Rights will come along with education and prosperity, anything which obstructs that runs contrary to your agenda.

LookingFor wrote: »

If you did a poll in Nazi Germany circa 1940 regarding treatment of Jews, I wonder what the results would have shown...

Who knows, if and buts get you nowhere.

LookingFor wrote: »

Human rights is a global concern. Countries often pressure each other on it.

True, but its understandable that people are more concerned with the more immediate issues which directly effect them, rather than some unknowns in Africa. Its nice to sit back say the right things, but the majority of people here will forget it about soon enough. Talks cheap.

LookingFor · 08-12-2009 7:30pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not to sure how its dangerous, it simply just is. tbh I don't think this is an agenda driven by individual or individuals in government. Rather its a symptom of beliefs of Ugandan people.

It's been drafted by the government. It's a government's responsibility to protect people even in the face of the mob. The government should be educating its people, not pandering to a witch hunt against a minority who're believed to be at the root of all ills (hmmm...that sounds familiar).

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Who knows, if and buts get you nowhere.

That's a bit of a cop-out.

Popular support isn't the litmus test for what's acceptable or not to the outside world - you and I both know that.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

True, but its understandable that people are more concerned with the more immediate issues which directly effect them, rather than some unknowns in Africa.

I'll pull this line next time someone drops a Trocaire box around.

You know, it's always puzzled me looking back through history at certain events how the world could 'let' certain things happen. But I guess I have my answer here.

I can understand a feeling of helplessness, but you seem to be actively promoting a 'why care' stance (?)

Iwasfrozen · 08-12-2009 8:49pm

LookingFor wrote: »

It's been drafted by the government. It's a government's responsibility to protect people even in the face of the mob. The government should be educating its people, not pandering to a witch hunt against a minority who're believed to be at the root of all ills (hmmm...that sounds familiar).

So what if it has been drafted by the Government ? It has the support of the people who are afraid of the spread of Aids.
Obviously educating people on the use of contraceptives would be a better idea but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

LookingFor wrote:

Popular support isn't the litmus test for what's acceptable or not to the outside world - you and I both know that.

Do you think any government should ignore the calls of their populace ? They wouldn't be a very good government if they did that.
Having said that I doubt their a good government anyway...

LookingFor wrote:

I'll pull this line next time someone drops a Trocaire box around.

You know, it's always puzzled me looking back through history at certain events how the world could 'let' certain things happen. But I guess I have my answer here.

I can understand a feeling of helplessness, but you seem to be actively promoting a 'why care' stance (?)

With drawing aid from a country that you disagree with is just sick.

Sure you may not agree with this new bill but the only people who will suffer from aid withdrawal will be young children and woman.
Alms are for survival, politics has no place dictating survival.

LookingFor · 08-12-2009 9:03pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So what if it has been drafted by the Government ? It has the support of the people who are afraid of the spread of Aids.
Obviously educating people on the use of contraceptives would be a better idea but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

The alternatives are quite here or there for the folks being persecuted.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think any government should ignore the calls of their populace ? They wouldn't be a very good government if they did that.

Eh, yes, absolutely in certain circumstances. Abolishment of slavery was not very popular in the southern American states for example, yet the government was insistent on pushing this through. Heck, they had a war over it.

Are you saying the government is RIGHT to do this on the basis of popular opinion? That popular opinion and support is the make-or-break in whether it's correct to do these things, and whether other countries should take an interest?

Sometimes the government DOES have to stand up to its people to do the right thing, often in particular when it comes to protection of minorities. This is another perfect example, another perfect opportunity to do the right thing in face of the mob. But you have weak leadership, a weak government presumably intent on holding on to power.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

With drawing aid from a country that you disagree with is just sick.

Sure you may not agree with this new bill but the only people who will suffer from aid withdrawal will be young children and woman.
Alms are for survival, politics has no place dictating survival.

My comment re. Trocaire was flipping the tables on the attitude that we shouldn't care what goes on in Uganda. I am not advocating withdrawing support for such charities operating in Uganda for example at all. I was being sarcastic, casting the same attitude in another light to see how well it holds up (which it doesn't as you've amply demonstrated).

My comment re. foreign aid was a different one. I think it does behoove us to ask what the money's being used for and to consider that when it comes to regimes like this. I should hope we're not just giving money carte blanche, any more than I would when it comes to other governments with dubious human rights records (such as that in NK for example or others who're not exactly doing the best for their people). And here this isn't just a matter of 'politics'. It is also a matter of people's survival. People's survival under many circumstances are often wrapped up in politics anyway.

Iwasfrozen · 08-12-2009 9:23pm

LookingFor wrote: »

The alternatives are quite here or there for the folks being persecuted.

That comment was neither here nor there either.
Obviously this law is wrong, nobody can argue with that.

LookingFor wrote:

Eh, yes, absolutely in certain circumstances. Abolishment of slavery was not very popular in the southern American states for example, yet the government was insistent on pushing this through. Heck, they had a war over it.

The American Civil war was fought over more then slavery, yes the Union outlawed black slavery but they also crushed the southern American peoples choice of government.

LookingFor wrote:

Are you saying the government is RIGHT to do this on the basis of popular opinion? That popular opinion and support is the make-or-break in whether it's correct to do these things?

Did I type that ? That's funny I must be getting Dementia.
No the government does not have a right to do this based on popular opinion but they should be obliged to take directions from the populace.
i.e outlaw homosexual acts but make the punishments much more lenient.

The role of democracy is to ensure that the majority rules, if we were to make one group excempt from this then theoretically shouldn't all groups be excempt from the will of the public and as such Democracy ?
What is democracy when one can decide when to use it, and more importantly who decides when the use of Democracy is right ?

LookingFor wrote:

Sometimes the government DOES have to stand up to its people to do the right thing, often in particular when it comes to protection of minorities. This is another perfect example, another perfect opportunity to do the right thing in face of the mob. But you have weak leadership, a weak government presumably intent on holding on to power.

Governments should never go against the will of their public, they may bend the will or even fill the edges of the hyperbole that the public has a habit of producing.
But at the same time the onus is on them as a domocratic country to allow the people to shape their own country. Withdrawing the peoples right to shape their own country would make them nothing better then a dictatorship.

LookingFor wrote:

My comment re. foreign aid was a different one. I think it does behoove us to ask what the money's being used for and to consider that when it comes to regimes like this. I should hope we're not just giving money carte blanche, any more than I would when it comes to other governments (such as that in NK for example or others who're not exactly doing the best for their people). And here this isn't just a matter of 'politics'. It is also a matter of people's survival. People's survival under many circumstances are often wrapped up in politics anyway.

The simple fact is there countries are already balancing on the verge of collapse, Three quarters of the population of Rwanda for example live below the international poverty line of US$1.25 a day.
Any nedge no matter how small could push them over the edge into another civil war. Never-mind what withdrawing aid would do to Irelands reputation.
I know your heart is in the right place but simple fact is that you are over-reacting to a problem that is really none of our business.

LookingFor · 08-12-2009 9:33pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Did I type that ? That's funny I must be getting Dementia.
No the government does not have a right to do this based on popular opinion but they should be obliged to take directions from the populace.
i.e outlaw homosexual acts but make the punishments much more lenient.

That's not what we're talking about though. The above listed parts of the bill are another kettle of fish entirely.

And the Government is not obliged to take direction from the populace where such direction conflicts with a core set of principles or constitution, if present (which your suggested more lenient legislation would likely flounder on anyway in most countries with stronger principles of equality and freedom).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The role of democracy is to ensure that the majority rules, if we were to make one group excempt from this then theoretically shouldn't all groups be excempt from the will of the public and as such Democracy ?
What is democracy when one can decide when to use it, and more importantly who decides when the use of Democracy is right ?

The government has to express the will of the people but within the confines of a constitution or set of principles, so it's not just pure mob rule. You have a set of constraints there set up by a small number of people, the idea being that the majority thereafter won't go completely bat-**** insane with their power.

Pure majority rule would have never got us anywhere on a number of massive issues over history - mostly social issues relating to minorities.

I've no idea what constitution if any Uganda has, or what it's provisions are. However I do know what's right and wrong, and this just seems very very wrong to me. No amount of reassurance about its public support in Uganda will change that for me.

The same logic applied in a number of other scenarios leads to farcical and pretty abhorrent viewpoints, tbh.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The simple fact is there countries are already balancing on the verge of collapse, Three quarters of the population of Rwanda for example live below the international poverty line of US$1.25 a day.
Any nedge no matter how small could push them over the edge into another civil war. Never-mind what withdrawing aid would do to Irelands reputation.
I know your heart is in the right place but simple fact is that you are over-reacting to a problem that is really none of our business.

Well Ireland would not be alone in considering the financial aid provided to the country, AFAIK. A number of others have mooted that they'd have to consider their situation. Economic sanctions against already crippled and poverty stricken countries have happened in the past over matters the international community find unacceptable.

Regarding it not being any of our business, that's a lousy attitude. If you can overlook this then it seems to me you can overlook anything that happens outside our own borders.

I don't think I'm over reacting to this either. I posted it to raise awareness of it and asked what if anything could be done to put pressure on the Ugandan government over it. If something like this were happening in my country I'd like to think it would generate heat and pressure from abroad. I've been met with a chorus to the effect that we really shouldn't give a **** though, so I guess we can just go back to talking about saunas and sex clubs instead.

Tricity Bendix · 08-12-2009 11:42pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know your heart is in the right place but simple fact is that you are over-reacting to a problem that is really none of our business.

Oh now thats just silly. Just because it isn't happening in this country doesn't mean we shouldn't care. Empathy and compassion do not stop at the border.

L1011 · 08-12-2009 11:47pm

yupyup7up wrote: »

nothing to do with our country.

big AIDS problem in Uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda

woudlnt really blame them...(bit harsh alright though!)

AIDS in Africa is almost exclusively transferred by heterosexual sex or at birth.

L1011 · 08-12-2009 11:50pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So what if it has been drafted by the Government ? It has the support of the people who are afraid of the spread of Aids.
Obviously educating people on the use of contraceptives would be a better idea but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

As above, HIV/AIDS transmission in Africa is almost exclusively by heterosexual sex or at birth.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think any government should ignore the calls of their populace ? They wouldn't be a very good government if they did that.
Having said that I doubt their a good government anyway...

When the populace are morons, yes.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

With drawing aid from a country that you disagree with is just sick.

Executing homosexuals is just sick.

Boston · 09-12-2009 2:31am

Giving money to governments which abuse human rights merely allows those governments to remain in power.

MYOB wrote: »

AIDS in Africa is almost exclusively transferred by heterosexual sex or at birth.

I'm amazed it took still your post for someone to point that out.

Lame Lantern · 09-12-2009 3:19am

Boston wrote: »

Giving money to governments which abuse human rights merely allows those governments to remain in power.

That's it exactly.

The statistic being thrown around is that up to half of Uganda's operating budget comes from direct bilateral aid. Other nations cannot conscionably support a regime that is institutionalising such egregious breaching of human rights.

There is a bottom threshold of moral consensus in the mature world. Ordinary people will suffer but governments cannot facilitate the imposition of what we consider to be fundamental evil for the sake of (perhaps) a greater good.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 10-12-2009 4:15am

Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni is a fundamentalist christian and in Uganda the president is the most powerful office, which is unfortunate because prime minister Apolo Nsibambi is a top guy.

He's been in power since 1986 but only democratically since 1996 and the last two elections were dodgy as hell.

He has done some good things in the past, HIV transmission has gone down very significantly there(think from 12% to 4%) since Uganda introduced the most progressive prevention program on the continent - "ABC: Abstinence, Be faithful or use a Condom"

It seems he could be another Mugabe in the making though, Ireland actually threatened reduction in aid a few years back when he announced he'd be standing for a third term which was against the constitution. However it never came through when their parlaiment amended the constitution to allow him to run. Bad times for Uganda.

L1011 · 10-12-2009 7:42pm

The threats have worked. Ish:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajROCFqLP2Lo

LookingFor · 14-12-2009 1:58pm

MYOB wrote: »

The threats have worked. Ish:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajROCFqLP2Lo

According to this article, reports about the laws being 'toned down' are inaccurate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/13/death-penalty-uganda-homosexuals

He denied reports that international pressure might result in parts of the bill being toned down. "We are not going to yield to any international pressure – we cannot allow people to play with the future of our children and put aid into the game. We are not in the trade of values. We need mutual respect."

Meanwhile, various other Ugandan groups WANT diplomatic ties between Uganda and other donor countries to be cut:

In Entebbe last week, 200 religious leaders, under the powerful umbrella group Inter-Religious Council of Uganda, demanded diplomatic ties be severed with "ungodly" donor countries, including the UK, Sweden and Canada, who are "bent on forcing homosexuality on Ugandans".

Apparently homosexuality is all 'learned' due to foreign influence :rolleyes:

Annasopra · 14-12-2009 5:50pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know your heart is in the right place but simple fact is that you are over-reacting to a problem that is really none of our business.

I'm sorry what - overreacting - to a proposed law where " anyone repeatedly "caught" having sex with someone of the same sex faces the death penalty, while people who touch each other in a "gay way" could be jailed." and where "A clause in the bill also punishes anyone who fails to report an offence within 24 hours of witnessing or finding out about it."

Perhaps you think this is an overreaction but I think that pointing that extreme human rights abuses could potentially happen is in no way an overreaction - in fact if anything the LGBT communities in Ireland have underreacted

Could you explain this a bit more? Did Irish people overreact to Apartheid in South Africa

Iwasfrozen · 14-12-2009 6:34pm

MYOB wrote: »

As above, HIV/AIDS transmission in Africa is almost exclusively by heterosexual sex or at birth.

Do you have a source on this ?
As far as I'm aware it is more or less impossible to chart the spread of Aids in Africa, but then if you have some magical imformation I'd love to see it.
I'm sure the Ugandan government would like to have a peek too.

MYOB wrote: »

When the populace are morons, yes.

Again could you give me a source on the Ugandan people having a below average IQ ?
I hope I'm taking that the wrong way and that it isn't a racist remark.

MYOB wrote: »

Executing homosexuals is just sick.

Agreed.

Johnnymcg wrote:

Perhaps you think this is an overreaction but I think that pointing that extreme human rights abuses could potentially happen is in no way an overreaction - in fact if anything the LGBT communities in Ireland have underreacted

Well then if you think the LGBT community in Ireland have under reacted then what do you propose they do, eh ?
In the end of the day Uganda is a free country and we must allow free people to do as they wish with their own country, there are UN measures in place to sanction Uganda if the UN thinks that there is a serious human rights issue.

Boston · 14-12-2009 7:00pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you have a source on this ?
As far as I'm aware it is more or less impossible to chart the spread of Aids in Africa, but then if you have some magical imformation I'd love to see it.
I'm sure the Ugandan government would like to have a peek too.

For someone so wrong, you're incredible smug about it. The magical information comes from the World health organisation. A 3 second google search turned up this very well references site. Which indicates the fact that a whooping 59% of those infected with HIV in Uganda are women. So maybe you can explain to me how killing gay men and Lesbian Women will affect that? Of course if they started killing the hetro women we might see some progress :rolleyes:. The site even goes onto explain that the reason for this is due to the cultural set up in Uganda meaning that men often have several sexual partners prior to marriage. That the women are primarly young and married when they contract HIV from their husbands.

I'm just about sick of your arrogance.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again could you give me a source on the Ugandan people having a below average IQ ?
I hope I'm taking that the wrong way and that it isn't a racist remark.

Perhaps you're the racist for linking nationality with race. How very typically Irish of you.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well then if you think the LGBT community in Ireland have under reacted then what do you propose they do, eh ?
In the end of the day Uganda is a free country and we must allow free people to do as they wish with their own country, there are UN measures in place to sanction Uganda if the UN thinks that there is a serious human rights issue.

Well then, once the UN is on the case, I'll rest easy. How about this, they can hang, shoot and burn whomever they want and we'll only start to care once they invade Poland, does that sound like a plan?

Iwasfrozen · 14-12-2009 7:14pm

Boston wrote: »

For someone so wrong, you're incredible smug about it. The magical information comes from the World health organisation. A 3 second google search turned up this very well references site. Which indicates the fact that a whooping 59% of those infected with HIV in Uganda are women. So maybe you can explain to me how killing gay men and Lesbian Women will affect that? Of course if they started killing the hetro women we might see some progress :rolleyes:. The site even goes onto explain that the reason for this is due to the cultural set up in Uganda meaning that men often have several sexual partners prior to marriage. That the women are primarly young and married when they contract HIV from their husbands.

So if 59% of those infected are women then 41% must be men ? Yes ?
It is impossible to tell how many of them are gay but if we say 10% of them are then we have 5.9% of the population as Lesbian carriers and 4.9% of the population as Gay carriers. A very high number.
Now also if we take into account that Uganda is a very religious country then we can assume those in Hetrosexual marraige are not having sex with others. No gay marraige exists in Uganda so gay partners are not obliged to stay faithful.
Therefore we can now assume that homosexual people have more partners in Uganda then Hetrosexual people.
Therefore they are probably more responsible for the pandemic then their numbers would suggest.

Now bare in mind that I do not support this bill but again I think you're over re-acting.

Boston wrote: »

Perhaps you're the racist for linking nationality with race. How very typically Irish of you.

I'm not linking nationality with race, I'm linking race with race.
Different ball game bud.

Boston wrote: »

Well then, once the UN is on the case, I'll rest easy. How about this, they can hang, shoot and burn whomever they want and we'll only start to care once they invade Poland, does that sound like a plan?

I would say that Uganda didn't invade Poland during WWII and that the UN didn't exist untill after WWII but you'll probably come back with a web article that says it did.

Anyway as I said above when the UN decides Uganda is in violation of Human rights then I will join you on the band wagon but untill then I'm sorry to tell you that you're over reacting again, partner.

L1011 · 14-12-2009 7:40pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So if 59% of those infected are women then 41% must be men ? Yes ?
It is impossible to tell how many of them are gay but if we say 10% of them are then we have 5.9% of the population as Lesbian carriers and 4.9% of the population as Gay carriers. A very high number.

Firstly, there's not a hope in hell that 10% of the population of Uganda are homosexual. Its about 3% here according to recent ESRI surveys, and this is a country where people don't get killed for it.

I'd go for, ooh, 1% maybe. And anyway, if 1% of the infected population and 1% of the uninfected population are homosexual it means the proportions are identical.

Also, its nearly impossible for HIV to transmit by lesbian sex! 1 in 100,000+ transmission rate for unprotected sex with an infected partner. And we're also ignoring the fact that in countries where proper surveys have been done, theres generally less lesbians than gay men...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now also if we take into account that Uganda is a very religious country then we can assume those in Hetrosexual marraige are not having sex with others. No gay marraige exists in Uganda so gay partners are not obliged to stay faithful.
Therefore we can now assume that homosexual people have more partners in Uganda then Hetrosexual people.
Therefore they are probably more responsible for the pandemic then their numbers would suggest.

The amount of insanely stupid things you've said in that block of text... *facepalm*

1: A huge amount of HIV transmission in Africa is *by birth*.
2: Marriage doesn't make people faithful
3: Not being able to marry doesn't make homosexuals unfaithful
4: Not one thing you've said even suggests that they're "more responsible" - mainly because all you've done is pulled numbers out of thin air, wibbled and ranted. As per usual.

Boston · 14-12-2009 7:47pm

It's perfectly possible to tell how many of them are gay. ~0 You seriously need to look up the definition of homosexuality. Heres a clue, it won't mention intercourse with the opposite sex. The 1 in ten figure includes Bisexuals and Homosexuals, you can't apply it in the way you just tried to. It's not even a figure which is consistent between genders. You're basing your argument on numbers you know nothing about you don't even know where they come from.

Even if I accept your bull**** figures, 5% of the HIV population being homosexual isn't a high number. It's a number lower then we have.

Uganda is a "religious" country, however its culture is one where polygamy for men is common and a males status in a community is determined by the number of women he has had intercourse with. I love how you think "religion" is a shield against the spread of HIV in Africa.

MYOB said that the people of Uganda are moronic. You called that a racist comment clearly linking race with nationality.

As for your parting comment. Rwanda. That's all I need to say.

L1011 · 14-12-2009 7:51pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you have a source on this ?
As far as I'm aware it is more or less impossible to chart the spread of Aids in Africa, but then if you have some magical imformation I'd love to see it.
I'm sure the Ugandan government would like to have a peek too.

I see you've spelled "medical" as "magical". About 40% of transmisison in sub-saharan Africa is by birth source, for instance. Theres huge amounts of research done in to the spread, so you were "aware" wrong.

I also expect the Ugandan Govt. is unlikely to listen to any medical advice on HIV transmission, as the primary medical and scientific line of "barrier contraception" doesn't go down well there.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again could you give me a source on the Ugandan people having a below average IQ ?
I hope I'm taking that the wrong way and that it isn't a racist remark.

I was taking the view that anyone who supports killing homosexuals is a moron; but as you've prompted me to do some research - the average IQ in Uganda is 73 according to the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", as well as other studies. This is at a level which would be seen as suffering borderline retardation in Europe.

So yes, you took it the wrong way - deliberately, as per usual. And your snide attempt to get one over has backfired, oops.

Iwasfrozen · 14-12-2009 11:11pm

MYOB wrote: »

I see you've spelled "medical" as "magical". About 40% of transmisison in sub-saharan Africa is by birth source, for instance. Theres huge amounts of research done in to the spread, so you were "aware" wrong.

Of course the majority of transmisison is from birth, there will always be more Hetrosexuals then Homosexuals.
Also less of the personal attacks, it doesn't make you cleaver.

MYOB wrote: »

I also expect the Ugandan Govt. is unlikely to listen to any medical advice on HIV transmission, as the primary medical and scientific line of "barrier contraception" doesn't go down well there.

What makes you think the Ugandan government is not going to take medical advice ? Any government worth it's salt is going to want what's best for their people.
Also like it or not the Catholic churches official stance on the prevention of the spread of HIV, that is abstinence is the best of all. After all condoms can break but if you don't have sex then it won't spread.
Maybe if the Ugandan people toke that advice then they could stop the spread of HIV completely and there would be no need for stupid laws like this.

MYOB wrote: »

I was taking the view that anyone who supports killing homosexuals is a moron; but as you've prompted me to do some research - the average IQ in Uganda is 73 according to the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", as well as other studies. This is at a level which would be seen as suffering borderline retardation in Europe.

So your saying Ugandan people are borderline retarded ?

MYOB wrote: »

So yes, you took it the wrong way - deliberately, as per usual. And your snide attempt to get one over has backfired, oops.

Again, I'm going to have to call you to order on the personal attacks, attack the post not the poster.

L1011 · 14-12-2009 11:25pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course the majority of transmisison is from birth, there will always be more Hetrosexuals then Homosexuals.
Also less of the personal attacks, it doesn't make you cleaver.

You refused to believe this without sources before. Indeed you went and claimed sources couldn't exist. And a cleaver is a tool for cutting meat.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What makes you think the Ugandan government is not going to take medical advice ? Any government worth it's salt is going to want what's best for their people.

The Ugandan government has proven itself to not be "worth its salt".

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also like it or not the Catholic churches official stance on the prevention of the spread of HIV, that is abstinence is the best of all. After all condoms can break but if you don't have sex then it won't spread.
Maybe if the Ugandan people toke that advice then they could stop the spread of HIV completely and there would be no need for stupid laws like this.

There are no need for laws like this under any circumstances.

How on earth can you claim abstinence is going to prevent the spread of HIV "completely" when birth, uncleaned medical equipment, drugs equipment and indeed every other transmission vector other than sex is still left there?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So your saying Ugandan people are borderline retarded ?

No, you're just utterly, utterly desperate to call me a racist.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again, I'm going to have to call you to order on the personal attacks, attack the post not the poster.

When the poster shows no signs of abating in their incessant posting of crap and veiled homophobia, you lose patience.

Iwasfrozen · 14-12-2009 11:41pm

MYOB wrote: »

You refused to believe this without sources before. Indeed you went and claimed sources couldn't exist. And a cleaver is a tool for cutting meat.

Would anybody believe anything exists without a source to the information ? They would need to be very gullible.
Also I suppose that's the problem with spell checker.

MYOB wrote: »

The Ugandan government has proven itself to not be "worth its salt".

Not worth it's salt on this issue, I think you mean.

MYOB wrote: »

There are no need for laws like this under any circumstances.

Agreed.

MYOB wrote: »

How on earth can you claim abstinence is going to prevent the spread of HIV "completely" when birth, uncleaned medical equipment, drugs equipment and indeed every other transmission vector other than sex is still left there?

That's funny I don't remember saying abstinence would cut the spread of HIV compleately, but it would certainly go a long way. I didn't think I needed to explain this in my last post. But other measures will have to be taken aswell. This law is one of them.

I don't agree with the punishments but you can't argue that cutting out Homosexual sex will help curb the spread of HIV.

MYOB wrote: »

No, you're just utterly, utterly desperate to call me a racist.

No I'm not, I just want to know why you think the Ugandan people are borderline retarded.

MYOB wrote: »

When the poster shows no signs of abating in their incessant posting of crap and veiled homophobia, you lose patience.

I am not Homophobic and I've had to defend myself three times from you in this topic alone. If you do not stop I will have to report you to a mod.
The policy of Boards.ie is to attack the post not the poster so try and keep a civil tounge in your mouth.

Aard · 14-12-2009 11:53pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

you can't argue that cutting out Homosexual sex will help curb the spread of HIV.

Finally, something we can agree on!

L1011 · 15-12-2009 12:00am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Would anybody believe anything exists without a source to the information ? They would need to be very gullible.
Also I suppose that's the problem with spell checker.

Because you then went and stated the information you'd refued to believe exist as a fact!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's funny I don't remember saying abstinence would cut the spread of HIV compleately, but it would certainly go a long way. I didn't think I needed to explain this in my last post. But other measures will have to be taken aswell. This law is one of them.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Maybe if the Ugandan people toke that advice then they could stop the spread of HIV completely and there would be no need for stupid laws like this.

Your memory is clearly worse than mine.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't agree with the punishments but you can't argue that cutting out Homosexual sex will help curb the spread of HIV.

Firstly, the law isn't going to "cut out" homosexual sex. Secondly, any impact it will have will be so negligible that it will be unnoticeable with the general annual increase in transmission.

Thirdly, while I understood what you meant there, you've actually worded that backwards to what you mean...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No I'm not, I just want to know why you think the Ugandan people are borderline retarded.

I've have never said such a thing.

I've provided evidence that their average IQ is 73 after you asking for this for no reason; and said that this falls in to the range classed as borderline retarded in Europe (which is 70 to 80).

You, however, desperately desperately want me to have said such a thing so you can call me racist. But I haven't.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I am not Homophobic and I've had to defend myself three times from you in this topic alone. If you do not stop I will have to report you to a mod.
The policy of Boards.ie is to attack the post not the poster so try and keep a civil tounge in your mouth.

You are homophobic. Your posting history on this forum shows this blatantly clearly.

Like many, you may not realise it yourself, but its clear to others.

Boston · 15-12-2009 2:10am

I don't agree with the punishments but you can't argue that cutting out Homosexual sex will help curb the spread of HIV.

Do you know anything about the Spread of HIV in developing countries. Homosexuals are not a significant vector in these countries relative to the Heterosexual population. If tomorrow no homosexuals in Uganda were HIV positive, there would still be a huge problem with HIV in the country.

I left wondering if you support laws which would see adultery and rape punishable by death.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-12-2009 9:36am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't agree with the punishments but you can't argue that cutting out Homosexual sex will help curb the spread of HIV.

I assume you meant to say "won't help curb the spread of HIV"

You may be right. I'm sure men having sex with men are an extremely high risk group in a black african counrty. However, they would make up a small minority of the cases - as the level of HIV infection in the population is already high women are most at risk in number terms. Particularly when its acceptable for a man to have many female sexual partners. There's far more women in the population than men having sex with men. Therefore it's off topic to bring up homosexual spread of hiv in this thread, and almost as if you're making an issue out of it for the sake of it, which is perhaps why you're being accused of homophobia.

Rev Hellfire · 15-12-2009 10:05am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also like it or not the Catholic churches official stance on the prevention of the spread of HIV, that is abstinence is the best of all. After all condoms can break but if you don't have sex then it won't spread.
Maybe if the Ugandan people toke that advice then they could stop the spread of HIV completely and there would be no need for stupid laws like this.

While there's no denying that total abstinence by both parties would dramatically reduce the spread of hiv, you also have to be pragmatic about things. Cultural norms are not changed overnight.
Condoms are not a solution to the HIV problems of African, but they can at least help protect women in situations where they are available to them and they are in a position to insist on their use.

Annasopra · 15-12-2009 3:51pm

Sigh

IWF just about everything (apart from a few minor exceptions) you have posted here is utter nonsense -

Iwasfrozen wrote:

So what if it has been drafted by the Government ? It has the support of the people who are afraid of the spread of Aids. Obviously educating people on the use of contraceptives would be a better idea but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

Well just because the Government is proposing it - does not mean that the population has been demanding it or that it is a solution to stopping AIDS

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Do you think any government should ignore the calls of their populace ? They wouldn't be a very good government if they did that.Having said that I doubt their a good government anyway...

Where defending a protecting a minority is necessary yes - e.g. Abolishing race segregation laws in the USA. Governments are not elected to always carry out the will of the majority no matter what - sometimes they have a mandate to protect minorities against human rights violations. The populace is not always right and governments need to decide what is in the best interests of the country not what the populace wants. e.g. The general populace did not want cutbacks in the budget last week - the government ignored it's populace because it believed this was in the countries best interest. Good governance is not populism. Populism is not good governance.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

With drawing aid from a country that you disagree with is just sick. Sure you may not agree with this new bill but the only people who will suffer from aid withdrawal will be young children and woman. Alms are for survival, politics has no place dictating survival.

Executing gay people for just having sex is sick - If politics has no place dictating survival then this bill should not be bought in - gay people should not be executed just because they had sex.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Obviously this law is wrong, nobody can argue with that.

Agreed

Iwasfrozen wrote:

the government does not have a right to do this based on popular opinion but they should be obliged to take directions from the populace. i.e outlaw homosexual acts but make the punishments much more lenient.

I'm intrigued by this! because it seems to be contradictory. If the populace is demanding the death penalty - why do you now think the populace should be ignored?

Furthermore could you please provide some evidence that the populace of Uganda been calliing for Homosexual Acts to be outlawed and that populace is calling for the punishments to be lenient?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

The role of democracy is to ensure that the majority rules, if we were to make one group excempt from this then theoretically shouldn't all groups be excempt from the will of the public and as such Democracy ? What is democracy when one can decide when to use it, and more importantly who decides when the use of Democracy is right ?

Governments should never go against the will of their public, they may bend the will or even fill the edges of the hyperbole that the public has a habit of producing. But at the same time the onus is on them as a domocratic country to allow the people to shape their own country. Withdrawing the peoples right to shape their own country would make them nothing better then a dictatorship.

- Sometimes - Populist democracy collides with human rights and in my view and the view of many others governments should not take always take the populist line that is the lynch mob! If Governments always implemented majority will then many more human rights abuses would still be occuring - The UK would still have the Death Penalty, The USA may never have abolished racial segregation etc - so sometimes decisions may not be entirely democratic but they uphold human rights - There have been anad always will be colliding views between proponents of human rights and proponents of populist democracy - this is a healthy thing - my own view is that the people are not always right and that governments do have a mandate to protect minorities or other groups against human rights abuses - for example (I am making this one up - I do not know how popular or unpopular FGM is) Just because the majority of Nigerian people might believe that FGM is an acceptable practice - it is in fact in my view barabric and wrong and the Nigerian government should take more action against those who carry it out.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

The simple fact is there countries are already balancing on the verge of collapse, Three quarters of the population of Rwanda for example live below the international poverty line of US$1.25 a day.Any nedge no matter how small could push them over the edge into another civil war. Never-mind what withdrawing aid would do to Irelands reputation. I know your heart is in the right place but simple fact is that you are over-reacting to a problem that is really none of our business.

Firstly - who exactly determines that this is none of our business? Is it you? Well I'm sorry but thats's your view - noone else really agrees with you

Secondly - When standing upto human rights violations in other countries it is completely acceptable for people and organisations to challenge governments in various ways

if you think the LGBT community in Ireland have under reacted then what do you propose they do, eh ? In the end of the day Uganda is a free country and we must allow free people to do as they wish with their own country, there are UN measures in place to sanction Uganda if the UN thinks that there is a serious human rights issue.

Protests at the Ugandan embassy
Pressing the Dept of Foreign Affairs to raise this matter
Asking the African Union to intervene
Working with organisations such as ILGA and ILGA Europe and ILGHRC and IDAHO

If we all took that attitude that no countries governance or human rights record can ever be questioned then many international solidarity events may never have happened - e.g the Dunnes Stores workers strike to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Martin Luther King might never have taken action because he was waiting on the UN

If we all seceeded any form of responsibility and waited for the UN to take action then many organisations such as amnesty international may never have been founded. The UN is not the only body or organisation in the world that has an authority to commentor act in solidarity on human rights violations.

So if 59% of those infected are women then 41% must be men ? Yes ? It is impossible to tell how many of them are gay but if we say 10% of them are then we have 5.9% of the population as Lesbian carriers and 4.9% of the population as Gay carriers. A very high number. Now also if we take into account that Uganda is a very religious country then we can assume those in Hetrosexual marraige are not having sex with others. No gay marraige exists in Uganda so gay partners are not obliged to stay faithful.
Therefore we can now assume that homosexual people have more partners in Uganda then Hetrosexual people. Therefore they are probably more responsible for the pandemic then their numbers would suggest.

I think MYOB and Boston have responded fairly enough on this

bare in mind that I do not support this bill but again I think you're over re-acting.

Obviously this law is wrong, nobody can argue with that.

I'm not entirely sure that you do disagree with this law or do not support it - I mean you have been going on and on about how

the government does not have a right to do this based on popular opinion but they should be obliged to take directions from the populace.
i.e outlaw homosexual acts but make the punishments much more lenient.

The role of democracy is to ensure that the majority rules,

Governments should never go against the will of their public, they may bend the will or even fill the edges of the hyperbole that the public has a habit of producing.
But at the same time the onus is on them as a domocratic country to allow the people to shape their own country. Withdrawing the peoples right to shape their own country would make them nothing better then a dictatorship.

It seems to me that you don't support this law but you support the Ugandan government in proposing it because you see this as a form of democracy. This to me is actually giving tacit support to it - It's kind of like saying - "I don't support the law but because the majority of Ugandans demanded it - I support the decision of the government to bring it in"

MYOB wrote:

There are no need for laws like this under any circumstances.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agreed.

Ok - so essentially you are now backing down on your whole thesis about democracy and that we are all over-reacting

Iwasfrozen · 15-12-2009 6:08pm

Boston wrote: »

I left wondering if you support laws which would see adultery and rape punishable by death.

Not adultery, but repeated violent rape, yes.

Iwasfrozen · 15-12-2009 6:30pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Sigh

Sigh.

Johnnymcg wrote:

IWF just about everything (apart from a few minor exceptions) you have posted here is utter nonsense -

Nonsense is objectional.

Johnnymcg wrote:

Well just because the Government is proposing it - does not mean that the population has been demanding it or that it is a solution to stopping AIDS

Again it cannot be argued that cutting out Homosexual sex would curb HIV infection rates.

Johnymcg wrote:

Where defending a protecting a minority is necessary yes - e.g. Abolishing race segregation laws in the USA. Governments are not elected to always carry out the will of the majority no matter what - sometimes they have a mandate to protect minorities against human rights violations.

Your arguement begins to fall apart when ever you compared Homosexuals to black people, note that this law is not outlawing Homosexuals but only Homosexual sex. Thus one can be Homosexual and still be within the law.
Black people did not have the option of being "practicing" black.

Johnymcg wrote:

Executing gay people for just having sex is sick - If politics has no place dictating survival then this bill should not be bought in - gay people should not be executed just because they had sex.

The law is the law, like it or not.

Johnymcg wrote:

I'm intrigued by this! because it seems to be contradictory. If the populace is demanding the death penalty - why do you now think the populace should be ignored?

Ignoring the populace is one thing, interpretation their view is another.
There are obvious clear cut differences.

Johnymcg wrote:

Furthermore could you please provide some evidence that the populace of Uganda been calliing for Homosexual Acts to be outlawed and that populace is calling for the punishments to be lenient?

Take a look back over the thread, you will come across this quote:

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its not quite as clear cut though in this case. If it was say a government imposing its will against the wishes of the population should could indeed separate the two.

The discussion has branched out from that quote, we are discussing this as if the people are in support.

Johnymcg wrote:

- Sometimes - Populist democracy collides with human rights and in my view and the view of many others governments should not take always take the populist line that is the lynch mob! If Governments always implemented majority will then many more human rights abuses would still be occuring - The UK would still have the Death Penalty, The USA may never have abolished racial segregation etc - so sometimes decisions may not be entirely democratic but they uphold human rights - There have been anad always will be colliding views between proponents of human rights and proponents of populist democracy - this is a healthy thing - my own view is that the people are not always right and that governments do have a mandate to protect minorities or other groups against human rights abuses - for example (I am making this one up - I do not know how popular or unpopular FGM is) Just because the majority of Nigerian people might believe that FGM is an acceptable practice - it is in fact in my view barabric and wrong and the Nigerian government should take more action against those who carry it out.

Again, if you will read over my post you will see that I never supported the Ugandan government breaking human rights, but then it's alot easier to hop on the band wagon.

Johnymcg wrote:

Firstly - who exactly determines that this is none of our business? Is it you? Well I'm sorry but thats's your view - noone else really agrees with you

The Ugandan governmen and the UN decides whos business it is.

BTW why did you ask me a question then answer it ?

Johnymcg wrote:

Secondly - When standing upto human rights violations in other countries it is completely acceptable for people and organisations to challenge governments in various ways

Only when the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken.

shay_562 · 15-12-2009 6:49pm

IWasFrozen wrote:

Only when the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken.

So, just so we're clear on your view on this, the effective genocide in Darfur, or (as Boston already mentioned, and you ignored because it proved you wrong) during the Rwandan genocide, when the UN failed to intervene or declare that genocide was taking place for political reasons, no one's human rights were being breached? Was the massacre of Tutsis OK because the Hutu majority supported it? That's logically consistent with everything you've said - UN didn't intervene, the government acted in accord with the people's wishes and yeah, people died, but you could draw a really tenacious argument to suggest there may be some benefit to their deaths (political stability through cultural homogeneity), so it was just fine. Right? Or if not, why is that case different?

Incidentally, the view that if the UN doesn't intervene something isn't a human rights abuse is horribly, horribly flawed. By that logic, nothing China ever does is in violation of human rights, because they sit on the Security Council and thus will never sanction action against themselves. Ditto the USA and Russia. Do you truly, honestly think that human rights as a concept only exist when enforced by the UN? That outside of that, no one has, say, a right to life or bodily integrity?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nonsense is objectional.

Hear ****ing hear.

L1011 · 15-12-2009 7:09pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again it cannot be argued that cutting out Homosexual sex would curb HIV infection rates.

Glad to see you agree. You still haven't realised your phrasing this backwards, have you?

Your arguement begins to fall apart when ever you compared Homosexuals to black people, note that this law is not outlawing Homosexuals but only Homosexual sex. Thus one can be Homosexual and still be within the law.
Black people did not have the option of being "practicing" black.

The childish fallacy used to veil homophobia reappears...

Tricity Bendix · 15-12-2009 7:59pm

Even for a young fella, your geo-political views are incredibly naive. The UN is hardly an infallible, benign, omnipotent arbiter of world events.

On the substantive issue of whether or not aid should be withdrawn, I think that if we waited for developing nations to stop all human rights abuses and corruption before giving them aid the vast majority of the third world would be in the same state now as they were in at the end of world war two. As galling as it sounds, the institutions of these countries have to be supported, as it is through institutions that real development occurs. This doesn't mean that diplomatic pressure shouldn't be put on Uganda. No country lives in a vacuum and ties with the international community are very important to developing nations who are dependent on our know-how and expertise.

As for homosexual contact being a choice, that belief, like abstinence in general, is based on a warped view of human nature and is useless as the basis of development policy. It's about as workable as communism.

Annasopra · 15-12-2009 8:42pm

Johnnymcg wrote:

When standing upto human rights violations in other countries it is completely acceptable for people and organisations to challenge governments in various ways

I was frozen wrote:

Only when the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken.

So let me get this straight - you are basically saying that no human rights organisation, no NGO, no indivividual, no group, no sports team, no trade union, no journalist, no media organisation can or should ever be able to challenge the government of another country until the UN has decided that that country has broken human rights! -

I mean seriously if we take this argument to it's full conclusion then this discussion should not be allowed to take place until the "the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken", no protest could take place outside the Ugandan Embassy in any country until "the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken", no country could use it's dept of foreign affairs to ask the Ugandan Government to reconsider it's position until "the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken" - No challenging newspaper articles should be printed until the "the UN has decided that the Ugandan peoples Human rights are being broken"

I think that the descriptions of shay_562 - "horribly, horribly flawed" and Tricity Bendix as "incredibly naive" are very understated

LookingFor · 16-12-2009 1:53pm

I am not going to stress myself by engaging further with IWF except to say: shame on you. Absolute shame on you.

Really beginning to think this dude is a troll.

Annasopra · 16-12-2009 2:55pm

LookingFor wrote: »

Really beginning to think this dude is a troll.

Nah just an 18 year old who is badly educated and obsessed with homosexuals

Aard · 16-12-2009 3:45pm

One will notice that since 5:30pm yesterday, he has failed to respond to 4 posts directed at him, yet has posted at least once in the subsequent 5 hours. I think he's realised that his logic is flawed.

Iwasfrozen · 16-12-2009 5:57pm

Aard wrote: »

One will notice that since 5:30pm yesterday, he has failed to respond to 4 posts directed at him, yet has posted at least once in the subsequent 5 hours. I think he's realised that his logic is flawed.

Nope, I'm just tired of being called a naive homophobe.
As I've already said this law is wrong, that is all that really needs to be said.

Boston · 16-12-2009 8:46pm

No you think we're the naive ones.

Comments after comment supporting this law and its premise only to be follow up with "I don't support this law or its premise". Bring back Jakkass, at least he was consistent.

Aard · 16-12-2009 8:55pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope, I'm just tired of being called a naive homophobe.

OK, I promise I won't ever call you a naive homophobe if you address the Rwanda thing.

Annasopra · 16-12-2009 10:16pm

Lots of complaints to the BBC regarding this. They started an online discussion "should homosexuals be executed" and after many complaints changed it to "should Uganda debate gay execution"

http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss264/GayNewsGuy/Screenshot_BBC.jpg
http://www.sohopolitico.com/2009/12/complain-to-bbc-over-its-grotesque.html

Annasopra · 16-12-2009 10:19pm

As an aside the laws in Rwanda are also apparently about to change

http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/takeaction/resourcecenter/1048.html