Uganda

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

Annasopra · 21-12-2009 2:53pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Lots of complaints to the BBC regarding this. They started an online discussion "should homosexuals face execution" 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

I liked the rephrasing of that "should heterosexuals face execution?"

http://www.gaelick.com/2009/12/should-heterosexuals-face-execution/6007/

LookingFor · 04-01-2010 4:32pm

An article examining the role of US evangelicals in the emergence of this legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.

One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.

Donor countries, including the United States, are demanding that Uganda’s government drop the proposed law, saying it violates human rights, though Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity (who previously tried to ban miniskirts) recently said, “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.”

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

“I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.

“That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”

Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.

Mr. Kaoma was at the conference and said that the three Americans “underestimated the homophobia in Uganda” and “what it means to Africans when you speak about a certain group trying to destroy their children and their families.”

“When you speak like that,” he said, “Africans will fight to the death.”

Uganda has also become a magnet for American evangelical groups. Some of the best known Christian personalities have recently passed through here, often bringing with them anti-homosexuality messages, including the Rev. Rick Warren, who visited in 2008 and has compared homosexuality to pedophilia. (Mr. Warren recently condemned the anti-homosexuality bill, seeking to correct what he called “lies and errors and false reports” that he played a role in it.)

Ah, 'Christians'. Invent a big dark gay agenda, and by doing so, help create a real big dark agenda where innocent people are demonised and killed. Then when they see what their vitriol has borne, they backpedal so fiercely. I hope they look forward to their judgment day.

Annasopra · 10-05-2011 12:33pm

It looks like this law might be introduced very soon

It would help if people signed both of these petitions ASAP

http://www.allout.org/en/petition/uganda

http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_homophobia_petition/?fpla

Annasopra · 11-05-2011 8:19am

Don't forget to sign the 2 petitions

12-05-2011 11:19pm

I'm not L, G, B, or T myself, but I'd like to follow up on that: according to Avaaz, the bill was shot down but they're trying to get it in again on Friday. They're asking people to call their heads of state and/or foreign affairs ministers to ask them to show their opposition to the bill: http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_call_to_stop_homophobia/?cl=1067276942&v=9091
I don't agree with everything LGBT activists stand for. But everyone deserves the right to life and to live in peace as far as possible.

Chuchoter · 13-05-2011 5:02pm

They extended the spring season JUST to get this thing through:(

Annasopra · 13-05-2011 5:50pm

crayolastereo wrote: »

They extended the spring season JUST to get this thing through:(

got a link for that or where did you hear it - I've been reading differently

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/05/13/32836
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/05/13/breaking-ugandan-parliament-stalled-on-technicality-fate-of-anti-gay-bill-uncertain/
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/05/12/ugandas-anti-homosexuality-bill-is-the-death-penalty-off-the-table-or-not/

Chuchoter · 13-05-2011 5:56pm

http://www.autostraddle.com/uganda-drops-kill-the-gays-bill-something-that-we-did-worked-88383/

UPDATE – FROM ALLOUT.ORG:
Uganda’s parliament just announced that they are extending the Spring session for one extra day—an extraordinary move showing the parliament’s commitment to pushing this death penalty law through by whatever means necessary.
Time is short so we need act fast. Nearly 500,000 people have joined our campaign to stop this bill, and together we’ve created an international outcry noticed by politicians and the media around the world.
UPDATE AGAIN:
Not only is Uganda’s Parliament extending their legislative session just so they can be sure that voting on this bill goes through, but it seems like the death penalty may not actually have been removed.
According to the report, MP David Bahati, author of the legislation that was first introduced in October 2009, reportedly told the committee that the death penalty could be stripped from the bill. The committee, however, decided to keep the death penalty, by rewording the provision to match the current penal code making “aggravated defilement” punishable by death…
The committee’s report does remove some provisions, but adds criminal penalties for “conducting a marriage ceremony between persons of the same sex.” The next step would be for the committee’s report to head to the full Parliament on Friday for debate before being subject to a vote.

Annasopra · 13-05-2011 6:18pm

crayolastereo wrote: »

http://www.autostraddle.com/uganda-drops-kill-the-gays-bill-something-that-we-did-worked-88383/

Yeah I don't think that's accurate - She is also linking in that article to associated press on the issue and the emails (I'm on 2 international LGBT mailing lists) that I've been receiving basically said there were lots on inaccuracies in the associated press article

IGLHRC has just issued a press release saying it won't go through this session

http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/1390.html

Chuchoter · 13-05-2011 6:36pm

AllOut.org were the people organizing the most recent big petition, they were the ones saying it was being extended, not Associated Press