Uganda

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the horrible and draconian new laws that Uganda is debating. The US, British and French governments are among those who have "expressed concern". There have been calls for church leaders to say something, but it's all been a bit quiet on that front. Pity that the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has not said anything since he grew up there. Typically, Rowan Williams has also kept pretty quiet, presumably hoping it would all go away? Marshlander's fevered little imagination ponders what, if Jesus were a real person and alive today, his response might be to the people who claim to represent his interests till he decides to pop back.

Maybe now the [Only registered members can see links. ] has raised the issue others might follow? I shan't hold my breath.

[kitschcamp]

Of course they won't say anything. They never will. The church has got itself in a right pickle of gay rights, and doesn't know what to do, and can't even be consistent within the CofE, let alone the wider Anglican church.

I'm trying my best not to go off on a rant, but when the best advice The Primate of All England could give me a few years ago via the mail was "shop around your local churches to find one that has the same interpretation of the bible as you" then you know you are onto a loser.

"The Prime Minister has raised Uganda's controversial proposed laws on homosexuality with the country's president at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Trinidad. Gordon Brown told Yoweri Museveni that he was opposed to laws that could result in the execution of gays.

The bill, which had its first reading in Parliament last month,would mean death or life imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality. Those found guilty of "promoting" homosexuality would also received harsh punishments.

The death penalty would be used against those found guilty of "aggravated homosexuality"- a sexual act where ... " [Only registered members can see links. ]

[kitschcamp]

At least he's said something. That's more than I really expected.

So, while the UK, the USA and France tell the Ugandans how unsporting they are being by bringing in these law changes Sweden is actually questioning whether its aid donations should be going to the Ugandan government if they go ahead and introduce the new laws.

Part of me wants to congratulate the Swedes for their integrity and another part was very concerned over where this would leave those people for whom the aid was intended ... until I read this response:

In a statement, Dr Nsaba Buturo, the Ugandan minister for ethics and integrity, hit out at Carlsson's comments.

He said: "Ever since the bill on homosexuality was presented in parliament, there have been various reactions as well as over-reactions from countries which are annoyed at our independence to enact our laws.

"Consequently, we hear they are threatening to take action against Uganda. It is revealing that support to Uganda literally translated means that it is on condition that Uganda should do the bidding of givers of such support regardless of what Ugandans themselves think.

"It is also revealing that support which would benefit countless number of orphans, children and mothers can be withdrawn simply because government is protecting its citizens against vices such as homosexuality.

"Government has been clear about this matter that homosexuality or homosexual practices will not be promoted, encouraged and recommended to the people of Uganda."

The Ugandan government seems to want it all ways. To be allowed to carry on discriminating without criticism or comment after accepting donations from beyond its borders is the only thing that seems to be a bit rich in this story. They seem hell-bent on creating more victims among their citizens.

[Only registered members can see links. ]

[fredv3b]

The basic point is that although the withdrawal of aid money is the most practical weapon at the West's disposal, it hurts those we do not want to hurt far more than it does those who we do wish to hurt.

Doing my best to remember some advice given by Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister and applying them to Uganda. In essence there are 5 basic responses:-

1. Do nothing
2. Issue a strongly worded statement
3. Cut off aid
4. Impose trade sanctions
5. Declare war

All of these have problems

1. If we do nothing we implicity support the actions of the Ugandan government.
2. If we issue a strongly worded statement it will be ignored.
3. If we withdraw aid, it will hurt the poor, and the government will gain prestige for standing up to colonial and neo-colonial powers who threaten the poor to get their own way
4. If we impose trade sanctions not only do we hurt the Ugandan poor we also hurt British workers, we are in a recession and there is a General Election coming, no-one would support sanctions.
5. If we declare war we might be considered to be over-reacting.

Cynic

[fredv3b]

Originally Posted by marshlander

Cynic

A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist. - H. Appleby

Sounds about right.

Meanwhile, back on topic ... in today's [Only registered members can see links. ],

Canon Gideon Byamugisha said the bill, which recommends the death penalty for anyone repeatedly convicted of having gay sex and prison sentences for those who fail to report homosexual activity to the police, would breed violence and intolerance through all levels of society.

"I believe that this bill [if passed into law] will be state-legislated genocide against a specific community of Ugandans, however few they may be," he said.

Brave man.

... and from today's [Only registered members can see links. ] comes this indictment of the behaviour of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, that compares his quick response to ordination of a lesbian bisop in the USA with his deafening silence over the Uganda issue.

...for a man who made his reputation as one of Anglicanism's leading liberal catholic theologians: he swiftly condemns liberal Americans for being too tolerant, and yet feels forced to remain silent over a rank and brutal inhumanity.

Critics from both sides have unkindly quipped that Dr Williams has boldly nailed his colours to the fence. He may find that preferring unity to truth will not be possible much longer.

This probably feels like I'm flogging a dead horse, but I've just read this review of a show by the odious dancehall singer, Beenie Man. Could it be that the only gigs he can get in the world to spout his homophobic bile these days is in places like Uganda? The [Only registered members can see links. ] of his show at the Kyadondo Rugby Club reported the following:

The King of Dancehall stuck a sword of words into gay people through singing and talking.
“In my family, we don’t have any gay person but if you’re gay, my brother that’s not my fault,” he said as he performed his song Mi Nah Wallah, in which he says he would like to cut the throats of all gay men.

Interesting that he seems to think that being gay is someone's fault. Loathsome man

Its terrible!

I swear if that Bill gets passed i am so going to be ANNOYED because theyre targeting a minority. Those butt plugs, i swear someone should slap the Uganda government with a monster dick and beat them down with it until they see sense or turn gay lol! :P

Originally Posted by JACOB-GABRIEL

Its terrible!

I swear if that Bill gets passed i am so going to be ANNOYED because theyre targeting a minority. Those butt plugs, i swear someone should slap the Uganda government with a monster dick and beat them down with it until they see sense or turn gay lol! :P

I don't think that will help much. Many years of political instability, despotic leadership and corruption at all levels, HIV/AIDS (which I believe they have had some success at tackling), not to mention the convenience of a colonial past to blame and various religious afflictions contribute to a very complicated picture. Of course, we all know the gays caused it all

Could [Only registered members can see links. ] be why the Archbishop of Canterbury is still silent?