Gay Lifestyle May Soon Equal Prison Sentence in Uganda

East Africa, Op-ed  |  12.08.09   By Randy Odaga

Over the course of human life several groups of people have been hopelessly victimized and marginalized for being nothing but their true selves. It was the African Americans before the civil rights era, the Aborigines before the era of human decency, and during my generation’s era the victims have been openly gay people of developing nations.

Uganda, a country not known for its firm belief in fairness and human rights—in 1972 Uganda expelled Ugandan-Indians from the country and there is still a vast encouragement of ‘Indophobia’ amongst black Ugandans—has proposed an anti-homosexual regulation.

The law requires a three-year prison sentence for anyone who is aware of the evidence of homosexuality and fails to report it to the police within 24 hours. It allows for the prosecution of Ugandans who engage in homosexual acts in foreign countries; and it imposes a prison sentence of up to seven years for anyone who defends the rights of homosexuals. Finally it requires the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality, which is the act of a gay person having sex with a partner who is infected with the HIV virus.

I guess I better drop my two cents while I can before I spend my next seven years in the infamous Luzira prison.

In examining the  proposition carefully, it i difficult to comprehend how a three year prison sentence for anyone who does not report the evidence of homosexuality within 24 hours or a seven-year sentence for those defending gay rights. Basically like all draconian laws, it has a provision that makes sure that anyone with an opinion other than the government’s should be muzzled via imprisonment.

As every “good” Ugandan knows a good democracy is based on a singular opinion. In most nations they call that an autocracy, but that must surely be a loss in translation. This feature removes the most basic of human rights, the right to free speech. Shouldn’t any bill that detracts from your basic human rights be instantly rejected?

Another section of the proposed law encourages the persecution of any Ugandans who participate in homosexual activities outside of the country. According to international laws no country’s sovereign laws can be enacted in another’s borders, but this law would allow for extradition of Ugandans who participate in homosexual activities outside the country. While extradition treaties can be created between two nations, it is hard to believe that any western nation would allow a provision for the arrest of those who perform in consensual adult activities.

The argument by Ugandan parliamentarians in favor of the proposition is that homosexuality is a western invention that has expedited the spread of AIDS, affected traditional marriage, and the morality of Africa in general. According to Pambakuza News, the MP who tabled the bill, David Bahati, argues that western organizations like Human Rights Watch should be banned if they continue to fight for the rights of homosexuals. MP Bahati who tabled the private-member’s bill has been accused of only tabling the bill due to right-wing Christian influence.

The Family Life Network recently co-hosted a workshop to expose the truth behind homosexuality in Kampala. After their workshop they met with a number of MPs and religious actors, where MP Bahati was in attendance. A couple of months later MP Bahati has suddenly found financing for a private member’s bill. While Pambakuza News can only give us these facts it is safe to infer that the Family Life Network had some influence in this bill. Who is really under western “influences?” How can one not assume that if the Family Life Network had him in their pocket to table this bill, they will not be able to influence all his other political actions?

There has never been a more polarizing debate in Uganda. One cannot deny the implications if this bill is passed. There is a provision of the bill that provides for Uganda to nullify any of its international and regional commitments that it deems contradictory to the spirit and provisions provided for this act. However, it is more likely that international organizations will be quicker to make Uganda a pariah, than Uganda will be to nullify its commitments.

A Ugandan newspaper, The Daily Monitor, has reported that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressed his disapproval of the bill during the recent Commonwealth meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, and other commonwealth members are demanding Uganda be removed as a member if the bill is passed. Human Rights Watch has also asked for sanctions against Uganda if the bill goes through.

Barring South Africa who is an avid supporter of gay rights, one wonders how other African nations will react to the proposed bill. While I doubt a similar bill will be passed by any other African nation, would any of them risk supporting this bill, which could vilify them in the West’s eyes?

Uganda has a lot more to lose economically if this bill is passed. If informal sanctions are held, Uganda may lose out on tourism income. Informal sanctions are when nations create sanctions of their own against certain nations, like the United States did when they called French fries, “freedom fries.” In Uganda’s case it is expected that western visitors could refuse to spend their money within its borders.

According to the World Travel and Tourism Council tourism will represent 16.8 percent of all export earnings in Uganda in 2009. For districts in Uganda that rely heavily on tourism for their income, it is likely their MPs would be less inclined to vote for this bill.

Sadly, homophobia still remains widespread in most of Africa, a taboo subject so to speak, and with President Yoweri Museveni indicating his distaste for homosexuality in several speeches, there is a likelihood the proposed bill may yet see the light of day

Share it