Uganda's anti-gay bill causes Commonwealth uproar (life sentence to homosexuals)

Globe and Mail ^ | 11/25/09 | Geoffrey York

[TigerLikesRooster]

Uganda's anti-gay bill causes Commonwealth uproar

Proposed law that would impose life imprisonment on homosexuals has the potential to divide leaders at summit

Geoffrey York

Johannesburg — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published on Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009 3:13AM EST

Last updated on Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009 4:02AM EST

The Commonwealth convenes for a summit this week amid growing furor over a proposed law that would impose life imprisonment on homosexuals in Uganda, whose President is chairing the gathering.

The law, proceeding through Uganda's Parliament and supported by some of its top leaders, would imprison anyone who knows of the existence of a gay or lesbian and fails to inform the police within 24 hours. It requires the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” – defined as any sexual act between gays or lesbians in which one person has the HIV virus.

The controversy is growing because Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is the chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, which opens on Friday with Stephen Harper joining the leaders of 52 other countries.

If it is raised at the summit, the issue has the potential to divide Commonwealth leaders, who hold deeply polarized views on homosexuality. A number of Commonwealth countries, including Canada and Britain, have liberal views on the subject, but many African and Caribbean nations are socially conservative and maintain laws on their books that criminalize homosexuality.

[Liberty1970]

It requires the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” – defined as any sexual act between gays or lesbians in which one person has the HIV virus.

I know this will be controversial, but isn't this just common sense? Risking murder for the sake of an orgasm. It's like firing off a gun into a crowd for the thrill of it.

[USArmySpouse]

I think that should apply to *everyone* knowingly transmitting HIV, including heterosexuals. I’m not sure why they call it “aggravated homosexuality.” It should just be “attempted murder.”

[stephenjohnbanker]

B U M P

[Liberty1970]

That's true! That's my one beef with this legislation: why should we need to create new laws, when we can just even-handedly apply the ones we already have?

It's like the tens of millions (literally) of laws we have in the U.S. that all boil down to "Thou shalt not steal." We try to micro-manage every possible situation and scenario to precisely define it, but the very act of going down that road (rather than letting individual citizens and local police, judges and juries use their own brains) just ensures endless loopholes on the one hand, and endless cases of injustice on the other.

[BwanaNdege]

In the Rakai District of SW Uganda so many have died of AIDS that many villages are populated only by old women and children under the age of puberty.

At harvest time, church congregations from Kampala would go to Rakai to help with the harvest because there were no able bodied adults left.

In Uganda AIDS is primarily a heterosexual problem.

http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm

[philled]

Let me guess: This isn’t quite what the liberal members of the Supreme Court think of when they suggest that foreign law be considered in their decisions?

[TigerLikesRooster]

Of course not.

[GCC Catholic]

In Uganda AIDS is primarily a heterosexual problem.

That's not quite accurate. It's a sex-outside-of-marriage problem (homosexuality is a subset of this) and a "condoms are a safe alternative" problem.

Homosexuals aren't the problem in Uganda - people who are infected with HIV and choose to have sex anyways are the problem. Uganda's use of the ABC approach is laudable, and seems to have been fruitful; however, from the article you posted, it seems that lately there has been a downplay of (or ignorance of) the Abstinence and 'Be faithful' components in favor of "safe" condoms.

For example, use of condoms within marriage to prevent transmission of HIV is medically-backed denial. Abstainance between spouses when one has HIV is the only certain way to prevent the transmission of the virus. And the use of condoms in casual sex when one parter has HIV is no safer.

Is using a condom in these two situations safer? Yes... the same way that Russian roulette is safer if you only put one bullet in the revolver instead of six.

[BwanaNdege]

"That's not quite accurate. It's a sex-outside-of-marriage problem (homosexuality is a subset of this) and a "condoms are a safe alternative" problem."

You are exactly right! "Zero Grazing" is the East African expression, e.g. get your needs met at home, rather than roaming all over, looking for greener grass on the other side of the fence.

That link was just the first thing that Google popped up. That organization probably has problems with abstinence or faithful monogamy. Interestingly, the condom machines in the truckstop restrooms here in the Southeast have a manufacturers disclaimer to the effect that:

"This product is not guaranteed to stop the spread of disease. Abstinence before marriage and faithful monogamy thereafter is the only sure way to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease."