Box Turtle Bulletin

Uganda’s Parliament Passes Anti-Homosexuality Bill (UPDATED)

Breaking: Anti-Sodomy bill passed in Ugandans Parliament. Photo with David Bahati immediately after pic.twitter.com/Ih2gBcTfFg" @ntvuganda

— Martin Ssempa (@martinssempa) December 20, 2013

Breaking News : I am officially illegal : Uganda Parliament passes the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009

— Dr. Frank Mugisha (@frankmugisha) December 20, 2013

AHB being debated right now in Parliament of Uganda. Motion for 2nd reading. Be very alert. Police raided our workshop just yesterday.

— BombasticKasha (@KashaJacqueline) December 20, 2013

There are multiple reports from Uganda media indicating that the nation’s Parliament has given its final approval to the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill today. The independent Daily Monitor leads with the story:

Parliament has passed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009, which proposes life imprisonment for homosexual acts.

A proposal for a 14-year-sentence for those convicted for homosexual acts, which the Bill criminalises, was rejected by Members of Parliament who instead maintained the life imprisonment proposal.

The tabloid Red Pepper confirms the story, as do Warren Throckmorton and the BBC, which reports that the bill apparently passed despite a possible lack of quorum in Parliament:

The prime minister opposed the vote, saying not enough MPs were present. …She says that Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi might follow up on his complaints about a lack of quorum, while it remains to be seen whether President Yoweri Museveni will sign the bill into law.

The government-owned New Vision reports that the Prime Minister said “there would be further ‘consultations’ on part of the government.” It also reports that President Yoweri Museveni “will decide if it becomes law or not.”

Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga’s decision to bring the bill up for a vote appears to have been a surprise. There has been no indication that the bill would be brought for a vote in the Order Papers posted on Parliament’s web site.

It is unclear which provisions of the bill’s original proposals made it into the final version passed by Parliament. This BBC report indicates the death penalty was dropped, but news agencies, including the BBC, have a very long history of getting this wrong before. (Update: Parliament Watch tweets that the death penalty was removed in favor of life imprisonment.) Last year, the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee made numerous recommendations to the bill, but held those recommendations secret. Warren Throckmorton has obtained a copy of those recommendations and posted them here.  The original bill (PDF: 847KB/16 pages) contained the following provisions:

Clauses 1 and 2: Anybody Can Be Gay Under the Law. The definition of what constitutes “homosexual act” as defined in the first two clauses are so broad that just about anyone can be convicted of just about anything, including “touching” with the “intent” of committing “homosexuality,” even when fully clothed. It also sets the penalty for any “homosexual act” as life imprisonment. The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended reducing that sentence to fourteen years, but based on news reports it appears that Parliament has rejected that recommendation. (Update: Parliament Watch tweets that the subclause outlawing “touching” with the “intent” of committing homosexuality was deleted.)
Clause 3: Anyone Can Be “Liable To Suffer Death”. And you don’t even have to be gay to be sent to the gallows. The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended replacing the death penalty with a life sentences, but it is not clear whether Parliament approved that recommendation. (Update: Parliament Watch tweets that the death penalty was removed in favor of life imprisonment.) But can anyone seriously imaging that spending a lifetime in Uganda’s notorious Luzira prison is any better? Especially once your fellow prisoners learn that you were sent there for “aggravated homosexuality”?
Clause 4: Anyone Can “Attempt to Commit Homosexuality”. All you have to do is “attempt” to “touch” “any part of of the body” “with anything else” “through anything” in an act that does “not necessarily culminate in intercourse.” The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended the removal of this clause for being “too hard and difficult to prove and may cause absurdities.” (Update: Parliament Watch conforms that Clause 4 was deleted.)
Clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10: How To Get Out Of Jail Free. The bill is written to openly encourage and even opens the possibility for financial incentives for one partner to turn state’s evidence against another. The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended the removal of Clause 8, which would have prohibited the “conspiracy to engage in homosexuality.” The committee also recommended the removal of Clause 10, which would have prohibited the “detention with intent to commit homosexuality.” The reason given for the removal of both clauses was to prevent “absurdities.” At this time it is unknown whether Parliament followed through on those recommendations. (Update: Parliament Watch confirms that Clause 8 was deleted. They also confirm that Clause 10 was deleted.)
Clauses 7, 11, and 14: Straight People In The Crosshairs. The bill has specific clauses that would also target family members, doctors, lawyers, and even landlords for refusing to turn gay people over to the police or providing services to anyone that they know to be gay. The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended eliminating Clause 14 (“failure to disclose”), but it’s unclear whether Parliament adopted that recommendation. (Update: Parliament Watch tweets that the “failure to disclose” clause was deleted.) Providing services or providing lodgings still appear to be illegal.
Clause 12: Till Life Imprisonment Do You Part. Officiating a same-sex wedding results in up to three years’ imprisonment. The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended changing the penalty for entering into a marriage from life to fourteen years. It’s unclear whether that recommendation was adopted. (Update: Parliament Watch tweets that the penalty for conducting a marriage was raised to seven years.)
Clause 13: The Silencing of the Lambs. All advocacy — including suggesting that the law might be repealed — will result in prison sentences.
Clause 14: The Requirement Isn’t To Report Just Gay People To Police. It’s To Report Everyone. A closer look shows that the requirement to report doesn’t just apply to gay people, but to anyone, gay or straight, who violates the law’s clauses. (Update: Parliament Watch tweets that the “failure to disclose” clause was deleted.)
Clauses 16 and 17: The Extra-Territorially Long Arm of Ugandan Law. “Crimes” committed outside of Uganda by Ugandan citizens or residents will result in prosecution in Uganda.The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended eliminating these clauses, but it’s unclear whether Parliament adopted that recommendation
Clause 18: We Don’t Need No Stinking Treaties. The bill not only violates several international treaties, it also turns the Ugandan constitution on its head. The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended eliminating Clause 18, but it’s unclear whether Parliament adopted that recommendation
Clauses 15 and 19: The Establishment Clauses For The Ugandan Inquisition. These clauses empower the Ethics and Integrity Minister to enforce all of the bill’s provisions. He’s already gotten a head start.

NBC News Brings Scott Lively to Mainstream America

We’ve been following Scott Lively for six years now, through his activities in Novosibirsk, Riga, and Kampala. When Russia passed a so-called “anti-propaganda” law which effectively prohibits all advocacy and positive portrayals of gay people, Lively rushed to take credit for it. But with the exception for a brief period in 2009 after Uganda’s parliament proposed a law which would include the death penalty for gay people, Lively hasn’t made much of an impression in the mainstream media. Today, NBC News published a significant profile which gets the rest of America caught up to date with the impact that Lively has had around the world:

Lively has reason to be a bit cocky. America may have “fallen to the gays,” he says, but much of the world still fears them and Lively is working to keep it that way.

In Moldova in 2011, according to Human Rights Watch, he helped several cities declare themselves “gay-free zones” and organized an “emergency” campaign to block a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Belarus he met with politicians and pastors, fostering talk of new curbs on gay rights. Every place he goes, Lively says, his goal is to block the open expression of homosexuality, keep discrimination legal and make pro-gay advocacy a crime.

To whip up support for such policies, Lively simply shares his beliefs about gay people: They’re dangerous predators, even killers. And they caught this gay “disorder” through “an evil game of tag,” a chain of abuse in which gays recruit kids into sodomy just as they were once recruited. In this way homosexuality spreads like “a social cancer,” he claims, until nothing remains of the Christian world.

NBC has re-posed portions of video from Lively’s talks in Novosibirsk and Riga, videos which are no longer available at their original locations. Tony Dokoupil’s report provides more information about the extent of Lively’s 2007 tour, which turns out to be more extensive than I had originally thought. Dokoupil also draws a line from Lively’s virulent rhetoric to some of the violence which often follows:

In Oregon in 1992, a same-sex couple died when their house was firebombed during OCA’s campaign to declare homosexuality “abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse.” In Sacramento in 2007, a gay man was called a “faggot” and punched to death by a stranger in a park. In Uganda in 2011, the country’s first openly gay man had his skull caved in. And right now in Russia and in the former Soviet states, there’s been a surge in homophobic vigilantism, including a torrent of shaming videos, some depicting gay teens being tortured by skinheads. Lively has not been linked to any of these crimes but we asked: Couldn’t his talk of predatory gays, “good and evil,” and “war” have played a role?

“Wow, that’s a leap,” said Lively, who sees his work as advocacy in the public interest, no different from campaigning against drunk drivers.

Lively is probably best known within the gay community for his 2009 conference in Uganda. Lively would later brag that the conference was his “nuclear bomb against the gay agenda,” and he immodestly dubbed himself the father of the anti-homosexuality movement in Uganda. Ugandan activists are currently suing Lively in U.S. Federal District Court, alleging that Lively engaged in a conspiracy to deny the LGBT community of their rights and safety under International Law, and that conspiracy resulted in harm to the LGBT community. Lively is being sued under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides federal jurisdiction for “any civil action by an alien, for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”  Dokoupil adds this concerning the lawsuit:

Pamela Spees, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the group pursuing Lively for alleged “crimes against humanity” in Uganda, said she is prepared to file a second lawsuit related to his work in Russia and the surrounding countries, assuming there’s evidence that Lively was “an architect of the persecutory program” there.

And that’s why the case against Lively is so important, gay-rights activists say. As the Olympics draw nearer and the boycotts and homophobic backlash continue, Putin will be the guy paraded down the world’s front pages and social media feeds. But Lively may be the secret agent to watch.

If he loses his lawsuit he could be prohibited from spreading his message abroad, a terrible precedent for other anti-gay crusaders. However if he wins, he emerges stronger than ever, the self-described “hero” of an expanding fight to restore “godliness to society,” as he puts it – or else “pull as many people as possible into the lifeboat before the ship goes down.”

We’ve been following Scott Lively for several years, ever since he first popped up on our radar in 2007 when he was in Riga, Latvia in a stop on a far-flung tour of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union sponsored by a new international anti-gay organization, Watchmen On the Walls. (That organization now appears to be inactive.) Soon, video appeared of a talk Lively gave earlier in March in Riga. I was then alerted to video of a talk that Lively gave in Novosibirsk in August, where he warned:

There is a war that is going on in the world. There is a war that is waging across the entire face of the globe. It’s been waging in the United States for decades, and it’s been waging in Europe for decades. It’s a war between Christians and homosexuals. …And this is the design of the Devil to destroy civilization, because civilization is based on the natural family.

Then in November, Lively was back in Riga for a multi-day Watchmen conference. On the first day, Lively complained that the United States was under the iron grip of the homosexual agenda, which he called the product of Satan, “the father of lies“:

You have to understand how this battle works. We follow the God of truth. The Holy Spirit, who is called the Spirit of Truth, lives inside of us. But our adversaries follow the father of lies. Scripture calls him the “father of lies.” They can’t tell the truth, and they won’t tell the truth because they don’t want people to listen to what we have to say. But we can’t say anything that would give them proof that what they teach is right… So we must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We won’t stop telling the truth, and they won’t stop telling the lies. But this is a war.

In a later talk at the same conference, Lively disclosed what he called secrets that “homosexuality community doesn’t want you to know”: that homosexuality is a disorder, that homosexuality is like an addiction but also that homosexuality is voluntary, that homosexuals really don’t want to be homosexual, and that the only reason we remain homosexual is because the leaders of the homosexual movement have made us afraid of Christians. He also read aloud an open letter to the Russian people, in which he advocated:

…[C]riminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality. My philosophy is to leave homosexuals alone if they keep their lifestyle private, and not to force them into therapy if they don’t want it. However, homosexuality is destructive to individuals and to society and it should never publicly promoted. The easiest way to discourage “gay pride” parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal in the interest of public health and morality.

Russia has effectively done that, after President Vladimir Putin signed the so-called “anti-propaganda” into law last June.

Retired Ugandan Bishop Renews Call for Anti-Homosexuality Bill

From Uganda’s largest independent newspaper, Sunday Monitor:

Bishop Emeritus for Bukedi Diocese Nicodemus Okile, who retired last year after 28 years of services on Friday accused Members of Parliament of debating issues of less serious consequences at the expense of matters with moral implications on the citizens. “The issue of homosexuality has been shelved. Members of Parliament should learn to deal with one issue at a time instead of haphazardly debating on matters,” Bishop Okile said. …”What about the Bill on homosexuality. Why has it gone silent?” Bishop Okile asked.

Okile made those remarks during the funeral for a fellow Anglican bishop. In 2008, Okile announced that he would no longer recognize Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as head of the church because of his stance on homosexuality.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill does appear to have gone dormant. The last time its passage appeared imminent was in late 2012 as Parliament was debating a controversial clause in a proposed Petroleum Bill which granted a presidential appointee exclusive powers to negotiate, approve, and/or revoke lucrative oil exploration and drilling contracts, all with virtually no oversight from Parliament. That measure squeeked through in a last-minute maneuver. Parliament also passed a controversial Public Order Management Bill, which gives the President and police broad powers to break up unapproved opposition meetings, including small gatherings in private homes. While those bills were being considered, the AHB was kept in reserve on Parliament’s official agenda, apparently to serve either as a distraction or as a politically necessary unifying vote. Since the Petroleum Bill’s passage, AHB slowly drifted down from its number one spot under Parliament’s “Business to Follow,” only to disappear altogether at the end of June, 2013.

The AHB remains a part of official business however, and can be brought back at any time. This Sunday Monitor report erroneously suggests that the death penalty has been removed, but Parliament has not actually taken the required vote to do so. You can see our clause-by-clause examination of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill beginning here.

Federal Judge Allows Uganda Lawsuit Against Scott Lively to Go Forward

It’s on. U.S. district Judge Michael Ponsor has ruled that a lawsuit against Scott Lively filed by Sexual Minorities Uganda can continue. The ruling went against a motion to dismiss filed by Lively’s attorneys, on which arguments were heard in court last January. Parties were notified of the ruling late Wednesday.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is suing Lively on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda, alleging that Lively engaged in a conspiracy to deny the LGBT community of their rights under International Law and which resulted in harm to the LGBT community. Lively is being sued under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides federal jurisdiction for “any civil action by an alien, for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

The lawsuit stems from several actions that CCR says Lively performed, including the infamous March 2009 anti-gay conference in Kampala and meetings with Ugandan lawmakers. Two weeks later, rumors emerged that Parliament was drafting a new law that “will be tough on homosexuals.” That new law, in its final form, would be introduced into Parliament later in October, and included the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.” Meanwhile, the public panic stoked by the March conference led to follow-up meetings, a march on Parliament, and a massive vigilante campaign waged on radio and the tabloid press. Lively would later boast that his March 2009 talk was a “nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.”

When Judge Ponsor heard arguements in January on the motion to dismiss, he expressed doubts about the validity of the lawsuit under First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. “I’m frankly struggling to see what behavior beyond expressive behavior” which was against federal law. He warned that plaintiffs “needed to show a more concrete example of misbehavior to justify continuation of the lawsuit.” With yesterday’s ruling, he has ruled that the lawsuit can continue. In yesterday’s ruling, Judge Ponsor wrote (PDF: 208KB/79 pages):

…aiding and abetting a crime against humanity is a well-established offense under customary international law, and actions for redress of this crime have frequently been recognized by American courts as part of the subclass of lawsuits for which the ATS furnishes jurisdiction. Given this, the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint are more than adequate at this stage to require denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (page 4)

Widespread, systematic persecution of LGBTI people constitutes a crime against humanity that unquestionably violates international norms. A review of applicable authorities makes the answer to the second question easily discernible as well. Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime against humanity is one of the limited group of international law violations for which the ATS furnishes jurisdiction. (page 20)

Addressing First Amendment concerns, Judge Ponsor wrote:

Defendant has vigorously argued that all his actions are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Discovery may, or may not, reveal that the argument is correct, and this issue will almost certainly be front and center at the summary judgment stage of this case. What is quite clear now, however, is that the Amended Complaint adequately alleges that Defendant’s actions have fallen well outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Defendant is correct that the First Amendment places limits on the imposition of tort liability linked to offensive speech, and that the protection of free expression, including the protection of “thought we hate,” is a centerpiece of our democracy.

For example, intentional infliction of emotional distress claims — which ask a jury to consider whether speech was “outrageous” — are too subjective to meet the requirements of the First Amendment when applied to public figures or topics of public concern. …In the criminal context, even if speech advocates for the use of force or for violations of law, it receives First Amendment protection “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

On the other hand, when noxious words become part of a criminal enterprise, the First Amendment provides limited protection. As Justice Black, an unsurpassed supporter of the First Amendment, wrote:

It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. We reject the contention now. . . .

. . . [I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written or printed. Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.

It is well-established that speech that constitutes criminal aiding and abetting is not protected by the First Amendment. …It is equally well supported that the same logic extends to civil actions for aiding and abetting.

In determining whether speech that is related to political advocacy receives First Amendment protection, the Supreme Court has distinguished between “theoretical advocacy,” meaning advocacy of “principles divorced from action,” and speech that is meant to induce or precipitate illegal activity. As the court in Brandenburg recognized, “[T]he mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” Merely advocating for reform is quite different constitutionally from preparing for criminal activity. (page 57-61)

…In making this decision, the court is mindful of the chilling effect that can occur when potential tort liability  is extended to unpopular opinions that are expressed as part of a public debate on policy. However, at this stage, the Amended Complaint sets out plausible claims to hold Defendant liable for his role in systematic persecution, rather than merely for opinions that Plaintiff finds abhorrent. The complexion of the case at this stage entitles Plaintiff to discovery and requires the court to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (page 64-65)

CCR responded to yesterday’s ruling:

Today, in a first-of-its kind case brought by a Ugandan LGBTI advocacy organization against a prominent U.S. anti-gay extremist, a federal judge ruled that persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is a crime against humanity and that the fundamental human rights of LGBTI people are protected under international law. The ruling means that the case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG), a Uganda-based coalition of LGBTI rights and advocacy groups, can move forward over defendant Scott Lively’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Keep in mind, the Judge has not ruled that Lively’s actions are not protected under the First Amendment, nor has he ruled that Lively’s actions do not constitute the commission of a crime under international law. He has ruled simply that the complaint brought to the court by CCR on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda is sufficient for the case to continue, based on the proper understanding of international law, the First Amendment, and various other issues (standing, etc.) addressed in the ruling. I think you can also read the ruling as a set of ground rules, establishing the kind of activities that CCR will need to prove Lively committed during trial in order to prevail.

The trial now moves to discovery phase.

Ugandans Hold Second Pride Celebration

Advance notice was limited somewhat, mostly to unsharable private Facebook pages, but last Saturday, over a hundred people gathered at a beach on Lake Victoria in Entebbe for the nations second gay pride parade and celebration. Last year’s celebration was broken up by police as it was winding down, but as Voice of America reports, the fact that they were able to get together at all gave the community “newfound confidence“:

“That success gave us confidence that we can do it,” [LGBT advocate Kelly] Mukwano said. “We are getting more confident as time goes by.”

Saturday’s march was sheltered in the leafy recesses of a botanical garden about 20 miles from Kampala. But this year, police were informed in advance and the authorities did not intervene. Some revelers felt it was only a matter of time before they are able to march through the streets of the capital.

“Guys, it’s baby steps,” said one marcher. “Today, we are here, miles away from Kampala. Baby steps. Soon we shall be on Kampala Road.”

The fact that police were notified ahead of time and decided not to intervene is especially remarkable. Mukwano told Voice of America that it is one of many signs that the situation in Uganda is improving:

“People are dying in Ethiopia,” Mukwano said. “People are dying elsewhere in the world. In Jamaica, people are being beaten all the time because they are gay. So I think that was over-exaggerating that Uganda is the worst place to be gay.”

One brightly dressed transsexual, who goes by the name Beyondy, says that Saturday’s event just made her feel free.

“Last year, I was one of the people who were beaten up by the police,” Beyondy said. “So today I’m happy that we are free. No one is staring and stopping our marching.”

On the political front, threats from Parliament to pass the Anti-Homosexualty Bill have largely disappeared. The last time its passage appeared imminent, Parliament was in the middle of debating a controversial clause in the proposed Petroleum Bill which granted a presidential appointee exclusive powers to negotiate, approve, and/or revoke lucrative oil exploration and drilling contracts with virtually no oversight from Parliament. That measure squeeked through in a last-minute maneuver in December 2012, which effectively legalized the wholesale theft of the country’s untapped oil wealth. Hovering in the wings, to serve either as a distraction or as a politically necessary unifying vote was the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which had risen to the top of Parliament’s Order Papers under “Business to Follow.” The only calculus in the decision would be whether the cost of losing millions of Dollars and Euros in foreign aid would outweigh the political necessity of passing the bill.

But the political establishment apparently decided that the costly vote wasn’t needed. In the six months since following passage of the contentious Petroleum Bill, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill slowly drifted down from its number one spot under “Business to Follow,” only to disappear altogether at the end of June, 2013. It still remains a part of official business however, and can be brought back at any time. You can see our clause-by-clause examination of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill beginning here.

BTB reader MatNYC tips us to this report from NPR which covers the Pride celebration and provides background. It also notes the improved climate for LGBT people. The program includes LGBT-advocate who goes by the nickname of “Long John.” He has been featured in several documentaries about the LGBT community in Uganda, including Call Me Kuchu and Current TV’s Missionaries of Hate. He is now running a tour company offering safaris for gay tourists, with the full knowledge of Uganda’s tourism board.

Uganda MP’s Seek To Avoid Public Debate On Anti-Homosexuality Bill

MP Moses Balyeku hears from his constituents about the Marriage and Divorce Bill (Daily Monitor/Denis Edema)

Uganda’s Parliament returns today following an extended Easter break, when MP’s heard several earfuls from their constituents over the controversial Marriage and Divorce Bill. I’m not up on the bill’s provisions, but Ugandan media reports seem to indicate that the bill, part of a four-year effort to modernize Uganda’s marriage and divorce laws, has run into a buzz saw of controversy from several quarters. Religious leaders have come out against it, as have traditional community leaders. In Karamoja, a subregion in northeast Uganda along the border with Kenya  and South Sudan, local elders have threatened to visit their traditional spiritual sites to place a curse on politicians supporting the bill. “We are going to slaughter several bulls and eat blood for seven days in the Atekerin Mountain to fail that Bill and curse those MPs pushing for it,” said one resident. President Yoweri Museveni is now backtracking from the bill, and Daily Monitor reports that other MP’ have “asked Parliament to abandon the Bill and address other issues crucial to the population.”

What does this have to do with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill? Well, according to the most recent Orders Paper (Word: 41KB/2 pages) posted by Parliament from last month, one of those “other issues crucial to the population” is the kill-the-gays bill, which was number 3 under “Notice of Business to Follow.” It has been hovering in the top half of that on-deck list since last November, waiting in the wings as Parliament tears itself apart over other divisive and contentious issues. The thing about the AHB to remember is that it is in no way contentious or controversial, at least not inside Uganda where it enjoys overwhelming support, death penalty and all. But controversy outside of Uganda has made the bill an enormous headache for the country’s political leaders. Already, several European countries made good on their threats to cut direct aid over rampant corruption. When Germany joined five other nations in cutting aid, it added the pending Anti-Homosexuality Bill to its list of concerns.

This places Ugandan politicians in a bind. On the one hand, the AHB is hugely popular with their constituents, and there is no political advantage whatsoever in opposing the bill. On the other hand, being linked to the bill threatens to make those same politicians pariahs outside of Uganda. As the opposition Observer reports, this has led many politicians to call for debating the bill in private:

However, The Observer understands that some lawmakers have toyed with the idea of lobbying Speaker Rebecca Kadaga for a closed-door session when debate on the bill starts. National Youth MP, Monica Amoding, told The Observer that some MPs on the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee proposed the move because of the sensitive nature of the bill.

“This subject is very sensitive and some of us fear that if it is discussed in public view, we will be persecuted for holding particular views,” Amoding said. Not surprisingly, she refused to state whether she supports the bill.

Another MP, who requested anonymity, explained that supporting the bill publically could lead to being blacklisted. He cited David Bahati, the main promoter of the bill, saying the MP has been ostracised by some elements in the West because of his views.

“We have some projects that are funded by donors and at the same time we don’t want to be misunderstood by voters. So, it is better to remain silent to avoid being blacklisted,” he said.

The Observer goes on to list the names of 34 MP’s who publicly support the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. It might be prudent to retain this list for future reference.

Yahaya Gudoi (Bungokho North,NRM)
Isabirye Idi (Bunya South,NRM)
Lyndah Timbigamba (Kyenjojo Woman, NRM)
Jovah Kamateka (Mitooma Woman,NRM)
Cyrus Amodoi (Toroma, Indep)
Barnabas Tinkasiimire (Buyaga West, NRM)
Chris Baryomusi (Kinkizi East, NRM),
Arinaitwe Rwakajara (Workers, NRM)
Hellen Asamo (PWD Eastern, NRM)
Martin Drito (Madi Okollo, NRM)
Amos Mandera ( Kooki, NRM)
George Ekuma (Bukedea, NRM)
Rose Akol (Bukedea Woman, NRM),
Michael Ayepa (Labwor, NRM),
Remigio Achia (Pian, NRM)
Elizabeth Karungi (Kalungu, NRM),
Hatwib Katoto (Katerera, NRM)
Hanifah Kawooya (Sembabule Woman, NRM)
Twa Twa Mutwalante (Iki Iki,NRM)
Geofrey Ekanya (Tororo,FDC)
Olivia Kabala Kwagala (Iganga, NRM)
Benard Atiku (Ayivu,FDC)
Bakaluba Mukasa (Mukono North, NRM)
Stephen Birahwa (Buliisa, NRM)
James Kakooza (Kabula, NRM)
Kaps Fungaroo (Ubongi, FDC)
Tophace Kaahwa (Hoima Woman, NRM)
Mary Turyahikayo (Rubabo, NRM)
Abdu Katuntu (Bugweri, FDC)
Mathias Mpuuga (Masaka Municipality, Indep)
Joseph Ssewungu (Kalungu West, DP)
Vincent Ssempija (Kalungu East, Indep)
Mariam Nalubega (Butambala Woman, Indep)
Muwanga Kivumbi (Butambala, DP)
Jesca Ababiku (Adjumani Woman, Indep).

Uganda’s President Denies Anti-LGBT Persecution

Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni reportedly told a visiting delegation from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights that there was no marginalization or killing of LGBT people in Uganda. Both the government-owned New Vision and the independent Daily Monitor reported on Museveni’s remarks yesterday According to New Vision:

President Yoweri Museveni has said the issue of homosexuality and lesbianism has been totally distorted leading to wrong public debate.

“In our society, there were a few homosexuals. There was no persecution, no killings and no marginalization of these people but they were regarded as deviants. Sex among Africans including heterosexuals is confidential,” Museveni said.

“If am to kiss my wife in public, I would lose an election in Uganda. Western people exhibit sexual acts in public which we don’t do here,” he said, adding that, Africans do even punish heterosexuals who publically expose their sexual acts.

The president said what is new is the way Europeans and other Western people handle the issue of sexuality in general, including public flaunting which is a problem and luring young people into acts of homosexuality for money.

He said attempts to promote homosexuality as an alternative way of life has led to engagements in running battles with the church.

“You have a lot of room in your house, why don’t you go there. Sex is a bilateral issue, not a multilateral one,” he said.

Among the delegation was Kerry Kennedy, daughter of the late Sen. Robert Kennedy. In 2011, the Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights honored Sexual Minorities Uganda executive director Frank Mugisha with the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award. According to Daily Monitor:

Ms Kennedy, who was accompanied by several lawyers, actors and religious leaders, expressed concern over the pending Anti-Homosexuality bill, reports of harassment of the Gay and Lesbian Community in Uganda and over the exposure of the identities of sexual minority groups. She also said the pending bill on homosexuality works against the international law treaties that Uganda has signed. Ms Kennedy cautioned against the misconceptions that equate paedophiles with homosexuals.

New Vision reported that Kennedy also told Museveni that “it is a violation of people’s rights to put pictures of sexual minority groups in the [news] papers.” Museveni reportedly promised to investigate:

Reacting to various issues raised by the team, Museveni said he would investigate claims of violence against homosexuals, adding that for a viable solution, activists must respect the confidentiality of sex in our traditions and culture. He reiterated that in Uganda, “there is no discrimination, no killings, no marginalization, no luring of young people using money into homosexual acts”.

Museveni did not directly address the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which still incudes the death penalty for what it defines as “aggravated homosexuality.” Some observers believe that in these statements he was distancing himself from the proposed legislation. I don’t see it that way at all. Besides, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been an exceptionally useful tool for Museveni’s government as it pursues other political agendas.

The bill still remains on Parliament’s agenda, under the heading of “Business to follow,” where it has occupied various spots since November. Parliament is currently on break until April as it wrangles over the highly controversial Marriage and Divorce Bill, which is wrapped up in highly emotional arguments over women in society and, in addition, pits government policy against entrenched and longstanding tribal practices. In fact, it was a walk out by women MP’s in a dispute over the Marriage and Divorce Bill in the closing days of the Eighth Parliament in 2011 which prevented the Anti-Homosexuality Bill from coming to a vote. With the Marriage and Divorce Bill back on the agenda, it appears that the AHB is again playing its normal role, having been placed on stand-by in case a unifying vote is needed to  heal fractures in Parliament, or if a popular vote is needed to salve outraged sectors of the general public.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Rises To Top of Parliament’s “Business to Follow”

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, the draconian legislation that would seek to wipe LGBT people out of existence, has risen to the top of the Uganda Parliament’s “Business to Follow” list on today’s Order Paper (Word: 43KB/2 pages). The bill’s rising profile occurs as Parliament is set to consider two other contentious bills: a second Petroleum Bill to regulate gas processing and conversion, transportation, and storage; and a Public Order and Management Bill, which comes in the wake of widespread protests by opposition leaders and ongoing police crackdowns on freedom of assembly on behalf of the government. It also follows a highly controversial Marriage and Divorce Bill, which, like the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, has been in the works since 2009. In fact, it was a walkout over the Marriage and Divorce Bill which denied the previous Parliament its working quorum and led to that Parliament’s expiration before it was able to vote on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

All three bills ahead of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill are allocated sixty minutes on the agenda, but it may, in fact, take weeks for Parliament to make their way through these bills. The Petroleum Bill first appeared on Parliament’s Order Paper last Wednesday (Word: 36/2 pages) with its allocated sixty minutes of fame. Nearly a week later, and it’s still there awaiting action. That same day, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was at number four under “Business to Follow”, and the Marriage and Divorce Bill was placed at number five. The next day (Word: 41KB/2 pages), the Anti-Homosexuality Bill rose to the number  three spot under “Business to Follow,” but the Marriage and Divorce Bill leapfrogged to number two, just behind the Public Order and Management Bill.

The last time the Anti-Homosexuality Bill made it to the top of Parliament’s “Business to Follow,” the house was wrangling over a highly controversial Petroleum Bill which would grant vast powers to the Energy Minister, a presidential appointee, giving the minister sole discretion in negotiating, signing and revoking lucrative oil exploration and drilling contracts. Uganda is already rated as one of the more corrupt nations of East Africa, and critics charged that the first Petroleum Bill would amount to legalizing the theft of the country’s newly-discovered oil wealth. That bill was finally passed in a deft, last-minute move when there just happened to be the precise number of people on hand in Parliament to form a bare quorum. Soon after, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill quickly fell to number seven in Parliament’s “Business to Follow.” The bill’s recent rise on the on-deck list follows a familiar pattern of being retained close at hand in case it is needed as either a carrot, a unifying reward or a distraction if one of the other more contentious bills results in turmoil in the House.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill would, in its current form, bring the death penalty or life imprisonment for gay people, and would endanger everyone else with lengthy prison terms for either knowing, providing services, or defending them. A complete clause-by-clause examination f of the bill’s nineteen clauses begins here, and our examination of the numerous false reports that the death penalty has been removed is here. A description of the Parliamentary process is here; with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill now at step “C.” If the bill is passed by Parliament, the Uganda Constitution spells out these options before the bill becomes law.

Uganda Considers Deporting British Pro-Gay Play Producer

David Cecil at a court appearance in September

The Guardian has confirmed that David Cecil, the British National who had been arrested for staging a pro-gay play in the Kampala, Uganda, suburbs, is back in police detention and facing possible deportation.

Cecil was arrested last September after successfully staging the play, “The River and the Mountain” in a couple of small Kampala-area theaters. The play, about a gay businessman and his mother who tries various schemes to make him straight, was staged after the Uganda Media Council banned the play’s performance at the National Theatre. Cecil was subsequently arrested for staging the play “against lawful orders,” but Ugandan court dismissed those charges in January.

In the latest developments, The Guardian reports:

Immigration officers took Cecil from his home in the outskirts of the capital, Kampala, on Thursday to Jinja Road police station, where he is being held. Fridah Mutesi, a human rights lawyer in Uganda, said the government did not disclose the grounds on which Cecil was being deported, but that it had the power to deport individuals deemed “undesirable”.

…Cecil, who has a partner and young family in Kampala, said he would appeal against the deportation order, either from Uganda or from the UK. He said the arrest was “political, not legal”.

Uganda’s Parliament Resumes With Anti-Homosexuality Bill Waiting In the Wings

Uganda’s Parliament has returned after a nearly two month break, with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill listed as number eight under “Business to Follow” in yesterday’s order paper (Word: 37KB/2 pages), as well as today’s ( Word: 42KB/2 pages). There are at least a couple of ways to read this. First, this is the lowest position the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has occupied on the Parliament’s agenda since the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee announced that it had completed its report on the bill. That announcement included unverified claims that the death penalty would be removed from the bill, claims that we had seen before and were proven to have been falsely made. So for those looking for signs of encouragement, the bill’s low placement on the agenda — after a report on the African Space Research Program — may be taken as something of a positive sign.

But there is also another way to look at it, and it is consistent with what I’ve observed before: the Anti-Homosexuality Bill always seems to be hanging around whenever any other divisive issue is consuming the public’s or politicians’ attention. You may recall that when Parliament was fighting over the highly controversial Petroleum Bill last December, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was waiting in the wings at number one under “Business to Follow,” and there it remained until after the Petroleum Bill passed in a hurriedly-called session. That Petroleum Bill was extremely controversial because it gave sweeping powers to a presidential appointee to sign and cancel oil drilling licenses, opening the way to massive corruption in the oil sector. Within a week of that bill’s passage — in a very hurriedly-called session when, coincidentally, there just happened to be a bare minimum of MP’s on hand to form quorum — the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was shoved down to number six, then to number seven, under “Business to Follow,” where it more or less remains today.

So look at where the bill is today. Placed above the Anti-Homosexuality Bill under “Business to Follow” are various reports investigating payouts for road construction and a cement company (both of which are mired in allegations of financial irregularities), a report on an investigation on irregularitites in the Electrical Subsector of a Petroleum Bill (a different Petroleum Bill from last December’s), and the Public order and Management Bill. That last one is likely to be particularly contentious, as it would grant the President and his cabinet unilateral powers to quash the freedom of peaceful assembly and dissent. And none of those issues even hint at a massive controversy taking place outside Parliament over the sudden death of a popular young Member of Parliament and the government’s ham-handed attempts to repress an independent investigation of the mysterious circumstances surrounding her death.

And so once again, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill placement on the agenda follows a fairly well-established pattern, and is consistent with my earlier speculation that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill’s true role in Parliament is to remain close at hand as a potent distraction (if needed) or as a unifying rallying point after a controversial vote (again, if needed).

For our clause-by-clause of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill’s provisions, start here. For a quick view of how a bill becomes law in Uganda, click here. The bill’s place in that process is little changed since that post was written, as it has not yet gone to the plenary stage. For a review of what happens if Parliament does pass the bill, click here. And if someone tries to tell you that the death penalty has already been removed from the bill, refer them here.

Ugandan Official Says Anti-Homosexuality Bill Already Hurting Economy

I should note first that The Observer is an opposition publication in Uganda, so it’s hard to know how influential this debate might be, which David Tash Lumu describes as taking place “on the steps of Parliament” between several members of Parliament and a Deputy Secretary to the Treasury:

So at a time when the University of Buckingham in the UK has reportedly severed ties with Victoria University over the bill, which the Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, promised to pass last year as a “Christmas gift”, a rare debate happened at the steps of the august House. The MPs who were part of this debate included James Kakooza (Kabula), Fox Odoi (West Budama North) and Geoffrey Ekanya (Tororo).

This reporter was also part of the debate that sucked in (Deputy Secretary to the Treasury) Keith Muhakanizi. While Kakooza suggested the bill would protect the morals of the country, Fox Odoi, a member of Parliament’s committee on Legal Affairs that scrutinised it, argued that it is illogical to legislate on morality. Odoi, who has written a minority report bashing the bill, added that if lawmakers ignore his report and pass the bill, they will have set a wrong precedent—that government can enter or legislate what happens in your bedroom.

Ekanya, the shadow Finance minister, however expressed worry about the economy, arguing that the aid cuts have happened not because of corruption but largely because of this bill. Ekanya added that the bill is the best ammunition President Museveni has right now—because he uses it to scare donors.

“He must be saying that if you don’t give us the money, I am going to tell MPs to pass this bill,” Ekanya said.

But Muhakanizi dismissed this and accused MPs of not being sensitive about the economy. He said by bringing up such a bill, the MPs are hurting the economy because they have failed to look at the far-reaching financial consequences of passing it.

“I have never seen a country like this where politicians hurt the economy instead of building it,” he said.

Again, it’s hard to understand what level of importance to place in this. Kakooza is a member of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), which holds a dominating super-majority of seats in Parliament. Odio is Independent member, and Ekanya is a member of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), the main opposition party in Uganda.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was reintroduced into Parliament in February, 2012, and spent the next several months languishing quietly in the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. Later last summer, Parliament leaders began hinting that the bill would be voted on by the end of the year. In November, Speaker Kadaga promised to pass the Anti-Homosexuality bill as a “Christmas gift to Ugandans.” The bill looked as though it would re-emerge on the House floor as Parlaiment began debating a highly controversial Petrolium Bill, which granted the presidentially-appointed Energy Minister with sweeping power to sign and cancel lucrative oil contracts with no oversight from Parliament.

 As tensions mounted over the Petroleum Bill, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill rose to the top of Parliament’s list of “Business to follow,” potentially as a unifying incentive to ease the passage of the Petroleum Bill. Parliament nevertheless broke down in chaos over the Petroleum bill, only to regroup and pass it. It was thought that by getting the Petroleum Bill out of the way, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would be the next item for discussion, but instead it was immediately lowered in priority on the Parliament’s list of business to follow. Parliament went on Christmas break on December 14, and will resume on February 4.

Meanwhile, a massive corruption scandal exploded in the Prime Minister’s office when it was discovered that foreign aid funds from several European countries were diverted to private bank accounts of more than a dozen Ugandan officials. Britain, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden announced aid cuts due to the scandal. Germany’s announcement also cited the Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a reason. Earlier this week, Britain’s University of Buckingham announced that it was ending its relationship with Victoria University in Kampala over the pending legislation.

Despite numerous false reports to the contrary, the death penalty is still in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

British University Cuts Ties With Uganda Affiliate Over Anti-Gay Bill (UPDATED)

According to a statement posted on the University of Buckingham web site, the university has suspended the validation of some of the courses offered at Victoria University in Kampala:

Over the last few months, the University of Buckingham has been in discussions with our partners, Edulink, who own Victoria University in Kampala, Uganda, about our continued validation of some of Victoria University’s courses. We have both become increasingly concerned about the proposed legislation in Uganda on homosexuality and in particular the constraints on freedom of speech in this area. In the light of this we have agreed to suspend our validation on the assurance that Edulink would produce viable arrangements for existing students on our validated courses to complete their studies. We will of course assist Edulink with any validation support needed to achieve this.

In February 2011, University of Buckingham announced that they were entering an agreement with Victoria University to provide courses produced by Buckingham, with the goal over time of embarking on joint research and providing educational programs which would meed the British standards for East African students.

Update: BTB commenter Bose in St. Peter MN found this statement from Victoria University which provides further context (PDF: 1 page/283KB):

Under both UK and Ugandan law discrimination on a variety of grounds is prohibited; however there are fundamental differences between the two nations’ respective laws regarding equality and diversity, which cannot be reconciled. After seeking legal guidance from both UK and Ugandan lawyers, Victoria University and University of Buckingham have concluded that as the laws of Uganda and UK presently stand, Victoria University cannot comply with both sets of laws.

Therefore, the collaboration between Victoria University and the University of Buckingham has been suspended because it cannot operate in a status of legal uncertainty and/or non-compliance.

Federal Judge Expresses Doubt About Lawsuit Against Scott Lively

A hearing was held today at a Federal Court in Springfield, Massachusetts on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against American anti-gay extremist Scott Lively. The Center for Constitutional Rights is suing Lively on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda, alleging that Lively engaged in a conspiracy to deny the LGBT community of their rights under International Law and which resulted in harm to the LGBT community. Lively is being sued under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides federal jurisdiction for “any civil action by an alien, for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In today’s hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor expressed doubts about the case:

During a 90-minute hearing in U.S. District Court, Ponsor said the lawsuit filed by Sexual Minorities Uganda against the Springfield minister poses a test of Lively’s free-speech protection and the rights of sexual minorities to equal protection under the law.

But the judge said the plaintiffs needed to show a connection between Lively’s anti-gay advocacy in Uganda and illegal acts committed against gays in the country.

“I’m frankly struggling to see what behavior beyond expressive behavior” of Lively violated federal law, the judge said during the hearing attended by about 150 people, including a prominent Ugandan activist.

The plaintiffs, the judge added, “needed to show a more concrete example of misbehavior to justify continuation of the lawsuit.”

As I wrote last March soon after the case was filed, this is the very challenge CCR faces in this case. CCR’s case cannot simply be a recitation of what Lively said. If it is, then the case becomes solely about Lively’s speech and beliefs which, as odious as they are, are nevertheless protected under the First Amendment. What CCR would need to do is provide proof that Lively actually engaged in actions which constitute a plan or conspiracy with the desired outcome being the infringement of the rights of LGBT people under International Law, and that LGBT people in Uganda, as a result of that conspiracy or action, suffered as a result. Hence the judge’s emphasis on “misbehavior.”

While Judge Ponsor expressed his skepticism about the case, he also cast doubt on Lively’s motion to dismiss. According to the Springfield Republican, the judge didn’t indicate when he would rule on the motion to dismiss.

Lively is being defended in the lawsuit by Liberty Counsel.

British Pro-Gay Gay Producer’s Charges Dismissed By Uganda Court

David Cecil at a court appearance in September

Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) Executive Director Frank Mugisha tweets the happy news. David Cecil was arrested in September after successfully staging the play, “The River and the Mountain” in a couple of small Kampala-area theaters. He staged the play, about a gay businessman and his mother who tries various schemes to make him straight, after the Uganda Media Council banned the play’s performance at the National Theatre. He was subsequently arrested for staging the play “against lawful orders,” but Ugandan court today has dismissed those charges.

David Cecil shared the following statement on his Facebook page from his lawyer:

A win for freedom in Uganda! A case against a British script producer, David Cecil (accused of staging a “homosexual play”-The Mountain and the River and disobeying “lawful” orders) has been dismissed for lack of evidence by the Magistrates Court at Makindye. We can now sue the State for the malicious prosecution. This is the type of work I’m willing to do for the rest of my life. No man should be arrested, detained, charged and imprisoned arbitrarily for expressing himself. Rights and Freedoms are inherent and not granted by cultural and religious beliefs/institutions, families, parents, the Government or the State.

This win is only the latest court victory for LGBT people and their allies in Uganda. In 2011, the High Court ruled in favor of LGBT advocate David Kato and two other LGBT advocates who had sued the tabloid Rolling Stone (no relation to the U.S. publication by the same name) after its notorious outing campaigns. (Three weeks later, Kato was found murdered in his home.) Ugandan LGBT advocates are currently suing Ethics and Integrity Minister Simon Lokodo, a defrocked former Catholic priest, who led raids against two conferences on human rights for LGBT people.

Uganda LGBT Advocate Arrested for “Recruiting Into Homosexuality”

According to information provided in a couple of Facebook postings and confirmed by Ugandan LGBT advocates, Kaweesi Joseph, a founding member of the Ugandan LGBT advocacy and support group Youth on Rock Foundation was arrested on December 30 for what is described as “acts of homosexuality and recruiting juveniles.” The circumstances behind his arrest remain unclear. Kenyan activist Denis Nzioka has confirmed that Kaweesi has been arrested by police and is in custody at Kawempe police station in a suburb north of Kampala.

The charges against Kaweesi remain unclear. Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda, with punishment ranging from twenty years to life, depending on how prosecutors chose to apply the law. Because other reports appear to allude to “unnatural offences,” it appears that police are looking to charge Kaweesi under Section 145 of Uganda’s Penal Code, which reads:

Any person who— (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.

But as legal observers point out, there is no law barring “recruiting,” although the term has two distinct but often conflated meanings in the Ugandan context. Anti-gay rhetoric in Uganda has it that the only way people become gay is that they are “recruited” into homosexuality, either through “defilement” or by otherwise providing support for LGBT youth and adults. “Defilement,” which refers to rape or sexual abuse, is obviously against the law. But the fact that the term “defilement” is not being used here seems to indicate that police are using the term “recruiting” to mean providing support or services for gay people. Aside from the sheer impossibility of “recruiting” anyone into being gay, Ugandan law currently does not prohibit advocacy or providing support services for LGBT people, although the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill would outlaw all such support.

According to Deniz Nzioka at Identity Kenya:

Local activists confirmed the incident and were looking into ways to secure the release of Kaweesi. Additionally, TRF updated on their Facebook page on the same and urged members to be exercise caution.

A lawyer was in touch with Kaweesi and it was expected that he would post bail to ensure he is released.

In a more recent Facebook posting, it is reported that Kaweesi is still in police custody and will be spending his third night in jail. Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) Executive Director Frank Mugisha confirms via Facebook:

Today at Police they pulled up one of the ugandan gay facebook pages as evidence,against a ugandan gay guy who has been arrested,please be careful with what you post on fb esp people in the closet.

Last week, the offices of Sexual Minorities Uganda were broken into, and several computers with their hard drives were stolen. It is not known what information was contained in those hard drives or whether that theft has led to this arrest.

Uganda’s Parliament is currently on break for the Christmas holidays. It may take up debate on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill when it resumes in February. Several prominent pastors, including the new Anglican Archbishop Stanley Ntagali, have called for the bill’s passage in their New Year’s addresses earlier today “to avert the recruitment of youngsters to adopt the same-sex behaviour.”