Uganda Criminalizes Homosexuality

[Hurlshort]

 

I'm not sure why OP is even singling out Uganda. Homosexuality is criminalized in many countries (and still in some US states if I'm not mistaken), but it's easy to pick on the weakest and poorest of the bunch.

what?

 

 

Seconded.  what?

[Zoraptor]

Well, it is selective criticism, and Low Hanging Fruit. The gulf states for example have far more repressive laws regarding homosexuals yet get barely a murmur. I certainly don't support the repressive laws- none of my or anyone else's business what consenting adults get up to, and it doesn't infringe the rights of 3rd parties since not being offended by what other people do isn't a right.

 

But there's no doubt the outrage over them is applied selectively, and not universally. Because something like boycotting the Gulf would mean actual sacrifice on the part of the boycotters, whereas boycotting Uganda involves avoiding... basically nothing identifiable for most people, and boycotting Russia involves, rather bizarrely, buying then pouring luxury Latvian vodka down drains.

 

The countries are as bad. They won't cut aid to Uganda unless they've already decided that it's going Chinese- because they know the Chinese will step up to the plate to replace it. And it has to be said that, by and large, the Chinese have been far better in their decade or so of pre-eminence in developing Africa economically than the west has been in a century plus.

[AGX-17]

A correction there Agx as you've raised this before. Corrective rape happens but it is unequivocally condemned and the perpetrators of this heinous act of ignorance and bigotry prosecuted  when they are caught. And to be fair its not common

By the liberalized/westernized minority, not by the slum-dwelling masses or those who engage in it. If South Africa is a socially progressive country then I'm God and I made South Africa a socially liberal nation.

 

 

Apartheid. CHECK AND MATE, MATE. YOU OWE ME A PINT.

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by AGX-17

[Malcador]

I'm not sure why OP is even singling out Uganda. Homosexuality is criminalized in many countries (and still in some US states if I'm not mistaken), but it's easy to pick on the weakest and poorest of the bunch.

 

Well, they made the headlines with a new law, so not sure it's really singling out.  I don't think it's illegal in US states, though maybe there are some with old sodomy laws that are unenforced.

[BruceVC]

The reality is that yes in many countries in Africa homosexuality is illegal, but these are old colonial laws and gay people aren't prosecuted and persecuted. In Uganda this is a new law that is being enforced and there is a witch-hunt to find and discriminate against gay people. Also as you see from the videos posted by meshugger there justification for this legislation is abhorrent and does nothing but galvanize hate.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Can you show a single constitution that outlaws hate?

 

Hate per se?  No.  Expression (vocal or written) of that hate against specific groups or individuals is prohibited by numerous countries.

Trashman had already stated that in the post Bruce replied to, so Bruce was obviously referring to hate, the emotion, as opposed to hate speech. My point was obviously that you need specific laws to make things illegal (hence no law legalising having a nose or eating noodles) and he wouldn't find many if any making hate, the emotion, illegal.

 

Basically Bruce's disingenuousness managed to elicit a response, though probably not the one he was aiming for.

 

 

Since you seem to know so much about how I think, what was the response I was hoping for?

[Valsuelm]

The reality is that yes in many countries in Africa homosexuality is illegal, but these are old colonial laws and gay people aren't prosecuted and persecuted. In Uganda this is a new law that is being enforced and there is a witch-hunt to find and discriminate against gay people. Also as you see from the videos posted by meshugger there justification for this legislation is abhorrent and does nothing but galvanize hate.

 

The eating the poopoo videos were comical if anything, they certainly didn't galvanize hate. You're grasping at straws with that one.

[ManifestedISO]

No worries, mate, none of us in the rational audience think you are disingenuous or grasping at anything but to put a lamplight on this unconscionable situation. 

[BruceVC]

No worries, mate, none of us in the rational audience think you are disingenuous or grasping at anything but to put a lamplight on this unconscionable situation. 

 

Thanks Manifested, that's really all I want to achieve. Awareness of this situation and some people keep wanting to hijack the thread by nitpicking on certain things I say

[Mor]

Well, it is selective criticism, and Low Hanging Fruit. The gulf states for example have far more repressive laws regarding homosexuals yet get barely a murmur. [..] But there's no doubt the outrage over them is applied selectively, and not universally. Because something like boycotting the Gulf would mean actual sacrifice on the part of the boycotters, whereas boycotting Uganda involves avoiding... basically nothing identifiable for most people, and boycotting Russia involves, rather bizarrely, buying then pouring luxury Latvian vodka down drains.

Again what? You are acting as if this was some conference about LGBT rights in the world and they focused solely on Uganda, as opposed to a news item, about criticism of a newly passed law.. So no, I don't see this as selective criticism or as Low Hanging Fruit, nor have I seen any mention of boycott there or anything todo with Russia... Edited February 27, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

 

The reality is that yes in many countries in Africa homosexuality is illegal, but these are old colonial laws and gay people aren't prosecuted and persecuted. In Uganda this is a new law that is being enforced and there is a witch-hunt to find and discriminate against gay people. Also as you see from the videos posted by meshugger there justification for this legislation is abhorrent and does nothing but galvanize hate.

 

The eating the poopoo videos were comical if anything, they certainly didn't galvanize hate. You're grasping at straws with that one.

 

 

You missing my point, the Ugandan president has been in power for nearly 30 years. He wants another 5 years. A good strategy to gain political support in a country where the ruling party isn't delivering economic reform and uplifting there people is to divert attention away from the obvious issues by creating some fictitious enemy that people can get angry at.

But before you do that you need to make people dislike that enemy, so you create a propaganda machine that does exactly that. I don't know if the videos are real but I do know that there is popular support now in Uganda against all gay people. And when you listen to the reasons around how the Uganda authorities have positioned this bigotry its absolutely ignorant and includes reasons like

gay people are destroying our family values

gay people are responsible for HIV

gay people engage in sexual acts that are absolutely disgusting and inhuman and don't deserve to part of Ugandan society

 

So even though you may find the video absurd and comical don't think for a second that there aren't uneducated people in Uganda who believe it. So the result is you get popular support for this legislation and the Uganda president as he is seen as the champion of this crusade against the "evil of Western gayness that is destroying our society"

[Zoraptor]

Again what? You are acting as if this was some conference about LGBT rights in the world and they focused solely on Uganda, as opposed to a news item, about criticism of a newly passed law.. So no, I don't see this as selective criticism or as Low Hanging Fruit, nor have I seen any mention of boycott there or anything todo with Russia...

 

I know perfectly well why Uganda and Russia are being targeted now, I was pointing out that other places with worse, long standing laws, aren't. They're Low Hanging Fruit in terms of being something that is easy to get outraged about because it has zero practical impact on their life beyond the visceral thrill of moral outrage. The people calling for sanctions and boycotts over those two countries- and I can pull up recent threads on Russia very easily to prove the point- are going for an easy target because going after the hard and worse targets is, well, hard. Doing without vodka is a far, far different beast from doing without the oil you'd be missing if you went after the hard, worse, targets.

 

Since you seem to know so much about how I think, what was the response I was hoping for?

 

Show me where hate is made legal in a constitution?

 

Obvious conclusion is you were looking for an "I can't" answer, and indeed the question is written perfectly to get that answer- if you answer the question, as asked.

[alanschu]

Hate speech laws only sweep unwanted opinions under the rug, just because no one is saying anything publicly, it doesn't mean that the opinion exist in itself. Feel-good laws if you may call it so. Also, these kinds of laws give further leeway for hindering discourse since they by design (what is 'hate speech'? hard satire? stereotyping?) are making people, and the state, to able to use the law to silence any percieved hate.

 

Well, the thing about any point of view is that if carefully crafted and presented to a particular audience, you can persuade them to agree to your perspective. 

 

Kind of like The Third Wave experiment where a high school teacher was able to rather rapidly impose some fascist tendencies onto his class which spurred some controversy due to it spreading beyond the school classes itself (there's an entertaining after school special about it ).  I mean, it's not like any persecuted minority were innately born hated by their oppressors.

 

 

I think there can also be an impact in codifying those actions in law, similar to how there are groups of people that don't do drugs simply because they were taught that they were illegal and therefore bad.  Whether or not you consider this impact a good or bad thing is up to the person I suppose.

[BruceVC]

 

Hate speech laws only sweep unwanted opinions under the rug, just because no one is saying anything publicly, it doesn't mean that the opinion exist in itself. Feel-good laws if you may call it so. Also, these kinds of laws give further leeway for hindering discourse since they by design (what is 'hate speech'? hard satire? stereotyping?) are making people, and the state, to able to use the law to silence any percieved hate.

 

Well, the thing about any point of view is that if carefully crafted and presented to a particular audience, you can persuade them to agree to your perspective. 

 

Kind of like The Third Wave experiment where a high school teacher was able to rather rapidly impose some fascist tendencies onto his class which spurred some controversy due to it spreading beyond the school classes itself (there's an entertaining after school special about it ).  I mean, it's not like any persecuted minority were innately born hated by their oppressors.

 

 

I think there can also be an impact in codifying those actions in law, similar to how there are groups of people that don't do drugs simply because they were taught that they were illegal and therefore bad.  Whether or not you consider this impact a good or bad thing is up to the person I suppose.

 

 

I am really glad you have got involved in this debate. I consider you an intellectual and logical juggernaut when it comes to your views on certain topics.

You have a way of making the same point I want to make but I seem at times to fail miserably in articulating it. I find you make a point that is almost impossible to dispute.

 

For example "it's not like any persecuted minority were innately born hated by their oppressors"...so true. So where does bigotry come from if not from the influences of others. And in this case the Ugandan government and there homophobic propaganda.

 

[213374U]

Well, the thing about any point of view is that if carefully crafted and presented to a particular audience, you can persuade them to agree to your perspective. 

 

Kind of like The Third Wave experiment where a high school teacher was able to rather rapidly impose some fascist tendencies onto his class which spurred some controversy due to it spreading beyond the school classes itself (there's an entertaining after school special about it  ).  I mean, it's not like any persecuted minority were innately born hated by their oppressors.

 

I think there can also be an impact in codifying those actions in law, similar to how there are groups of people that don't do drugs simply because they were taught that they were illegal and therefore bad.  Whether or not you consider this impact a good or bad thing is up to the person I suppose.

 

Yeah, and that is the exact opposite to the slippery slope that "first you legalize hate" and then BAM! Treblinka.

 

Given the subjective properties of language, hate speech laws are either extremely difficult to enforce, or an excuse to implement ideological tyranny. If you are indeed in a situation in which the particular audiences that can be convinced of whatever it is you want to suppress are large enough that their actions cannot be controlled, hate speech laws aren't going to do much good anyway. And if they are not large enough, the state already has broad powers to keep order. Hate speech laws are measures aimed at superficial symptoms of much deeper problems at best, or concealed attempts at social engineering at worst. To use your own example, the Third Wave experiment would not have infringed on any hate speech laws; it still took off no problem.

 

I also contend that at a fundamental level, you cannot simultaneously sustain the paternalist stance that the existence of some ideas is inherently "dangerous" or "unacceptable" to society (and therefore manifesting them is in breach of the law) and also the postulate upon which democracy is based that a society can produce sensible, responsible adult individuals free to form their own opinions and exercise their political rights accordingly. Conveniently, it's always going to be those unaffected by free speech limitations that believe that it's the "others" that need their dangerous thoughts reined in, by virtue of how groupthink works in societies at large. <insert comparison in accordance to Godwin's law>

[BruceVC]

is

 

Well, the thing about any point of view is that if carefully crafted and presented to a particular audience, you can persuade them to agree to your perspective. 

 

Kind of like The Third Wave experiment where a high school teacher was able to rather rapidly impose some fascist tendencies onto his class which spurred some controversy due to it spreading beyond the school classes itself (there's an entertaining after school special about it  ).  I mean, it's not like any persecuted minority were innately born hated by their oppressors.

 

I think there can also be an impact in codifying those actions in law, similar to how there are groups of people that don't do drugs simply because they were taught that they were illegal and therefore bad.  Whether or not you consider this impact a good or bad thing is up to the person I suppose.

 

Yeah, and that is the exact opposite to the slippery slope that "first you legalize hate" and then BAM! Treblinka.

 

Given the subjective properties of language, hate speech laws are either extremely difficult to enforce, or an excuse to implement ideological tyranny. If you are indeed in a situation in which the particular audiences that can be convinced of whatever it is you want to suppress are large enough that their actions cannot be controlled, hate speech laws aren't going to do much good anyway. And if they are not large enough, the state already has broad powers to keep order. Hate speech laws are measures aimed at superficial symptoms of much deeper problems at best, or concealed attempts at social engineering at worst. To use your own example, the Third Wave experiment would not have infringed on any hate speech laws; it still took off no problem.

 

I also contend that at a fundamental level, you cannot simultaneously sustain the paternalist stance that the existence of some ideas is inherently "dangerous" or "unacceptable" to society (and therefore manifesting them is in breach of the law) and also the postulate upon which democracy is based that a society can produce sensible, responsible adult individuals free to form their own opinions and exercise their political rights accordingly. Conveniently, it's always going to be those unaffected by free speech limitations that believe that it's the "others" that need their dangerous thoughts reined in, by virtue of how groupthink works in societies at large. <insert comparison in accordance to Godwin's law>

 

 

I want to clarify something and I'm not sure if its relevant to your post. No one has said once you have hate speech you have a Nazi style genocide. This whole spurious assessment of what I said is actually a strawman.

 

I explained the sequence of events that allows a country to legalize hate\dislike\animosity (whatever word you feel is applicable) towards a minority group. In order to make the point easier to understand I used an historical example, the Nazis and the treatment of the Jews. I never once said Uganda is going to end up the same as Nazi Germany. People selectively chose to put those words in my mouth. If I felt there was going to be a genocide in Uganda of all gay people I would have said " mark my words, Uganda is going to end up like Nazi Germany"

[Malcador]

Perhaps he's referring to you mentioning that this kind of thing is Nazi style tactics, identifying those unworthy people in your society for the presumed cleansing later. 

 

Funny, that people are going to get more hot over this than they are what's going on in CAR.

[TrashMan]

 

It is a basic right to think whatever you wish no matter how right or wrong it may be. Wrong of course often being a subjective thing.

 

You don't get basic rights from a constitution, you get them from just existing. Your Constitution happens to be one of the more @#$*(@#ed up ones in the western world by the way.

 

 

You don't get anything for just existing, other than the right to die.

 

Rights only exist as long as we agree they exist and give them. They are a human construct.

Nitpicking.

 

 

 

 

Outlawing certain types of thought is arguably more evil than the whatever it is you're attempting to outlaw.

 

Agreed. One cannot have freedom of speech if one isn't allowed to speak freely.

But if you say X it might be offensive? It's not nice? I don't want to hear it?

 

Too bad, because that's EXACTLY what free speech is about - being able to say something, no matter how much someone else might object.

 

And I fully understand people who want to ban some thing, because Lord knows free speech is a double sided blade. And a VERY sharp one.

There will always be things we find so wrong, so repulsive, that we will wish them gone forever. Thought and behaviors that we deem harmful to society or soul.

And then we will take steps to remove them, thinking ourselves righteous in the process.

[Hurlshort]

 

Again what? You are acting as if this was some conference about LGBT rights in the world and they focused solely on Uganda, as opposed to a news item, about criticism of a newly passed law.. So no, I don't see this as selective criticism or as Low Hanging Fruit, nor have I seen any mention of boycott there or anything todo with Russia...

 

I know perfectly well why Uganda and Russia are being targeted now, I was pointing out that other places with worse, long standing laws, aren't. They're Low Hanging Fruit in terms of being something that is easy to get outraged about because it has zero practical impact on their life beyond the visceral thrill of moral outrage. The people calling for sanctions and boycotts over those two countries- and I can pull up recent threads on Russia very easily to prove the point- are going for an easy target because going after the hard and worse targets is, well, hard. Doing without vodka is a far, far different beast from doing without the oil you'd be missing if you went after the hard, worse, targets.

 

 

 

I completely disagree.  Arizona has been all over the news because they had passed discriminatory legislation.  California was all over the news with Prop 8.  It isn't about low hanging fruit, it's about responding to legislation.  Russia got pressure because of laws passed recently, Uganda is getting the same. 

[TrashMan]

 

Well, the thing about any point of view is that if carefully crafted and presented to a particular audience, you can persuade them to agree to your perspective. 

 

 

True. The inherent danger of free speech is that someone will actually listen to you and maybe *GASP* change their mind.

Then we'll have TWO people who share that horrific, distasteful view that must be purged from existence

 

213374U put it nicely.

 

Love, hate, speech. Those are things the state shouldn't mess with - Legalizing or forbidding

[Malcador]

I completely disagree.  Arizona has been all over the news because they had passed discriminatory legislation.  California was all over the news with Prop 8.  It isn't about low hanging fruit, it's about responding to legislation.  Russia got pressure because of laws passed recently, Uganda is getting the same.

Arizona's barely registering on the outrage meter here, it might though. Russia was helped by the Olympics in that regard, lots of bleating on about gays an gay rights then with ads, calls for officials to boycott it and people being snarky over it.

 

The outrage is more half-assed and temporary than picking on certain countries, I feel. Internet activism for you.

[BruceVC]

 

I completely disagree.  Arizona has been all over the news because they had passed discriminatory legislation.  California was all over the news with Prop 8.  It isn't about low hanging fruit, it's about responding to legislation.  Russia got pressure because of laws passed recently, Uganda is getting the same.

Arizona's barely registering on the outrage meter here, it might though. Russia was helped by the Olympics in that regard, lots of bleating on about gays an gay rights then with ads, calls for officials to boycott it and people being snarky over it.

 

The outrage is more half-assed and temporary than picking on certain countries, I feel. Internet activism for you.

 

 

I disagree, Arizona has been all over our news. Its been represented by certain prominent radio presenters as "has the world gone mad? Look what's happening in Russia, Uganda and Arizona"

 

That's why I'm glad Jan Brewer has vetoed the bill. Its was  leading to bigots in South Africa trying to justify the situation in Uganda by comments like " the Americans are using passing anti-gay laws..so why can't the Ugandans". Of course the degree of homophobia wasn't nearly on the level in the USA compared to Uganda but I'm still glad the Arizona legislation wasn't approved

[213374U]

 

I want to clarify something and I'm not sure if its relevant to your post. No one has said once you have hate speech you have a Nazi style genocide. This whole spurious assessment of what I said is actually a strawman.

 

 

I explained the sequence of events that allows a country to legalize hate\dislike\animosity (whatever word you feel is applicable) towards a minority group. In order to make the point easier to understand I used an historical example, the Nazis and the treatment of the Jews. I never once said Uganda is going to end up the same as Nazi Germany. People selectively chose to put those words in my mouth. If I felt there was going to be a genocide in Uganda of all gay people I would have said " mark my words, Uganda is going to end up like Nazi Germany"

 

You needn't say that—drawing parallels between a series of current events and events past that everyone knows about is subtly but surely laying out a slippery slope. You said:

 

 

This is always the beginning of these types of draconian laws, first you legalize hate for a particular minority group. Then you mark or identify who the members of this group are.  This empowers people to commit hate crimes against the targeted group without fear of persecution. Then you'll see systematic murders of activists and of the people who are being discriminated against

 

Its the same modus operandi that the Nazi's used against the Jews

 

But it actually works both ways. A group takes power and decides that trait "X" is abhorrent and needs to be eradicated "for the betterment of society", though the excuses vary wildly. This trait can be religious beliefs, ethnic ties, economic status, affinity with certain political ideas, and yes, even sexual orientation; it can be pretty much anything. Backed by the majority and riding atop a self-reinforcing sense of moral righteousness, laws are passed to suppress the expression of this trait, damning the members of society targeted by these measures to an existence outside of mainstream society, as pariahs—using the power of the state to persecute people based on what they are. Once this is justified for "X", it can be justified for anything based on precedent. At this point a tyranny has effectively been enabled, and all bets are off.

 

 

 

Funny, that people are going to get more hot over this than they are what's going on in CAR.

 

CAR, South Sudan, Iraq... it's old news brah. News pieces are consumption articles and nobody likes stale bread.

[Malcador]

I disagree, Arizona has been all over our news. Its been represented by certain prominent radio presenters as "has the world gone mad? Look what's happening in Russia, Uganda and Arizona"

 

That's why I'm glad Jan Brewer has vetoed the bill. Its was  leading to bigots in South Africa trying to justify the situation in Uganda by comments like " the Americans are using passing anti-gay laws..so why can't the Ugandans". Of course the degree of homophobia wasn't nearly on the level in the USA compared to Uganda but I'm still glad the Arizona legislation wasn't approved

People here aren't bothering that much with it. The law in Arizona was to allow refusal of services on religious grounds, right ? I can see why that got vetoed for entering a sticky area, although if you're a private business, you do have some rights to serve who you please (and people have a right to get pissed at you over it as well).

 

Kind of funny for someone to ask has the world gone mad, especially in Africa, over this issue. As if this were the tipping point.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I want to clarify something and I'm not sure if its relevant to your post. No one has said once you have hate speech you have a Nazi style genocide. This whole spurious assessment of what I said is actually a strawman.

 

 

I explained the sequence of events that allows a country to legalize hate\dislike\animosity (whatever word you feel is applicable) towards a minority group. In order to make the point easier to understand I used an historical example, the Nazis and the treatment of the Jews. I never once said Uganda is going to end up the same as Nazi Germany. People selectively chose to put those words in my mouth. If I felt there was going to be a genocide in Uganda of all gay people I would have said " mark my words, Uganda is going to end up like Nazi Germany"

 

You needn't say that—drawing parallels between a series of current events and events past that everyone knows about is subtly but surely laying out a slippery slope. You said:

 

 

This is always the beginning of these types of draconian laws, first you legalize hate for a particular minority group. Then you mark or identify who the members of this group are.  This empowers people to commit hate crimes against the targeted group without fear of persecution. Then you'll see systematic murders of activists and of the people who are being discriminated against

 

Its the same modus operandi that the Nazi's used against the Jews

 

But it actually works both ways. A group takes power and decides that trait "X" is abhorrent and needs to be eradicated "for the betterment of society", though the excuses vary wildly. This trait can be religious beliefs, ethnic ties, economic status, affinity with certain political ideas, and yes, even sexual orientation; it can be pretty much anything. Backed by the majority and riding atop a self-reinforcing sense of moral righteousness, laws are passed to suppress the expression of this trait, damning the members of society targeted by these measures to an existence outside of mainstream society, as pariahs—using the power of the state to persecute people based on what they are. Once this is justified for "X", it can be justified for anything based on precedent. At this point a tyranny has effectively been enabled, and all bets are off.

 

 

 

Funny, that people are going to get more hot over this than they are what's going on in CAR.

 

CAR, South Sudan, Iraq... it's old news brah. News pieces are consumption articles and nobody likes stale bread.

 

 

It sounds like you are agreeing with me, Uganda is a tyranny at the moment