Uganda Criminalizes Homosexuality

[213374U]

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

 

The thing is you cannot selectively justify the encroachment on civil liberties. For all I know, Uganda is a tyranny in the same sense Germany is one, even if functionally they are not the same.

[Hurlshort]

 

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

 

The thing is you cannot selectively justify the encroachment on civil liberties. For all I know, Uganda is a tyranny in the same sense Germany is one, even if functionally they are not the same.

 

 

You do need to pick your battles though, you can find civil rights issues everywhere.  Nobody is saying that it is fine in one country but not another, it's simply a matter of time, resources, and prioritizing. 

[213374U]

 

 

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

 

The thing is you cannot selectively justify the encroachment on civil liberties. For all I know, Uganda is a tyranny in the same sense Germany is one, even if functionally they are not the same.

 

 

You do need to pick your battles though, you can find civil rights issues everywhere.  Nobody is saying that it is fine in one country but not another, it's simply a matter of time, resources, and prioritizing. 

 

 

Well, I may be mistaken but there was some defense of hate speech laws back there somewhere. This was a general commentary on that tangent is all.

 

I agree that everything cannot be tackled simultaneously and fixed overnight. But how do you suggest we choose which civil liberties issues take priority? My pet peeve is with "us" telling others how it's not nice to do something, when we are doing the equivalent ourselves. This makes any pretense of moral authority crumble.

[BruceVC]

 

Well, I may be mistaken but there was some defense of hate speech laws back there somewhere. This was a general commentary on that tangent is all.

 

I agree that everything cannot be tackled simultaneously and fixed overnight. But how do you suggest we choose which civil liberties issues take priority? My pet peeve is with "us" telling others how it's not nice to do something, when we are doing the equivalent ourselves. This makes any pretense of moral authority crumble.

 

 

You've raised a good point, how do we know what civil liberties to tackle? And the answer is more obvious than you realize, I'll tell you as I follow these types of events actively. So no need to worry about that one, I have it covered

Edited February 27, 2014 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

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....

 

 

You mean kinda like how in my nation, yours, and many of those reading this thread how an internal issue of a nation that most couldn't point out on a map is making international news and trumping local issues in our respective nations that are much more important and relevant to the folks living in those nations? Red herrings indeed.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

 

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.

 

Inalienable rights sir. It's concept that's been around for millennia.

 

Thinking whatever you wish happens to be such a thing, and it's a fool's supposition to conjecture otherwise; evil to try and enforce otherwise.

[Valsuelm]

 

Arizona has been all over the news because they had passed discriminatory legislation.

 

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

 

and a mission statement by an organization that supported the bill:

http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062

 

Note that at the federal level a law already exists that does what sb1062 wanted to do and it has already passed Supreme Court scrutiny. However the same Supreme Court ruled that this law was not enforceable at the state level, hence Arizona and other states making state laws to such affect.

 

Discrimination in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. We all discriminate all the time, every day with near every decision we make. However, I'm fairly sure you meant that sb1062 was somehow discriminatory in an evil way, (as 'discriminate' has become a negatively loaded word in the modern politically correct lexicon whose primary purpose is to quash people's ability to think) and that is just not the case, contrary to what many a talking head on TV and in the press would have you believe.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

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. 

 

 

That's actually part of pretty much exactly what I am saying. The low hanging fruit has two major parts, the typical responses- "oh no, how terrible, I'll solve it by posting to the internet about it or maybe proposing a boycott that won't effect me in the slightest"- and people tending to get outraged at stuff that is fed to them by the media, ie easily available information, instead of worse stuff that is accessible with a little work. In a few weeks the media and most people will have forgotten about Uganda's laws, having never even known about or forgotten the Gulf's, or Malcador's example of Central African Republic. So in other words it has little work required to find out about it, at least in the general sense, and requires little effort in response. That is pretty much the definition of low hanging fruit.

 

(I will freely acknowledge that that won't be true of everyone, of course; and that it is also a rather natural human response- which is self evident, since it wouldn't happen otherwise. Some people will do something practical about injustices, and remember over the long term, and do research. Most won't though, because those things are hard, and the next distraction will arrive.)

[alanschu]

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

I think I missed something, sorry.

 

 

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.

Of course. People that see something as abhorrent are going to be more likely to speak up.

 

 

I thought my comment was mostly neutral but I don't think it was taken that way hahaha.

[Mor]

That's actually part of pretty much exactly what I am saying. The low hanging fruit has two major parts, the typical responses- "oh no, how terrible, I'll solve it by posting to the internet about it or maybe proposing a boycott that won't effect me in the slightest"- and people tending to get outraged at stuff that is fed to them by the media, ie easily available information, instead of worse stuff that is accessible with a little work. In a few weeks the media and most people will have forgotten about Uganda's laws, having never even known about or forgotten the Gulf's, or Malcador's example of Central African Republic. So in other words it has little work required to find out about it, at least in the general sense, and requires little effort in response. That is pretty much the definition of low hanging fruit.

I understand and agree with what you are saying, but not so much with the point your trying to make here. Because what you said is "universally true", simply replace Homosexuality with any news item, current issue etc and it will remain just as valid i.e. most of us will remain apathetic to whatever unless it directly involve us or got enough exposure in the media. So this rather generic response against the "system", doesn't really impact this specific topic, at least as far as I can see. (btw I recently made a post with almost the exact same bottom line)

 

Russia got pressure because of laws passed recently, Uganda is getting the same.

IMO Russia got pressured, because a. they hoped to raise awareness in Russia b. in the hope that it will force Russia to compromise to avoid bad press(since they hoped of leveraging the Olympics for various economical and political purposes) Edited February 28, 2014 by Mor

[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. 

 

 

That's actually part of pretty much exactly what I am saying. The low hanging fruit has two major parts, the typical responses- "oh no, how terrible, I'll solve it by posting to the internet about it or maybe proposing a boycott that won't effect me in the slightest"- and people tending to get outraged at stuff that is fed to them by the media, ie easily available information, instead of worse stuff that is accessible with a little work. In a few weeks the media and most people will have forgotten about Uganda's laws, having never even known about or forgotten the Gulf's, or Malcador's example of Central African Republic. So in other words it has little work required to find out about it, at least in the general sense, and requires little effort in response. That is pretty much the definition of low hanging fruit.

 

(I will freely acknowledge that that won't be true of everyone, of course; and that it is also a rather natural human response- which is self evident, since it wouldn't happen otherwise. Some people will do something practical about injustices, and remember over the long term, and do research. Most won't though, because those things are hard, and the next distraction will arrive.)

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned "won't be true of everyone"

 

Myself and many others like me won't forget what is happening in Uganda until this inhuman law is rescinded. There are already several activist campaigns in South Africa being discussed that will be implemented. Also some European countries have cut aid. The question you need to ask yourself about all these issues around social justice is " how strongly do you personally feel about something" and " are you  just going to comment on the Internet or get more involved"

 

I choose the latter

[Whitefox789]

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned "won't be true of everyone"

 

Myself and many others like me won't forget what is happening in Uganda until this inhuman law is rescinded. There are already several activist campaigns in South Africa being discussed that will be implemented. Also some European countries have cut aid. The question you need to ask yourself about all these issues around social justice is " how strongly do you personally feel about something" and " are you  just going to comment on the Internet or get more involved"

 

I choose the latter

 

 

Unfortunately believing in something isn't enough, the reality of it is you need to have some kind of power that can contest against these social injustices you also have to bear in mind of the enemies you'll make along the way since your trying to 'change' something.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Whitefox789

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I'm glad you mentioned "won't be true of everyone"

 

Myself and many others like me won't forget what is happening in Uganda until this inhuman law is rescinded. There are already several activist campaigns in South Africa being discussed that will be implemented. Also some European countries have cut aid. The question you need to ask yourself about all these issues around social justice is " how strongly do you personally feel about something" and " are you  just going to comment on the Internet or get more involved"

 

I choose the latter

 

 

Unfortunately believing in something isn't enough, the reality of it is you need to have some kind of power that can contest against these social injustices you also have to bear in mind of the enemies you'll make along the way since your trying to 'change' something.

 

 

Good points

 

 

In South Africa there are several companies that have major investments in Uganda, so there is an active campaign to put pressure on these companies to discuss internally with the Uganda authorities what they are doing is unacceptable and how this going to impact investment. Also I am active participant on a prominent South African radio station so people like me phone in to position why this  homophobic legislation is abhorrent and contradicts what the African Union is suppose to stand for. You may think this is ineffective but helps change the mind set of people.

 

So for example you hear people say things like " Uganda is a sovereign country, we need to leave them to make there own decisions"

 

Easy to dispute "South Africa is a sovereign country but they implemented Apartheid which discriminated against people because of the colour of there skin. Just because a law is passed it doesn't make it valid or just and it certainly doesn't mean other countries can't get involved to change that law "

 

If it wasn't for the intervention of other countries Apartheid would never have ended

[Whitefox789]

 

Good points

 

 

In South Africa there are several companies that have major investments in Uganda, so there is an active campaign to put pressure on these companies to discuss internally with the Uganda authorities what they are doing is unacceptable and how this going to impact investment. Also I am active participant on a prominent South African radio station so people like me phone in to position why this  homophobic legislation is abhorrent and contradicts what the African Union is suppose to stand for. You may think this is ineffective but helps change the mind set of people.

 

So for example you hear people say things like " Uganda is a sovereign country, we need to leave them to make there own decisions"

 

Easy to dispute "South Africa is a sovereign country but they implemented Apartheid which discriminated against people because of the colour of there skin. Just because a law is passed it doesn't make it valid or just and it certainly doesn't mean other countries can't get involved to change that law "

 

If it wasn't for the intervention of other countries Apartheid would never have ended

 

Good points as well, and definitely getting a nice size group of people on your side is one of those powers I was talking about previously it is especially effective if you can put enough stress on these companies that it would drastically effect the economy of the country. It would at the very least get some attention from those who legislated those laws.

 

Also apparently as I was just typing this, the World Bank has postponed a $90 million dollar loan to Uganda's healthcare system; stating the bank itself opposes discrimination.

 

This also follows suit from Norway and Denmark not sending any donations to Uganda due to the passing of this law.

 

 

Now we get to the next topic Law vs. Morally Right By Society.

 

This is a tough one since Laws are in place to keep the populous in check otherwise there would be nothing but chaos (I like to think of it as a Mad Max kind of dystopian world). Both matters are highly subjective depending on the time period is in and what the majority of the populous thinks on the issue. The problem with this is majority of Africa does not approve of Homosexuality so that will be the general consensus for that society group in which it can take a very long time to change that mindset. 

 

What better way to get people to stop doing something they don't like? Make a law that threatens that persons freedom, this also goes in hand with the onlookers that know about it but say nothing.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Whitefox789

[BruceVC]

 

 

Good points

 

 

In South Africa there are several companies that have major investments in Uganda, so there is an active campaign to put pressure on these companies to discuss internally with the Uganda authorities what they are doing is unacceptable and how this going to impact investment. Also I am active participant on a prominent South African radio station so people like me phone in to position why this  homophobic legislation is abhorrent and contradicts what the African Union is suppose to stand for. You may think this is ineffective but helps change the mind set of people.

 

So for example you hear people say things like " Uganda is a sovereign country, we need to leave them to make there own decisions"

 

Easy to dispute "South Africa is a sovereign country but they implemented Apartheid which discriminated against people because of the colour of there skin. Just because a law is passed it doesn't make it valid or just and it certainly doesn't mean other countries can't get involved to change that law "

 

If it wasn't for the intervention of other countries Apartheid would never have ended

 

Good points as well, and definitely getting a nice size group of people on your side is one of those powers I was talking about previously it is especially effective if you can put enough stress on these companies that it would drastically effect the economy of the country. It would at the very least get some attention from those who legislated those laws.

 

Also apparently as I was just typing this, the World Bank has postponed a $90 million dollar loan to Uganda's healthcare system; stating the bank itself opposes discrimination.

 

This also follows suit from Norway and Denmark not sending any donations to Uganda due to the passing of this law.

 

 

Now we get to the next topic Law vs. Morally Right By Society.

 

This is a tough one since Laws are in place to keep the populous in check otherwise there would be nothing but chaos (I like to think of it as a Mad Max kind of dystopian world). Both matters are highly subjective depending on the time period is in and what the majority of the populous thinks on the issue. The problem with this is majority of Africa does not approve of Homosexuality so that will be the general consensus for that society group in which it can take a very long time to change that mindset. 

 

What better way to get people to stop doing something they don't like? Make a law that threatens that persons freedom, this also goes in hand with the onlookers that know about it but say nothing.

 

You've raised a good discussion point.

 

"majority of Africa does not approve of Homosexuality"

 

That's mostly true but I like to raise the question "why". This generally stems from religious interpretation and old Colonial laws. But for me there is a more important consideration. The African Charter for Human Rights clearly states that you mustn't discriminate against people. And all African countries are signatories to this charter. So if individual countries choose to pass laws that enforce bigotry they are in clear contravention of the AU manifesto. So there is a legal precedent that should supersede any religious or personal view. And yet the AU seems incapable of enforcing its own rules. This is one of the major contributing factors IMO around why the AU and the continent hasn't achieved its full potential, despite the fact it is more than capable of reaching great economic and social heights

[Whitefox789]

You've raised a good discussion point.

 

"majority of Africa does not approve of Homosexuality"

 

That's mostly true but I like to raise the question "why". This generally stems from religious interpretation and old Colonial laws. But for me there is a more important consideration. The African Charter for Human Rights clearly states that you mustn't discriminate against people. And all African countries are signatories to this charter. So if individual countries choose to pass laws that enforce bigotry they are in clear contravention of the AU manifesto. So there is a legal precedent that should supersede any religious or personal view. And yet the AU seems incapable of enforcing its own rules. This is one of the major contributing factors IMO around why the AU and the continent hasn't achieved its full potential, despite the fact it is more than capable of reaching great economic and social heights

 

I'd like to think its just a case of humans being stubborn and resistant to change. Though the more likely cause is the certain prospect that the mentality of Homosexuality is so alien to them they fear it instead of just accepting it. I can't recount the origin point of homosexuality the earliest point of history I know where it was documented was in several Asian countries roughly in the 1500's AD though I have no doubt in my mind that their are probably accounts even earlier than that.

 

The bottom line is the majority of sexuality's are Heterosexual (so difference from the majority = fear) it also doesn't help that most religions prohibit sexual activity for pleasure but instead only advocate it for procreation. Since two males and two females can't bear any children this way without the aid of the opposite gender (surrogate mothers, sperm donations). I can only assume their thoughts that not only are Homosexuals engage in sex for pleasure there is no procreation as well, they would consider that ideology as being blasphemous.

 

That's at least my 2 cents on the question.

 

Regarding the AU manifesto I think it might be just a case of a combination of people being afraid to defend and there are those that are against that specific group is the reason why the legality of the matter is overlooked.

 

(I now remember why I despise politics...)

Edited February 28, 2014 by Whitefox789

[TrashMan]

The African Charter for Human Rights clearly states that you mustn't discriminate against people. And all African countries are signatories to this charter. So if individual countries choose to pass laws that enforce bigotry they are in clear contravention of the AU manifesto. So there is a legal precedent that should supersede any religious or personal view. And yet the AU seems incapable of enforcing its own rules. This is one of the major contributing factors IMO around why the AU and the continent hasn't achieved its full potential, despite the fact it is more than capable of reaching great economic and social heights

 

But we do constantly discriminate.

 

 

 

So for example you hear people say things like " Uganda is a sovereign country, we need to leave them to make there own decisions"

 

Easy to dispute "South Africa is a sovereign country but they implemented Apartheid which discriminated against people because of the colour of there skin. Just because a law is passed it doesn't make it valid or just and it certainly doesn't mean other countries can't get involved to change that law "

 

How is that easy to dispute?

 

Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it invalid or wrong, and doesn't make other countries getting involved justified.

 

At the end of the day, all the justifications are done on a moral basis, and peoples morals are not the same.

[BruceVC]

 

 

How is that easy to dispute?

 

Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it invalid or wrong, and doesn't make other countries getting involved justified.

 

At the end of the day, all the justifications are done on a moral basis, and peoples morals are not the same.

 

 

Nah, Western countries are easily able to identify when something is unacceptable around bigotry like Apartheid or this Homophobic Bill based in Uganda. There is no right or wrong, there is only wrong. It may be partly based on the moral definition but the main reason for it is based on the suffering of the group that is being targeted and discriminated against. There suffering and humiliation is real, there is debate around this

Edited February 28, 2014 by BruceVC

[Elerond]

 

 

Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it invalid or wrong, and doesn't make other countries getting involved justified.

 

At the end of the day, all the justifications are done on a moral basis, and peoples morals are not the same.

 

 

But if law is against moral code of other countries that are getting involved, then that itself works as their justification to get involved as you said all justifications are based on some sort of moral code.

 

And if other countries don't get involved it is also justified by their moral code and works as statement towards issue on hand, as silent acceptance of law. Of course law maybe against moral values of countries that don't get involved, but their values also have other things that they see be more important, like for example country's right of self governance and independent decision making and those values of course can be canceled by facts that they don't want to finance countries that have moral values that are so much conflict against their own values, which of course can be in conflict in their moral values that they should support countries that don't have resources to feed and educate their people and so on.

 

So at the end of day everyone has justification for their actions that are based on their moral values but questions is that which values are most dominant and which parties have most resources or/and will to push their values to be the dominant ones. 

[Malcador]

Nah, Western countries are easily able to identify when something is unacceptable around bigotry like Apartheid or this Homophobic Bill based in Uganda. There is no right or wrong, there is only wrong. It may be partly based on the moral definition but the main reason for it is based on the suffering of the group that is being targeted and discriminated against. There suffering and humiliation is real, there is debate around this

Amusing, when you see how well they've responded to other easily identifiable events in Africa.

[TrashMan]

 

But if law is against moral code of other countries that are getting involved, then that itself works as their justification to get involved as you said all justifications are based on some sort of moral code.

 

 

So at the end of day everyone has justification for their actions that are based on their moral values but questions is that which values are most dominant and which parties have most resources or/and will to push their values to be the dominant ones. 

 

 

Precisely.

Everyone is convinced he is in the right and justified. Everyone has reasons why they think/believe what they do.

Everyone operates on the same basic principles.

 

It basicly boils down to "my views and morals are better than yours".

 

I'm just being honest here.

I don't call the intervention good, even if it's result would be good.

Two wrongs may make a right, but it's still two wrongs.

 

If I had to kill one person to save ten, I'd do it. But I wouldn't go around saying that specific action was a "good" and "moral" thing.

I don't even think those words apply anymore to such complex things.

[BruceVC]

 

Nah, Western countries are easily able to identify when something is unacceptable around bigotry like Apartheid or this Homophobic Bill based in Uganda. There is no right or wrong, there is only wrong. It may be partly based on the moral definition but the main reason for it is based on the suffering of the group that is being targeted and discriminated against. There suffering and humiliation is real, there is debate around this

Amusing, when you see how well they've responded to other easily identifiable events in Africa.

 

 

Actually the West plays a huge part in assisting Africa, almost all military missions in Africa are funded by the UN and primarily Western countries. You mentioned CAR earlier, there are already French troops in the country but they need more. When is Africa going to be able to resolve its own problems through it own funding? There is no reason African countries can't commit more troops to CAR but nothing is happening as they lack political will and don't seem to want to commit there own resources. But they wouldn't stop Western countries sending more of there own soldiers ?

[BruceVC]

 

 

But if law is against moral code of other countries that are getting involved, then that itself works as their justification to get involved as you said all justifications are based on some sort of moral code.

 

 

So at the end of day everyone has justification for their actions that are based on their moral values but questions is that which values are most dominant and which parties have most resources or/and will to push their values to be the dominant ones. 

 

 

Precisely.

Everyone is convinced he is in the right and justified. Everyone has reasons why they think/believe what they do.

Everyone operates on the same basic principles.

 

It basicly boils down to "my views and morals are better than yours".

 

I'm just being honest here.

I don't call the intervention good, even if it's result would be good.

Two wrongs may make a right, but it's still two wrongs.

 

If I had to kill one person to save ten, I'd do it. But I wouldn't go around saying that specific action was a "good" and "moral" thing.

I don't even think those words apply anymore to such complex things.

 

 

I reject your assessment around the point that "there is no such thing as morally wrong". And certain actions and decisions are absolutely justified

[Malcador]

Actually the West plays a huge part in assisting Africa, almost all military missions in Africa are funded by the UN and primarily Western countries. You mentioned CAR earlier, there are already French troops in the country but they need more. When is Africa going to be able to resolve its own problems through it own funding? There is no reason African countries can't commit more troops to CAR but nothing is happening as they lack political will and don't seem to want to commit there own resources. But they wouldn't stop Western countries sending more of there own soldiers ?

Well, was more thinking of older events. And mentioning CAR was about the outrage machine giving a f**k rather. And I guess if Africa is to resolve their own problems, isn't this Ugandan issue up to them as well without the West's prodding them to fall in line ?

[BruceVC]

 

Actually the West plays a huge part in assisting Africa, almost all military missions in Africa are funded by the UN and primarily Western countries. You mentioned CAR earlier, there are already French troops in the country but they need more. When is Africa going to be able to resolve its own problems through it own funding? There is no reason African countries can't commit more troops to CAR but nothing is happening as they lack political will and don't seem to want to commit there own resources. But they wouldn't stop Western countries sending more of there own soldiers ?

Well, was more thinking of older events. And mentioning CAR was about the outrage machine giving a f**k rather. And I guess if Africa is to resolve their own problems, isn't this Ugandan issue up to them as well without the West's prodding them to fall in line ?

 

 

You've raised an excellent question but no this isn't the same thing. There are times where intervention from other countries is necessary in Africa even if Africa doesn't want it. This is about human rights and the dignity of certain groups that become the victims of discrimination. You can't expect foreign aid and then treat your citizens in a way that is abhorrent to those countries giving the aid. That's just not the way it works