Prev
Next

Homophobia is the hate that dares speak its name

Senthorun Raj

by Senthorun Raj

11 Feb 05:55am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

122

Filed under: Culture, Gay Rights, Health, Hiv, Homsexuality, Human Rights, Uganda

63 comments

The recent resurfacing of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda, or the “Kill the Gays” Bill as it is notoriously referred to, has been a timely reminder of how homophobia remains a threat to human dignity. So how do sexuality, national politics and human rights align?

Homosexuals are not the danger in Uganda. Photo: AFP.

In numerous places around the world, homosexuality remains a site of intense political and social anxiety. Despite sexual orientation becoming a valid focus of international human rights law, over 80 countries around the world continue to criminalise homosexuality.

Uganda is now reconsidering legislation that would enhance the criminal penalties that already exist for people who engage consensual same-sex relationships. This may also include the death penalty for offences that are deemed to be of an “aggravated” nature.

If passed, the legislation would also compel HIV testing in some circumstances, and impose life sentences for entering into what is determined to be a same-sex marriage. Punishment would also extend to people who failed to “denounce” any violations of the Bill’s wide-ranging provisions by not reporting these incidents to the public authorities within 24 hours.

The scope of the Bill also extends to target what it refers to as the “promotion” of homosexuality.

While impinging on freedom of expression and the right to non-discrimination, attempts to criminalise consensual same-sex sexual activity will have negative public health consequences. Effectively the Bill forces same-sex attracted people into remaining invisible to avoid the threat of state-sanctioned violence and harassment.

Denying same-sex attracted people the capacity to participate in public discourse on health issues, and subsequently disallowing them access to appropriate sexual health information and services, fosters a culture of stigma, shame and unsafe sexual practices.

Historically, legal proscriptions on “homosexuality” in Uganda were a product of British colonialism. “Sodomy” offences or “acts against the order of nature”, as they are commonly referred to, were Commonwealth exports as a way of policing all non-heterosexual or non-reproductive relationships.

The ongoing refusal by the Ugandan Government to recognise the human rights of sexual minorities has been strengthened by fundamentalist religious conversations appropriated from the US. In 2009, Evangelical Christian leaders from the US spoke to MPs in Uganda opining that “homosexuality” is a threat to the “cohesion” of African families. The Family Life Network in Uganda has also exacerbated existing prejudices by speaking about homosexuality and pedophilia synonymously.

What is important to recognise is the transnational context through which homophobia operates. Fear of non-heterosexual intimacies and families is an anxiety that translates across different cultural contexts, regardless of economic or political capital. In Uganda, such prejudice has become especially dangerous in capitalising on public fears.

Echoing the words of the murdered Ugandan activist David Kato: “[The Bill] goes against the inclusive spirit necessary for our economic as well as political development. Its spirit is profoundly undemocratic and un-African.”

Homophobia, not homosexuality, is the danger in Uganda.

On 15 June 2011 the Human Rights Council passed a historic resolution expressing grave concerns at the human rights violations committed against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity referencing the principles equality and non-discrimination articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With the lives of so many sexual and gender minorities at stake, we must continue to promote dialogues that seek to challenge homophobia and discrimination. For Uganda this must begin with the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

For those of us in Australia, this involves not remaining silent or complicit in promoting homophobia. We must demonstrate our commitment to protecting human rights by strengthening anti-discrimination laws and ensuring full relationship recognition for same-sex couples and families.

Justice can only be served in Uganda if it is willing to acknowledge the paramount importance of protecting the human rights of all its citizens. Amnesty International urges that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill must be scrapped.

We must all speak out to make nations accountable for human rights; otherwise the price for us all will be intolerably high.

Twitter: @senthorun

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

63 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Super D says:

      05:13am | 11/02/12

      In some ways the advances in homosexual rights in the developed world may be seen to disadvantage the homosexuals of the developing world. After all the development of gay rights in the west has been a testament to the success of incrementalism. I distinctly recall that the message my generation was fed during the 80’s was one of tolerance. Equality came much later possibly within the last decade.

      This is to the distinct disadvantage of developing world gays. Tolerance seems a modest request. Equality is revolutionary. I doubt it will be possible for some cultures to make the great leap forward. After all, we needed baby steps to get where we are today.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      07:24am | 11/02/12

      The role of “western” christian evangelists in promoting homophobia in Africa almost seems to be a reaction to wider acceptance of homosexuality in their own countries, and its’s not just US christian evangelicals.

      Other countries christians, including some in Australia, have been complicit, through break-away organisations such as Gafcon, which has established an Africa-centric alliance to split the world-wide Anglican communion, based mostly on homophobia.

    • AdamC says:

      11:07am | 11/02/12

      Super D, that is an interesting observation. I suspect a frequent rebuttal to any home-grown criticism of this ghastly legislation is that, should Uganda not remain tough on homosexuality, gays will eventually be afforded the same status as they are in much of the West. Or, in other words, gay marriage in Europe may well be marshalled as a counter-argument to toleration of homosexuality in Africa.

    • Chris L says:

      12:15pm | 11/02/12

      Strategy, as pointed out by Super D, seems to be what is missing here. I agree that we shouldn’t expect other countries to simply see our own values and emulate them. If we believe we are correct when others are not, the solution won’t be attained by lambasting them. Instead a more realistic, short-term goal should be decided upon and encouraged.

    • Raktima Roy says:

      12:00am | 13/02/12

      If “baby steps” are the ones your generation was taking with tolerance in the eighties, don’t you think our generation should start taking the next step now, with equality?

    • Bertrand says:

      05:41am | 11/02/12

      Careful now.

      Apparently identifying homophobia and hatred, and speaking out against these things by calling people or groups on their hatred, makes you a bigot for not being accepting of those with different views to yourself.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      07:31am | 11/02/12

      Yes, it’s interesting that those that espouse dominion and control over other groups that are often at more than arms length, through negative commentary, are the ones that squeal loudest when criticized for that often unnecessary commentary.

    • Nathan says:

      05:44am | 11/02/12

      Countries like Uganda have a hell of allot more worries before addressing Homosexuals rights. I believe trying to secure rights for all is a good place to start. I realise this sounds dismissive but you have to walk before you run

      Reply

    • Bertrand says:

      06:44am | 11/02/12

      Maybe if you were talking about Ugandan gays getting the right to be married you could mount this argument.

      But we are talking about the right not be executed or sent to prison for decades as a result of a private sexual act between two consenting adults. I would say the right of Ugandan homosexuals to life and liberty rates as a fairly significant priority.

    • nihonin says:

      07:09am | 11/02/12

      Fair comment Nathan, it’s not dismissive at all, some things are far more worthy of being tidied up first before worrying about perceived ‘rights’ being ignored of ‘minority groups’.  WE all would like things to be our way, but that won’t ever happen.

    • Bertrand says:

      07:42am | 11/02/12

      @nihonin - I’m not sure how the rights not be executed or imprisoned for decades because of your sexuality are only ‘perceived’ rights that don’t rate in significance.

      As for the rights of ‘minority groups’, I think you will find that in almost all cases of persecution and rights abuses, it is minority groups that are the victims. This could be a racial minority, a sexual minority, or a political minority (in the last case, the political minority may in fact be a majority in terms of numbers, but a minority in terms of power…. think black South Africans under apartheid).

      The argument you and Nathan are mounting here is saying little more than it is ok to continue persecuting people because, hey, they are only a minority.

      Also, as the saying goes, it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Focussing on protecting the basic rights of Ugandan homosexuals wouldn’t automatically mean that the country couldn’t make reforms in other areas as well.

      Personally, the idea that people in the 21st century still run the risk of being killed because of who they love or are attracted to is abhorrent and a significant priority.

    • marley says:

      07:52am | 11/02/12

      @Nathan - sorry, don’t agree at all.  I’d agree that Uganda has a lot of things to worry about.  So, going out of your way to institute laws criminalizing gay sex seems to me to be a complete perversion of priorities.  And, I might add, there’s no more fundamental right than the right to life:  executing people for consensual sex is about as “worrying” a thing as I can think of.

    • nihonin says:

      08:23am | 11/02/12

      Bertrand, everybody is in a ‘minority’, so what you are saying is government should drop everything that affects the whole of society and pander only to minority groups ‘ills’.

    • marley says:

      08:41am | 11/02/12

      @nihonin - the right to life is not a minority right.

    • Bertrand says:

      09:02am | 11/02/12

      @nihohin - I’m not saying that at all. I fail to see how Uganda changing its laws so that homosexuals no longer risk getting executed is going to negatively affect anyone else in the country, or make the government unable to complete any of its other functions.

    • nihonin says:

      09:59am | 11/02/12

      A minority group should be formed for people who are sick and tired of hearing about the ‘rights’ of other minority groups, along with government policy being legislated to garner votes.

    • Bertrand says:

      10:54am | 11/02/12

      @nihonin - I’m sorry but I really can’t work out your reasoning.

      How does giving people the same rights that you already have affect you in any negative way? Are you really arguing that in cases where one segment of a society doesn’t have the same rights as another segment of society that we should simply accept the status quo? Or that providing rights to those who currently don’t have them is somehow removing rights from you?

      When women were granted the right to vote did that remove any rights from men? No. It simply granted women the same right to political representation as men. When homosexuality was decriminalised in Australia did that take away your right to be in a heterosexual relationship? No. It simply granted homosexual people the same right to liberty that you already had.

      In the case being discussed in this article, we are talking about a government that is in the process of legislating away rights from a minority. How on Earth can you really be arguing in favour of a government putting into law legislation that will result in people being executed because they are homosexual?

      The only right that is being removed when we grant minorities access to the same rights under law as the rest of us, is your right to discriminate and treat people poorly. I didn’t know that was even a right in the first place.

      By your reasoning, we shouldn’t ever be pushing for changes that remove legal discrimination. If that were the case we would still be living in a feudal society in which all power is invested in the king. The Magna Carta was nothing if not a law that granted political minorities (in this case, the rich nobility) some rights that were previously held by the political ruler (in this case the king). Moving on from there to early democracies, we would be stuck living in democracies where the only people with the right to vote were rich white men. Progress on political and social rights is a good thing. Unless of course you find something inherently offensive about all people in our society have equal rights under law.

    • Andrew says:

      11:01am | 11/02/12

      There not talking about the right for same sex couples to marry, I think maybe stopping laws that put people to death for being different, should be a priority. Will these laws stop at homosexuals?

    • wearestardust says:

      01:30pm | 11/02/12

      +1 to Bertrand and Nathan.  The issue here is not spending resources to create equality; it’s about Uganda’s spending resources to promote inequality.  Though “inequality” is a pretty poor word to cover jailing and execution.


      At the risk of creating a red herring: I am always perplexed by the idea that treating people equally is something that is difficult or costly or needing to be shelved until every other problem in society has been fixed. But perhaps that is another discussion for another time.

    • Clint Matthews says:

      05:45am | 11/02/12

      There has been a lot of discussion about gay rights in recent years. We have had vocal demonstrations for and against gay marriage, for and against gay adoption and for and against civil union registrations (here in Queensland at least). As a gay man I’d like to say I am proud- proud to be who I am, and proud to live in a nation that doesn’t just tolerate, but mostly accepts and embraces who I am. I may not yet be allowed to marry the person of my choosing, but we can at very least profess our love to each other, safe and secure in the knowledge that our government and society will protect us.
      Articles like the one above should serve to remind us that this safety and security is not available to everyone. That something as simple as who you love - forget about marriage - can be used against you and your family.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      08:27am | 11/02/12

      My sisters live in Uganda, and it’s always ‘nice’ to hear it being recognized on the global stage.
      Unfortunately for many Ugandan gays these rules won’t actually have such a negative effect on their lives. In many villages (mostly rural population) the locals rubber tire anyone suspected of being gay (or a thief, among other things). It’s the lovely practice of beating someone until they can’t move, before dropping a burning car tire on them.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      12:22pm | 11/02/12

      It is sobering to stop and consider just how good a situation we have here. Education will be the key to civilisation.

    • RyaN says:

      08:35am | 11/02/12

      I think you will find that Ugandans blame HIV / AIDS and its spread on homosexuality, mainly due to its prevalence in those communities.
      I think the ignorance and fallacies on HIV / AIDS is the problem here, I mean South Africa for instance has a president who thinks that HIV / AIDS can be prevented by taking a shower after intercourse.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      08:40am | 11/02/12

      I’d be surprised if that were the case.  HIV/AIDS in Africa has always been a heterosexual disease.  It’s only in the developed world that it started out primarily as a gay disease.

    • Noms says:

      10:08am | 11/02/12

      @Marley,So many posts that are politically correct and sympathetic.None of you people are researchers or have had papers published,feel good crap

    • Michael Macks says:

      10:46am | 11/02/12

      @ Nom
      Marley may not be a researcher but I am a doctor AND researcher and I can tell you that she is right. Perhaps you should do a bit of background reading yourself (although it’s the sort of knowledge I would expect most people to have anyway.) Proclaiming others as ignorant when you’re the one who needs to do the work is pretty lame.

    • Bertrand says:

      10:59am | 11/02/12

      @Noms - what on earth are you talking about?

      marley made a simple statement of fact. HIV/AIDS in Africa is common across both genders and prevalent in the heterosexual community.

    • marley says:

      12:02pm | 11/02/12

      @Noms:  according to UNAIDS 2010 Global Report, here are about 22.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.  Of these, about 12.1 million, or 54%,  are women.  The report adds that “the vast majority of people newly infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are infected during unprotected heterosexual intercourse (including paid sex) and onward transmission of HIV to newborns and breastfed babies.” 

      Now, would you care to indicate what research you might have done to come up with a different conclusion?

    • RyaN says:

      08:24pm | 11/02/12

      @marley: I never claimed it as fact, I said you will find that Ugandans place the blame with the homosexual part of their society.
      There are probably many other things they blame on this also but HIV/AIDS would more than likely be being used as an excuse to make it illegal.

      Here this is the level you are dealing with:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wwe9-be2Y (WARINING, if you are easily offended, DO NOT WATCH THIS)

    • marley says:

      07:10am | 12/02/12

      @RyaN - my point really was that HIV/AIDS has been around in Africa for 30 or more years.  When it first popped up there, no one blamed gays because it wasn’t seen as a gay disease, so to speak.  And 30 years later, I suspect every Ugandan knows (or knows of) people affected by the disease, both male and female.  They’ve certainly been exposed to government and UN warnings about the dangers of promiscuous sex of all types, not just gay sex.  And the Ugandans at least have gone on a big push for abstinence before marriage.  All of which seems to me to focus on the dangers of heterosexual transmission. 

      So, while I’m not saying there isn’t a lot of ignorance out there, I’d still be surprised if the Ugandans would see HIV/AIDS the way we do in the west, as a primarily “gay” disease, when all the evidence in front of them, and all the government education programs, are showing them something else entirely.

    • Lloyd says:

      09:03am | 11/02/12

      I’m glad this has been written about. I have been tirelessly writing to every Ugandan mp via ugandaurgentaction.com and to our own government since 2009. As I have stated: Uganda has AIDS, poverty, corruption, infrastucture problems and what do they do: persecute a minority group who just want to live their lives in peace like everyone else. It will just confirm what a lot of people think about Africa if this bill goes through: a dangerous, backwards place that has no respect for human rights. The religious aspect cannot be undermined and that cretin Scott Lively who went over there preaching should be held responsible for crimes against humanity as should the bills creator David Bahati. And I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Clives comment above. We go on and on about marriage, to the point, Punch commenters get sick of it, yet we forget gays are being executed and tortured all over the Middle East and Africa. Priorities. Thank you for bringing attention to this terrible situation.

      Reply

    • Tracker says:

      09:50am | 11/02/12

      Homophobia is such a gay word. Depending on what generation you were born I think I just upset somebody. I would be interested to know who and why ?

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      10:31am | 11/02/12

      I find the whole debate badly skewed because of the dishonest use of terminology, for example, “Gay instead of Homosexual”, and “Homophobia instead of revulsion”. There has been a great deal of mendacious social engineering at the highest level of academia and the judiciary, to the detriment of freedom of speech and democracy.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:08pm | 11/02/12

      Okay, here’s what the article is about.  Being homosexual, having sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex, is enough to get you jailed and/or executed in Uganda.  And a lot of people think that’s wrong.  Some apparently think it’s just fine, or at least that it doesn’t much matter.  There.  That’s the debate. Nothing skewed or dishonest.  Where do you stand?

    • The Galah from Hervey Bay says:

      12:29pm | 11/02/12

      Bruce….very well stated and dead set correct. You have put easily understood wording into place to sum up the use of political correctness in relation to this issue.

    • andye says:

      10:37am | 12/02/12

      @Bruce - So in order to protect democracy we should use a non-specific word like “revulsion” instead of a word that is specific like “homophobia”? How exactly does that protect democracy again? Isn’t using “revulsion” instead of homophobia exactly the same kind of thing (only with a negative connotation) as using the nicer “gay” instead of “homosexual”? You can blather on about academia and the judiciary to make it sound like this is some kind of Orwellian language control, but really a lot of people are just upset that the general community now frowns on violence and hatred towards gay people. The bigots woke up one day and found themselves out of step, and suddenly they are living in a politically-correct mind-controlled 1984 society? Get a grip, you chumps. You have the right to your opinion and if the majority choose to judge you for that, this is also their right.

    • Jason Todd says:

      07:28pm | 12/02/12

      Bruce - Despite the antiquated meaning of ‘Gay’ it is now synonymous with ‘homosexual’ for all intents and purposes. Separating revulsion from homophobia is a pretty narrow hair to split. Given that homophobia is defined as “negative feelings or antipathy towards homosexuals”, I think it is fair to say that ‘revulsion’ constitutes a negative feeling and thus falls under the umbrella.

      Trying to hijack the debate by quibbling about the language involved doesn’t help anything, and I would argue, is a great deal more detrimental to freedom of speech. The purpose of language is to convey meaning, could you explain to me how the meaning is confused here?

    • Kassandra says:

      03:53pm | 13/02/12

      Bruce does have a point. The meaning of phobia is fear - from the Greek phobos. Very few people have an actual fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, and calling it “homophobia” is misleading, probably deliberately so.

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:26pm | 13/02/12

      Kassandra - What do you suggest it be called then? 
      While I agree that it is less than elegant, it has become generally accepted as a term that encompasses the stable of negative emotions that people feel when directed at homosexuals.
      Technically speaking, a phobia also has to be irrational. I’d say that some of the wailing and rending of garments that occurs any time homosexual rights are discussed qualifies.

    • James Bolster says:

      10:42am | 11/02/12

      Sen, is this argument really about Uganda…? You write about homophobia in that nation, but you intend your article for an Australian reader.
      In my view, this preaching-from-on-high argument (using Uganda as a case study) is rarely received well by those Australians who are most in need of hearing it. It in many respects falls on deaf ears, not least because of the moralistic tone and the subsequent academic argument that is found to support the tone.

      A currently playing, high profile football player coming out would have an exponentially greater benefit for homophobia in Australia than the over-used human rights argument.
      A gay footy player gives hetero Australians a reason to cheer for gay Australians, in the same way that Michael Long gave old Australia a reason to cheer for Aboriginal Australia in the early 1990s.
      Michael Long was an outstanding player who was infamously racially abused on the field. This was just a couple of years after the Native Title Act deeply challenged academic circles, and wider Australia. 
      When Long decided to stand up against the ‘cop-it-sweet’ attitude, the AFL was forced to change its player’s code of conduct to make racial abuse a reportable offence.
      By the time of the Sydney 2000 Olympics we cheered as a nation for Cathy Freeman and marched in the tens of thousands for a National Apology - a stand of solidarity with Aboriginal people that Keating would have begged for during the Native Title debate.
       
      The conclusion? When sport finally changes, the nation goes with it.

      If we care for changing views about homophobia in Australia then we need to take the argument out of academic circles and back onto the playing fields, the sporting arenas, and the television screens of the pubs and clubs of ordinary Australians.

      It is true that Uganda needs help with food, clean water, a proper health and education system and other important public infrastructure in addition to their social policy problems that you’ve highlighted. I dont know that throwing te Human Rights Charter at them is going to help that. This is the sad fate for our Ugandan gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

      Reply

    • James Bolster says:

      08:51am | 12/02/12

      Well what do you know!

      From the Sunday Telegraph - “NRL Grand Finals referee Matt Cecchin says being gay no reason to live in fear”

      It’s on the News Ltd Daily Telegraph website

    • Kika says:

      02:14pm | 13/02/12

      Well I dunno. Ian Roberts was open about it and nothing seemed to have changed substantially.

    • David says:

      10:52am | 11/02/12

      You have to remember that Western Christian evangelicals have been instrumental in having this bill introduced to the Ugandan parliament. This bill is not the product of third world homophobia but first world Christianity, which in losing the battle in its own world is seeking to influence the developing world. The problem is that the people seeking to have this bill introduced and indeed all of the Jim Wallaces and Margaret Courts of the world that are seeking to protect the status of homosexuals as second class citizens are so christian-centric that the intolerance, hate and bigotry of their positions are invisible to them. They are so severely infected with the Christian mind virus that they are completely unable to process the mountains of evidence, study after study that shows that their understanding of homosexuality is wrong. When confronted with the evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is a natural variation of nature, that reparative therapy is neither effective or necessary they slam closed the doors of their mind to protect them from any threat to their position and invoke the same couple of references in the old testament, references that are burried among and have no more importance than numerous laws that they dismiss as absurd like prohibitions on wearing garments of mixed fabrics, and requirements to stone adulterers to death. They have to cling to these disproven ideas about homosexuality because to accept the evidence would threaten the very foundation of their god given right to hate gays. After all man is made in god’s image and if homosexuality is not a choice made of mandkinds’ free will then it can only be an attribute shared by their god.

      Reply

    • chopper knows says:

      11:49am | 13/02/12

      Who said anything the Christian Evangelists are losing the battle?
      The battle against evil must persists..dont forget..
      “The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing he doesn’t exists”

    • P. Darvio says:

      11:35am | 11/02/12

      The Christian Bible says Gays must be killed - what a sick barbaric belief system Christianity is - a System that advocates it followers to commit genocide. The sooner Humanity rids itself of all religion the better off we will be.

      Reply

    • Tracker says:

      06:42pm | 11/02/12

      Oh yes, Leviticus. You should also be put to death for eating seafood (without fins) and eating pork (the flesh of swine). If a priests daughter becomes a prostitute she must be burnt to death.. blah blah blah.  If Moses was alive today he would be classed as a loony Christian fundamentalist and nobody would take notice of him. Come to think of it.. maybe he would also be the President of the USA.

    • David says:

      09:57pm | 11/02/12

      Yes but whilst they dismiss all these absurd laws they have to accept the old testament prohibitions of homosexuality because to do otherwise would create a paradox that would threaten their entire faith: Man is made in god’s image, being gay is not a choice, therefore homosexuality is natural and an attribute shared by god but the bible says god hates gays and the bible is supposed to be inerrant. This is why Christians are so obsessed with the being gay is a choice argument when the fact is this argument has no relevance outside of a Christian context. To an atheist what does it matter if homosexuality is a choice or not.

    • Kika says:

      02:09pm | 13/02/12

      Moses was a Hebrew. Not a Christian.

    • scumbag says:

      12:15pm | 11/02/12

      I think I have homophobia, I can’t remember. All I know is sometimes I hate being at home. It’s a confusing place now, and never mind sexual orientation, I can’t find my way from the dining room table to the shitter, without going through the bedroom where Mrs Bag, (bless her), always want’s one, urgently, so urgency is a problem, unless I get my orientation right in the first place, wherever that is. I hate being at home.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      12:18pm | 11/02/12

      Humans are suppose to be out of Africa ,if this is so then why is the country lagging so far behind . This has puzzled me for years even after colonization it only became worse,now religion has its hands in the pot things will become more so in Africa .I was taught the Protestant way , though I do believe that religion should stay in the home,  not on the streets.It has proved to be a dis-stabling factor every where the many sectors meet, maybe it should outlawed nothing else has worked .

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      02:11pm | 13/02/12

      Africa is a continent, not a country

    • The Noalition says:

      12:57pm | 11/02/12

      Anxieties,phobias, fears, and prejudices are the basics for all mental illnesses.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      03:59pm | 11/02/12

      Those things are only symptoms, though creating unreasonable fears, such as homophobia, would create massive social problems.

      Uganda is tackling the AIDS issue from the wrong end, (ahem) ; safe sex in any guise is the issue and the Ugandan authorities may well be doing great harm by creating a false sense of security to the heterosexual population, and they do not use condoms.

    • marley says:

      07:16am | 12/02/12

      @stephen - Uganda has had good educational programs on HIV/AIDS for years, and has promoted an ABC approach to sex - abstinence, faithfulness to one partner, condoms.  Unfortunately, in recent years the abstinence message has been allowed to drown out the other two.  But in any case, the message is addressed squarely at the heterosexual population.  Whatever is driving the anti-gay movement there, it’s only peripherally related to HIV/AIDS, because, as I’ve already pointed out, Africans regard HIV as a heterosexual, not a gay, disease.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      04:27pm | 11/02/12

      When you disconnect logic and reason from how you should treat other people, it’s open slather.

      Reply

    • mr g says:

      11:32pm | 11/02/12

      I think that a good dose of atheism would do wonders for the world, and not only in Uganda. I mix with a number of “non-believers” in any form of pagan worship, or the rattling of bones or beads, or idolatory-fixes on half-naked Arabs generally moulded from chalky clay, and they are the most tolerant of fellows. Homophobia?  Nup!
      I strongly believe that the number of bigots in the world would be reduced to a few if the silly stories about virgins giving birth, and guys being brought “back to life” after a few days, and “miracles” of every hue, were made unlawful. Those who line up for their weekly feast of ‘body and blood’ have no choice but to be homophobic. To agree with homosexual behaviour is, in their benighted eyes, a sin against their particular god. (There’s any number of them).
      Color, race, sexual preferences would all cease to be subject to a code. There would be no “chosen people”.  There would be no hatreds based only on skin color. These are Bible-based and clergy taught evils.
      And there would be much less homophobia in the world. Why? Because we, (my like-minded friends and I), look at all of these groups and say, “Who are they offending?”. Not us, that’s for sure.
      But those who live on the dark side, the hell and damnation wierdos, they are offended. Or they pretend to be. If they didn’t make this show of righteousness their god might not receive them into their rightful reward.
      What I’m saying is this. You can have tolerance, compassion, and understanding, or you can have religion. You cannot have both.

      Reply

    • David says:

      10:57am | 13/02/12

      @Mr G,

      Your words are very rational and reasoned but I can’t agree that religion should be unlawful. I roll my eyes at the religiously deluded, and dish out all the ridicule that their religion deserves. But they have a right to freedom of religion as I have a right to freedom from religion so long as that right does not extend to granting immunity to the law or infringe the rights of those who do not share their delusion. The problem is that they just don’t get this idea, and are so Christian-centric that the concept that those who don’t share their beliefs are under no obligation to obey their doctrine, is lost on them. They think that trying to prevent them from killing gays as their bible prescribes is oppression of their freedom of religion.

    • Matt says:

      08:21am | 13/02/12

      Here’s what I would like to know: Why does Uganda care what people do with each other? Seriously, why? Is it cos it’s icky icky gay people? your religion commands you to kill gay people?

      Same question is (sadly) still valid in Australia. :(

      Reply

    • David says:

      09:45am | 13/02/12

      It is because US Christian evangelists, not being able to kill gay people in their own country as the bible prescribes have sought to do the next best thing: Spread homophobia throughout the Ugandan parliament and actively work with Ugandan MPs to have this bill introduced so that at least if gays can’t be killed in their own country they can be in the developing world.

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:34pm | 13/02/12

      To be fair David, the US Evangelicals that I know of that support the legislation in Uganda have said that their support is conditional on the death penalty being removed.

      Having said that, I still find it deplorable that they would support legislation that sanctions the imprisonment of homosexuals, but as you say, they would enact the same penalties in their own country if they could.

    • Kika says:

      02:18pm | 13/02/12

      1) Who are we to tell Uganda how to think. That’s up to them. If being gay in their country is against the law, what we can do about it? Sit and winge on a blog in Australia? Just as we wouldn’t like people in other countries whining about how we think, why should we do the same (regardless of how we believe it’s wrong or not)

      2) Be grateful you live in Australia and you can be a gay person and you can download grinder and live happily ever after. So a word doesn’t mean the same for you as it does for hetero’s? Well count your lucky stars that it’s that and not the hetero’s burning you in a tyre stack.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      05:01pm | 13/02/12

      @Kika - 1) well, that’s what diplomats are for.  To express our concerns.  And to point out that the next time Uganda wants support in the UN for some initiative or other, we won’t vote for them.  And that perhaps, our aid assistance won’t be as generous as in the past.  And possibly, their senior people won’t get invited to conferences in Australia for a while. 

      2) gays should be grateful for having fundamental human rights?  They’re rights, not gifts.  They should be grateful that Australia is a relatively tolerant society, but then so should we all.  Gays shouldn’t have to be grateful for not getting necklaced.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

122

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed