The Independent Uncensored News Views And Analysis

In his 2006 book, Can Human Rights Survive?, London School of Economics law professor Dr. Conor Gearty wrote of the paradoxical relationship between human rights and democracy. Human rights can only truly come from a democratic society and yet decisions made democratically can sometimes be deeply inimical to a human rights culture. Thus, he notes, “It is assumed by most advocates of human rights – from both the liberal and, increasingly, the socialist/post-socialist progressive camp – that the rights to which they have committed themselves need to be ‘properly’ entrenched so as to be able to control the vagaries of ‘majoritarianism’.” The question of entrenching rights in legislation is a particularly salient one in Uganda right now with debate and discussion over MP David Bahati’s “Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009” continuing to dominate the headlines and captivate the public.

The international uproar has been voluminous, with threats of cessation of aid coming in from the likes of Sweden and the United States, leading President Museveni himself to concede that Uganda must “go slow” on the issue seeing as its now exploded into a divisive foreign policy matter. But the slew of condemnations from abroad also seems to have had an opposite effect, hardening the determination of those seeking to ensure that no matter what, this bill is passed and confirming anxieties that those with the purse strings are the ones truly controlling Ugandan domestic policy.

FDC MP Betty Kamya, in a press conference last week, noted that what truly disturbed her was how the international community was attempting to defy the independence of Uganda’s legislature. She said, “In this matter, ministers have come out, presidents have come out, the entire international community has come out to say we shall turn off the taps if we talk about homosexuality. I find that double standard very confusing and I don’t think we need to the international community to have double standards. They should not tell us what to do on homosexuality, if they cannot tell us what to do on corruption, if they cannot tell us what to do in human rights abuse; we expect a higher standard of big brotherhood from the international community.”

Perhaps the most vocal critic of attempts to quash the bill and the donor community’s meddling in Uganda’s domestic affairs is controversial pastor, Martin Ssempa. A key consultant on the bill, Ssempa has emerged as one of its leading proponents, going as far as announcing in a press conference on January 15, plans to organize a “million man march” in Kampala to show the world just how much support the bill has. Ssempa argues that the desire to see this bill is democracy in action, the result of the “95% of Ugandans” who “find homosexuality to be repugnant.”

Ssempa, a flamboyant character and charismatic speaker, has no problem captivating an audience eliciting cheers of support and zeal. When pressed over concerns of the international pressure against the bill, Ssempa is unfazed. He responds,” This is a national sovereignty issue. We’ve been like this for over 5,000 years. From Timbuktu to the Al-Mahdi, from the Zulu land to Zimbabwe, we are an old civilization that has deep feelings my friend about issues. And some things we just cannot betray the cause of 5000 years. America is a new republic. Buganda is older than America. And we’ll still be here long after America is gone.” The genius of Ssempa’s argument lies in his framing the bill as a major front in the battle against ideological imperialism and the audience of otherwise-reserved members of the press throw their hands together in applause.

Ssempa calls the United States and other European nations “failed states” for putting “sodomy as pillars of its foreign policy”. For him, the days of American hegemony are seriously waning with massive debt to China and dependence on foreign oil stifling Western neo-colonialist influence. Indeed, the onset of oil represents a new era for Ssempa, one where Uganda can take back control of its policy decisions. He argues that “Uganda is a super power,” and that we “need to begin to think of Uganda when you say Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.” Ssempa uses the bill as a symbol of Uganda’s self-determination and the more pressure to withdraw the bill; the more it confirms his worldview and stokes his enthusiasm to see it become law. He has no doubt that parliament will pass the bill, even going as far as pausing for prayer during the press conference to “pray for these members of media, they are so pessimistic, not believing this bill is going to pass but god you know this bill has to pass…Tell them to communicate the news that our country will not die as Sodom and Gomorrah.”

On February 19, Ssempa held a second press conference to discuss an element of the bill which for him is key, the criminalization of alleged homosexual recruitment and propaganda. He introduced two speakers, self-proclaimed former homosexuals, who were there to testify against the Dutch-funded gay and lesbian recruitment they both experienced. Paul Kagaba, who claimed he was a former “spokesperson” for SMUG, noted how he and his organization used to recruit and seduce people using money, cameras and laptops. Sandra Baggotte, until just recently an admitted lesbian, now has a one-month old baby and confirmed Kagaba’s lurid tales. European-funded homosexuals live in swanky pads in Ntinda where their day-to-day life involves waking up and then immediately “drinking and messing yourself up”. There is no work because the Europeans fund their decadent lifestyles. If you want to go on a date, these shadowy groups will give you up to sh500,000 in order to “recruit” others to homosexuality. Spurious conferences on reproductive health are actually just covert recruitment opportunities where lesbians will encourage you to take hormonal injections to reduce breast size and deepen their voices.

In an interview with The Independent, Pepe Julian Onziema Programme coordinator for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) refuted Kagaba’s claims that he was ever a spokesperson for her organization nor had she even heard of Sandra. She explained that SMUG was formed in 2004 to advocate for gay rights especially in the health sector, where HIV/AIDS counseling was nonexistent. Problems like “corrective rape” and police apathy and even downright hostility towards homosexuals, led Onziema and others to form a group to specifically address the rights issues plaguing the gay and lesbian population in Uganda. She admits that SMUG’s funding does come in part from American and European human rights organizations, the same funders who provide funds for government projects; but notes that the amount is miniscule as SMUG is not a registered charity. She notes wryly that the amount it would cost for the hormonal therapy Kagaba claimed was being forced on many a young woman for just one person is equivalent to about two years worth of SMUG’s funding. In response to Sandra’s allegation that Onziema herself handed out sums of up to sh500,000 for recruitment dates, her denial was unequivocal, “I’m shocked because first of all my rent is hanging over my head. So why wouldn’t I take care of myself first, before I take care of other people, people I don’t even know. It’s purely false.”

Regarding the other pillar of Ssempa’s argument, the notion that there is a concerted effort made by homosexuals to recruit minors, Professor Sylvia Tamale dismisses it completely. She notes, “In the U.S. in the ‘60s it was the same accusations, that there was recruitment, that there was a lot of money to spread homosexuality. Why would anyone want to spread homosexuality? For what purpose?” For Anna Wrange, Political Counsellor for the Swedish Embassy in Kampala, the problem is one of conflating two separate issues. Regarding Sweden and the European Union’s perspective of the issue, she said, “I must say that the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation of children is a completely different issue. This bill is about sexual identity and consensual sexual relations between adults.” She went on note that Uganda has an obligation as signatory to a number of human rights covenants and charters to respect and fulfill those obligations. Rights to privacy, expression and assembly would be encroached upon should the bill was in its present form and for her, “these are not western principles or western trends, these are our common values.”

By Ariel Rubin