Ugandan Scientists Say Homosexuality is an Abnormal Practice That Requires Regulation

AND because of this President Yoweri Museveni says he will assent to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

By Melanie Nathan, February 15, 2014.

Screen Shot 2014-02-15 at 7.22.42 AM
To Show just how serious this science is The Ugandan Press depicts one such Scientists together with his reading material… Didi I see “Christ” on that book?

Findings by a group of Ugandan scientists from Makerere University and government have turned the anti-homosexuality bill debate around, according to the Ugandan Press. The report by Ugandan Scientist’s turned out as expected, ‘from whence it comes’, that gays are abnormal and their behavior is deviant requiring regulation.The Anti-Homosexuality Bill will now because of this report, be assented to by President Musevei.

We all know this is junk science.  The so called scientists reported to NRM Caucus that because homosexuality is an abnormal practice it requires regulation to protect the vulnerable. Perhaps the most glaring flaw in this sub-par report is the notation that “There is no definitive gene responsible for homosexuality.”  In saying this they fail to acknowledge all the science that does support the genetic components involved in human sexuality to include homosexuality. They fail to cite the myriad of genetic findings available, including the most recent Australian study of brothers of which any proclaimed professional in this arena ought to be were fully aware.

Now who are we to believe or are we to start a war between these “scientists” of Uganda or the scientists of the West. This proves to be a good one. Not that I mean to marginalize the capabilities of those in third worlds. This is not about whose science is better or correct – it is about the terror behind the politics.  Let us face facts when one is called upon by a known oppressive dictator to make a report one is likely to make a report that the dictator will approve of.  It is tantamount to Hitler asking his scientists to report on whether Jews are worthy of life.  This report was concluded in a ridiculously small amount of time (like 2 weeks) in a country run by an oppressive Dictator and his ruling party, known to torture opposition. These so called scientists know which side of the bread their slice is buttered. And hence the result. Museveni ignores Western Science in favor of his shit-scared followers who have risked their professional credibility to continue to lick the President’s butt!

As it happens they just happen to be living in a country run by a dictator who strives to be reelected to a 27th year. A dictator who they are terrified of. A dictator who squelches opposition at every turn and a dictator who made the answers he wanted clear through his patronization of the 80% who support the law and the very 80% who he needs to re-name him  their leader.

The scientists who apparently made a presentation to the NRM caucus on Friday included Dr. Sylvester Onzivua – Senior Pathologist, Mulago Hospital,  Prof. Seggane Musisi – Professor of Psychiatry at Makerere, Assoc. Prof. Eugene Kinyanda – Senior Research Scientist, Medical Research Council, Dr. David Basangwa – Director, Butabika Hospital and Dr. Misaki Wayengera – Geneticist, Makerer…

THIS IS WHAT THEIR REPORT FINDS, as noted in a press release by MP Evelyn Anite, NRM Caucus Spokes person:

PRESENTATION BY A TEAM OF SCIENTISTS FROM MOH AND Makerere University ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND GENETICS IN HUMANS

The following were their observations;

1. There is no definitive gene responsible for homosexuality.

2. Homosexuality is not a disease but merely an abnormal behavior which may be learned through experiences in life.

3. In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexuality tendencies.

4. Homosexuality can be influenced by environmental factors e.g. culture, religion and peer pressure among others.

5. The practice needs regulation like any other human behavior especially to protect the vulnerable.

6. There is need for further studies to address sexuality in the African context.

Here is the full list of participants:

Here are those on the Ministerial Committee “comprising of scientists from MOH and Makerere University was set up to study homosexuality and genetics in human beings and advise the President and the NRM Caucus on the subject of homosexuality, ” notes MP Anite.

The committee comprised of;

– Dr. Jane Ruth Aceng – Director General of Health Services

– Dr. Isaac Ezati – Director Planning and Development at MOH

– Dr. Jacinto Amandua – Commissioner Clinical Services

– Dr. Sheila Ndyanabangi – Head, Mental Health Desk

– Prof. Seggane Musisi – Professor of Psychiatry at Makerere

– Assoc. Prof. Eugene Kinyanda – Senior Research Scientist, Medical Research Council

– Dr. David Basangwa – Director, Butabika Hospital

– Dr. Sylvester Onzivua – Senior Pathologist, Mulago Hospital

– Dr. Misaki Wayengera – Geneticist, Makerere

– Dr. Paul Bangirana – Clinical Psychologist, Makerere

– Prof. Wilson Byarugaba – Rtd. Professor and former Head of Human and Molecular Genetics, Dept of Pathology, Makerere

Two medical Parliamentarians names; Dr. Chris Baryomunsi and Dr. Medard Bitekerezo also presented a report whose findings and conclusions concurred with that of the Ministerial Committee.

These are the people who have decided the fate of the Ugandan LGBT community? We plan to launch an investigation here at OBLOGDEE into the background of each and everyone of these people. Here are the questions we will ask:

1. Their qualifications?
2. Their experience?
3. What materials and studies each relied on when reaching their conclusions?
4. What trials and studies did each personally conduct?
5. Have they worked clinically with LGBT people?
6. Their personal and professional relationships to each other, the President and their Party affiliations?
7. How long did it take to come up with this report  (Seems like its less than 3 weeks since Museveni ordered it?)
8. Examine and check the facts as presented in the report
9. Are any members of this report appointees of Museveni?

Oh and by the way – we shall be launching a list soon to provide these names to international professional associations for investigation. All comments welcome… nathan@privatecourts.com

 

HERE IS THE FULL REPORT:

Screen Shot 2014-02-15 at 2.48.18 PM

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

==
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

Ministry of Health

Scientific Statement on Homosexuality

10th February 2014

1

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

 

The Minister of Health requested the Director General Health Services to constitute a team of expert scientists to review research data, d’eliberate and advise him on key questions about homosexuality.

A team of scientists was appointed to respond to two questions: 1) Is there a scientific /genetic basis for homosexuality?

2) Can homosexuality be learned and unlearned?

A series of meetings were held after the experts reviewed existing literature and presented their views, which were discussed to reach a consensus.

Answering the above questions require a background discussion and understanding of sex and homosexuality.

II. BACKGROU IND

Sex is a natural phenomenon in all life forms and is the basis for the reproduction and continuum of life, though some lower forms of life may have asexual reproduction. Sexuality is determined by biology (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry) and how one relates to others which is a function of psychology, sociology, and the culture in which one lives, the latter includes anthropology, religion and other environmental factors. Ultimately, these functions are determined by genes and their interactions with the environment. What,

2

I. INTRODUCTION

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

therefore, constitutes normal sexual behavior in any given society (learned sexual practices) is a function of one’s biology, psychology, sociology and culture, the last three being dynamic and often changing. Sexuality, on the other hand, depends on four interrelated factors:

  1. i)  sexual identity (XX or XV karyotype that will determine the sex phenotype),
  2. ii)  gender identity (the psychological feeling of being male or female and the accompanying gender roles),
  3. iii)  sexual orientation (ones inner sexual attraction impulses: heterosexual – to opposite sex, or homosexual- to same sex),
  4. iv)  Sexual response (Desire, Excitement, Orgasm, Resolution).

Homosexual behavior has existed throughout human history including in Africa. Judeo-Christian religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) condemn it but not all religions of the world condemn it. Many Western-based evangelistic missionaries and Arabs penetrated Africa and influenced her people with their views on homosexuality. This continues today. However, different cultures practice their sexualities di1ferently and these practices have often changed with times.

Homosexuality existed in Africa way before the coming of the white man. However, most African cultures controlled sexual practices, be they heterosexual or homosexual, and never allowed exhibitionistic sexual behavior. Almost universally, they contained homosexual practices to such a point that overt

3

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

homosexuality was almost unheard of. Indeed there are undeclared homosexuals in Africa who may not even know it because their cultures never give room for the expression o”f such behavior. Many non-sex practicing individuals exist throughout African societies. No one has done any study to unpack their sexual orientations. The present fad of sexual exhibitionism, both heterosexual and homosexual is alien and repugnant to most African cultures

III. THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

All studies o”f human sexuality in all races throughout the world and throughout human history have documented the presence of homosexuality. Studies in the animal worlel have also shown homosexual practices to exist in animal and insect species. Genetic studies have attempted, though unsuccessfully to pinpoint to one specific homosexual gene. A singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been demonstrated. As a result, many scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, psychological, environmental and social factors determines sexual orientation.

Studies in sexology have shown that sexual phenomena exist on a normal distribution continuum like most human attributes e.g height – most people are in the middle but others may be taller or shorter. Thus also in sexuality, there are spectrum of sexual behaviors. Some people are less fixed in one form of sexuality than others. Thus sexuality is a far more flexible human quality than used to be assumed in the past, demonstrating the biological variability within the human race .

4

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Sexual expression is the function of biology, psychology, sociology and anthropology, the latter including cultural and religious influences.. Ultimately, all sexual functions are determined by genes and their interactions with the environment. Thus the causes of homosexuality can be traced to biol’ogical, social, environmental, psychological or a combination of them. These influence each other. Reparative therapies to change people’s sexual practices have not proven successful and their scientific validity has remained questionable.

IV. CAN HOMOSEXUALITY BE LEARNED OR UNLEARNED?

Homosexuality is sexual behaviour (not a disorder) involving sexual attraction to people of the same sex. It is not clear whether this differing physiological response e:<ists at birth or developed after homosexual experience later in life. The conclu~;ion from the current body of scientific evidence is that there is no single gene responsible for homosexuality and there is no anatomical or physiological data that can fully explain its occurrence.

Psychosocial causes of homosexuality imply that it may be learned through experiences in life. Previous disastrous heterosexual encounters (e.g. erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation) may lead to aversion towards homosexual intercourse. A chance homosexual encounter in early life may be associated with sexual pleasure leading to homosexual relationships being associated with pleasure. The increasing influence of Western culture provides homosexuality as a choice one can make, it’s therefore seen as a socially acceptable option for a few. In conclusion, homosexual tendencies can be taken up based on the persc;m’s judgement on what is pleasurable for them . Why this happens to some people is

5

SCIENTIFIC S,TATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

not clear, Whereas some homosexuals may take up the behaviour as an open choice, for others it may be due to indoctrination, In summary, homosexuality has no clear cut cause, several factors are involved which differ from individual to individual. It’is not a disease that has a treatment.

Genetically, homosexuality represents one of the “sexual orientation” variants possible in the same species, As is the case for many human behavioral variants, the evolution and emergence of one’s self identity as a ‘homosexual- be it gay or lesbian” must be governed by nature and nurture, Ironically, an argument for a purely structural-genetic basis of the origins of homosexuality contravenes the essence of sex, which is that of procreation,

Specifically, the essence of homosexuality would be an antithesis for the Darwinian evolution of sex in species largely because homosexuality does not offer an opportunity for the self-propagation of the species, This has been a critical and fundamental argument by some scholars against the non-genetic basis of homose~uality, However, the counterargument has been for group survival, that some individuals in a group not overburdened by reproduction responsibilities would be available to give a hand to weak members of the group (e.g, the elderly and children) as happens in social animals. In our view, at least

from existing knowledge and literature, there is no basis for a single, definitive structural genetic basis of homosexuality.

That said, the influence of the largely unstudied processes of epigenetics-which involves non-structural modifications of the genetic code, and represent one of

6

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

the ways by which we learn many of our acquired traits that we can even pass on to our off-springs, cannot be ruled out.

Chromosome linkage studies, based on linking a single gene loci to a physical trait, previously identified a position on the female chromose X (denoted Xq28) as a possible influence (Hamer, 1993). A preponderance of gay relatives on the maternal side, was also stated. Subsequent studies however, failed to replicate these findings. More recently, a group from the American Societies of Human Genetics have used a genome-wide study to replicate Hamer’s Xq28 in animal model studies, in Drosophila. In Korea a scientific team induced attraction to urine of the same sex mice by deleting a single gene. These studies were not conclusive .

The practice of homosexuality in animals is, however, uncommon as are many physical deviants. Brain structure, again provides another area of controversy, with reports of homosexual versus heterosexual variations at the suprachiasmatic area and more recently the hypothalamus. Again this study did not provide any conclusive evidence.

V. THE NEED TO REGULATE SEXUALITIES

Throughout the world, human activity IS regulated to ‘safeguard citizens, especially the weak and vulnerable, against the dangers inherent in human activities. Thus human sexuality also needs to be regulated especially as it is the core of the family and hence the nation. At anyone time rules and regulations are based on the current prevailing knowledge and understanding of what is to be

7

SCIENTIFIC STATEMIiNT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

regulated. This knowledge and understanding may change depending on the times and circumstances. Today the world has come to the realization that indeed homosexuality is a minority sexual expression practiced by some few members of the community. But, like heterosexuality, it needs to be regulated. No country, in the world today, has come up with a successful way to regulate human sexuality, hence the daily scandals and rapes of this world including sexual and gender based violence or human trafficking for sex. That vulnerable populations (including children, minorities, refugees, the poor, the elderly, mentally ill etc) need to be protected against sexual (and other) exploitations is not in question. African cultures had contained sexual vices. May be we need to revisit them to contain the present explosion of overt and coercive homosexual activity with the exploitation Df our young children.

VI. CONCLUSION

a) There is no definitive gene responsible for homosexuality

b) Homosexualityisnotadisease

c) Homosexuality is not an abnormality

d) In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexual tendencies

e) Homosexuality can be influenced by environmental factors (e.g. culture, religion, information, peer pressure)

8

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUAlITY

f) The practise needs regulation like any other human behaviour, especially to protect the vulnerable.

g) There is need for studies to address sexualities in the African context.

VII. REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association, (1974). Position statement on homosexuality and civil rights. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(4):497.

American PS’lchological Association, Task Force on the Appropriate Therapeutic Response to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report of the Task Force on the Appropriate Therapeutic Response to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC.

Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Variation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bailey, J. & Pillard, R. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives General Psychiatry, 48:1089-1096.

Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S. & Hammersmith S.K. (1981). Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Drescher, J. ,~ Byne, W. (2009). Homosexuality, gay and lesbian identities, and homosexual behavior. In: Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of 9

SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSE>tUALlTY

Psychiatry, 9th Edition, eds. B.J. Sadock, V.A. Sadock & P. Ruiz. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, pp. 2060-2090.

Drescher, J. & Zucker, K.J., eds. (2006). Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Hooker, E.A. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. J. Projective Techniques, 21:18-31.

Mustanski B.S., Chivers M.L. & Bailey J.M. (2002). A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13:89-140.

Spitzer, R.L. (2012). Spitzer reassesses his 2003 study of reparative therapy of homosexuality. Archives Sexual Behavior, 41(4):757.

World Health Organization (1990). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. Geneva, World Health Organization.

Colonizing African Values: How Christian groups influenced politicians. http://www.politicalresearch.org

10

I. SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Gregory M. Herek and Linda D. Garnets(2007) : Sexual Orientation and Mental Health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 3:353-375. http://www.annualreviews.org

Rubio-Aurioles E & Wylie K. (2008): Sexual Orientation Matters In Sexual Medicine. JSex Med 5:1521- 1533.

Savic I, Berglund H, Lindstrom P. Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005;102(20):7356-7361.

Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et aI., eds. Neuroscience. 4th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 2008.

DR. Ruth Jane Aceng
Director General Health Services Ministry of health

Date

11


20 thoughts on “Ugandan Scientists Say Homosexuality is an Abnormal Practice That Requires Regulation

  1. This is what happens when Western Liberals tolerate that anti-West narrative, so popular in Africa and the Middle East. Many Black folks view all of “whiteness” with contempt, so it becomes a convenient excuse when African Scientists want to call homosexuality an “invention of the West”. Meanwhile, as usual, it’s the West who is helping and supporting the gay African’s fighting for Human Rights.

  2. I have read the full text of the report and think that there’s a chance here to really engage with the findings, rather than dismiss them out of hand (and certainly not as “quackery” which does indeed continue a long historical tradition of devaluing subaltern scholarship). There is a great deal in the report that supports arguments being made by us advocates for sexual liberation and LGBTIQ equality, and I think it’s important to embrace some of that. At the same time, there are clear sections in which a scientific argument is either contradicted by, or supported by a particular moral/ ideological position.

    In treating the report seriously, and engaging with its sound arguments as well as its short-comings, we have an opportunity to be really smart, and use the evidence sited to actually defeat the AHB, or use the masters tools against him, as it were.

    As can be expected, the official press release twists the content somewhat to support the desired party lines. However, look at the Conclusions presented in the report:

    VI. CONCLUSION
    a) There is no definitive gene responsible for homosexuality
    b) Homosexuality is not a disease
    c) Homosexuality is not an abnormality
    d) In every society, there is a small number of people with homosexual
    tendencies
    e) Homosexuality can be influenced by environmental factors (e.g. culture,
    religion, information, peer pressure)
    f) The practise needs regulation like any other human behaviour, especially to
    protect the vulnerable.
    g) There is need for studies to address sexualities in the African context.

    Some comments on this/ reasons not to dismiss the report but rather use it:

    – Point a) is correct. There is no definitive evidence to support the argument that homosexuality is biologically determined. (I personally think it’s dangerous to contest this, not least of all because doing so would deny the existence of bisexuality, pan-sexuality, or any fluidity, but would severely undermine arguments that gender is socially constructed and really limit more progressive social understandings and acceptance of myriad gender and sexual non-conformity. Moreover the manner in which these studies are geared towards men shores up really problematic understandings of lesbianism and female sexuality in general. These are important points to consider. I do however understand that the “born this way” has a certain intuitive appeal.)

    – b) a welcome point, which contests the language of many anti-gay arguments in Uganda.

    – Note that c) directly contradicts the statement used in the press release. This statement is also extremely welcome.

    – d) This point completely undermines claims that homosexuality is in anyway a “Western import” or “unAfrican” (in fact the report clearly states the opposite is true – a point which SMUG emphasised in their recent publication)

    – e) The choice of examples here can be expanded without limit to include all those “environmental factors” that influence heterosexual desire and practice. After all, monogamy and marriage are not biologically determined. The “appropriate” age for marriage and procreation is likewise socially – not biologically – determined. etc. The point is, this list is relevant to normatively practices heterosexual relationships, too. How about simply falling in love as an environmental factor?

    – f) This is very open-ended, and in fact the section (V.) covering this point is very reasonable – one sentence aside – in its general argument about protecting the vulnerable from harm: Sexual health education; age of consent and anti-rape laws exist on the basis of this argument. So, the reading of this can be that homosexual activity must be regulated in the *same ways* as homosexual activity. Thus, on the basis of this report, there is no scientific reason that consensual, adult, safe homosexual activity should be punished, at all. That is an entirely spurious conclusion. The “regulation” suggested herein is only equivalent to the regulation of all sexual behavior.

    (There is one line in this section which differentiates homosexuality from heterosexuality is this: “Thus human sexuality also needs to be regulated especially as it is the core of the family and hence the nation.” The evocation of family and national values here is ideological, conflated with a scientific point about survival of the species. This point is however sidelined early on in the report, where it is noted that the species as a whole no longer needs to foreground procreation as the reason for sexual activity.)

    – Point g) states that further studies are needed, and – again – fatally undermines the ongoing “unAfrican” debate.

    So, what am I saying here?

    I am not denying that this report includes reference to – explicit and implicit – a number of insidious stereotypes and myths about homosexuality and homosexuals. Those things are sadly evident, and not helpful. The press releases and statements that have been spun out of the report must be regarded as exactly that – spin. So much in the report directly contests arguments made in the text of the AHB that it actually might undermine the content of the Bill more *overall* than it actually supports. Basically, while this report might not say that gays are born, not made – which happens to be Musenvengi’s basis for signing or not signing the AHB – the report in its entirety suggests that the AHB – and moreover any arguments which claim that homosexuals should be punished, or have their behavior regulated any differently to heterosexuals – are not based in any scientific proof whatsoever (and are in fact social ideas, shaped by religion and open to change.)

    As such, I believe that this report has the potential to be useful to us advocates for LGBTIQ rights and freedoms in Uganda, and that in dismissing it out of hand (and getting distracted by focus on the biological determinism / gay gene debate) we might be missing a real opportunity to contest anti-gay agendas.

    Many thanks for reading, and here’s the link to the full report: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/UgandaScientificReportOnHomosexuality.pdf

    1. Yes you are absolutely correct – of course what you say and these types of reports should have happened years ago. And of course such a report can be used positively.

      However 3 serious factors get in the way and we must look at this in context.

      !) Museveni has mere days left to sign the assent or if he ignores it or return it to parliament it is still likely to become law – hence what you suggest is way too late;
      2) This should have been done years ago – at other phases of this process – and it never was –
      3) Whenever Ugandan LGBT and human rights defenders tried to engage on a raitonal level they were opushed out and not given a voice

      So what you suggest may have worked in a rational normal society – in a real democracy – but unfortunately the truth here is that the AHB has been nothing more than a chance opportunistic piece of legislation that has served many fronts:

      1) To scapegoat a small group of people to swerve away from the direction of the truth about Uganda – to side skirt the real problems, men raping and trafficking women an girls, poverty , corruption and extreme political oppression
      2) Used as a political ploy, prop and tool to generate alliances and feign leadership behind what is seemingly a very popular bill
      3) To export hate from the USA by religious extremists who are losing ground to the equality forces in the USA
      4) generate money for Bahati and his players
      5) A tool so that police and other corrupt citizens officials and citizens can blackmail people
      6) So that people like Lokodo can act as if they are powerful by using the threat of the AHB to instill fear and destroy opposition
      7) As a justification for further persecution of a minority, much hated

      That said – good luck with thinking that this can be used ina positive fashion – given the context,

      Though I must say I am still somewhat skeptical that Museveni will sign the Bill without first returning it to Parliament at least with suggestions of amendments, based on some of its findings.

      From my end I am, at this point, going to provide any sensationalism I can to it – rather than leave the LGBT community and the world thinking that this is a safe place to be,- because what has happened and what has been said stinks – and it IS causing fear and I am trying to advocate for better asylum laws and to provide safehousing and funding to LGBT survivors / victims of all this. Hence I will reiterate exactly HOW the Ugandan Press reports it, while adding my own opinion, as the West muist see the deck of cards being dealt.

      1. Thanks for replying, and for adding the full text of the Report to the article. I really value the points you raise about the many interests served through the AHB – I think you’re absolutely right that this is a scapegoating ploy to distract from really pressing social issues, line pockets, win votes, and push ideological interests.

        I, too, am skeptical that Museveni will sign – I think he has too many “anti-terrorism” dollars resting on maintaining strong relations with the U.S. (not that the U.S. is exactly punishing other allies with the death penalty for homosexuality…but Obama has spoken out on Uganda and already suggested cuts to aid, so it’s something I’m sure Museveni is thinking about.)

        I’m absolutely aware of the seriousness of this – I work with, and advocate for LGBTQ asylum seekers in the U.S. myself, and overlap with some of your colleagues in this work – so I agree that sensationalism can be useful at this late stage.

        I want to suggest, then, with all due respect, that the “Plan to launch an investigation here at OBLOGDEE into the background of each and everyone of these people” is no more useful, or quick-acting than anything I’m suggesting.
        The two medical Parliamentarians (Dr. Chris Baryomunsi and Dr. Medard Bitekerezo) and Presidential Advisor on Science (Dr. Richard Tushemereirwe), are the non-specialists who have weighed in with opinions – they are the obvious targets for investigation (which should be pretty swift).

        For the authors of the Report… I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea to dedicate energy to undermining them, and the Report, when it supports claims made by LGBT activists right now (especially regarding the “unAfrican” debate) and – most importantly – the Report explicitly says: “Homosexuality is not abnormal.” That Museveni has misrepresented the content is, or can be, the sensationalist line.

        Thanks for considering my views, and for all the great work that you are doing raising awareness and practical support for those fleeing this terror.

        1. Thanks for the response. yes you are right. I was reconsidering wasting time on that investigation. I have already found out that one has seen the inside of the courts himself. However for me it is about the curiosity of who they are and I am really keen to get to understand where their science comes fromm – to learn more about them- I am dumbfounded by how they can be so professionally stupid and am intrigued. Right now my focus is on spending time helping asylees. We have been working on a Rescue Fund and it is all consuming at this point http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rescue-fund-to-help-lgbt-people-escape-africa/x/6400968

          1. You have made a very good analysis of the Statement of the Ministry of Health and your personal take on what the way forward is most likely to be.

            However, as A Ugandan, the bill will be signed as soon as the Museveni receives a written report.

            1. He is aware that he is a key partner of the West in fighting terrorism in the region
            2. big investors from the West are interested in the Ugandan oil but most of all,
            3. He come across as a person who was has relied on scientific findings to support his actions. How then do you contest that fact?

            You also have to remember that he has to give his voters what they want to hear. Who can pass this message on more than the party people who are going to be his “mouth piece and foot soldiers” in the coming elections.

            The West is not going to deny Museveni money on the ground that he signed the AHB. When you look at their interests in the region, they have to priorities what is most important for them to achieve and sadly the rights of gay Ugandans does not feature on that list of interests.

            1. The West will boycott Uganda in many ways and the activists wills ee to that. I dont think we stop aid. But I do think we should stop tourism. Uganda prides itself on that. We will ruin the Hotel and tourism industry and we will stop Ugandan parliamentarians from visiting the USA, as well as their kids getting scholarships to our Universities. We will isolate them slowly but surely. We may also find that Obama will indeed tell M7 to dela with terrorists on his own, though we will not do anything to hurt our own safety. BUT tourism is going to be the big one and many Ugandans will not be welcome around the world. We will also hit hard when it comes to sports.

  3. I read the NRM Caucus version of the conclusions before the main report, and suspected that conclusion 2 had been doctored, and even blogged about it here. http://4abetteruganda.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/examining-the-7-nrmscientists-conclusions-from-14-ahbscientists-which-will-be-the-basis-of-ahbsigning/

    The detailed report vindicated my assertion, and from the full report, it is clear that the pro-AHB group dropped conclusion 3 (homosexuality is not an abnormality), and doctored conclusion 2 (homosexuality is not a disease) by adding the anti-thesis to conclusion 3 (but merely an abnormal behavior bla bla)

    Having reduced the conclusions to 6, a suspicious presidential advisor, then offered them a new 7th which we have also debunked in the blog piece mentioned above.

    The 11 scientists and doctors from ministry, Mulago, and Butabika are all very credible people. Their report is very clear, and their conclusions totally against AHB. The one who authored the detailed report, merely added a few ideological sentences here and there in favor of AHB. However, I think it is a helpful report, and if the president sticks to it, and reads it carefully (not the caucus version), then he will not sign the bill (assuming he can keep his promise of sticking to the science).

    Our goal as activists should be to ensure that the president gets the correct information because they have carefully formed a wall of lies around him. We need to try as much as possible to break that wall.

    1. Thank you for this – However my question is – itr seems that CN is reporting that the President has seen the report (whichever version) and that he has said he is signing the BILL. This is according to a CNN report – where he has apparently said he is ready to go to war with the world’s gays? What do you think about that? I see a contradiction in that CNN report which I commented on. I dont understand how they can report that th president was vehemently opposed to the unorthodox passage of the bill in one breadth and then in the other suggest that he is going to sign the bill just because his scientists told him that there is “not one specific gene that makes people gay/” Here is the article http://oblogdeeoblogda.me/2014/02/15/cnn-world-reports-ugandan-president-ready-to-sign-bill-and-ready-for-war-with-worlds-gays/

      1. Thank you for replying and for posting my comment. It is very clear that ever since they passed their bill in December, the Bahati-Sempa group have gone underground to mobilize every possible resource in the country to get their bill assented to by the president. Part of their efforts have been to co-opt prominent people to their side. I believe this is how the two doctor MPs may have ended up misled. Ofcourse we know that without co-opting Kadaga (though I am not sure if they did not preach to the converted in her case), they would never, in the first place, have gone beyond the parliamentary step.

        But having done that, and having faced resistance from the president (like we, and probably they, already expected) they moved on. To mobilize local media, the church, and the police. The result was suspicious stories in local newspapers, arrests of gay people by the police, credible religious leaders like Kizito Lwanga supporting the stupid Bahati bill, etc. Iam not sure of the origin of the letter bomb saga. And I don’t know if it was true or false: they never released sufficient information e.g. pictures of the wounded man, an interview with the wounded man etc. but I suspect it was also part of that campaign.

        Their last front has been to mobilize along the succession battles currently going on in their NRM. But they suffered a severe blow when M7 insisted on science. I am not privy to the process leading to the making of that report, but I expect a lot of pressure to have been involved, on the professional involved, and my basis for that is the ideological statements within the text of the report. When the report came out against them, as it would, they opted to do the desperate doctoring, leading to a misleading presentation at the NRM caucus. You should notice that as soon as M7 said a word, they quickly spread it around, along with their doctored conclusions, misleading press release, etc to an unquestioning media (international & local).

        The Bahati group is very close to Mr. M7. And through the ongoing succession battles, and their previously existing structures, they are capable of shielding the president from the truth, or sufficiently intimidating any one who would otherwise speak the truth. Plus of course there is a lot of opportunism currently going on in Uganda. So there will be those willing to ignore or suppress the truth, especially given the myth that homophobia is popular in Uganda.
        Museveni is a belligerent man, but a very clever one too. Do not take what he says for face value. I would not judge him, until I am sure that he has seen and considered the original ministry report, without it being read for him, interpreted for him, or doctored by the Bahati group. This should be the goal of those who can reach him.

        It is clear that M7 has bought their myths on promotion of homosexuality and recruitment into the same. This should be another focus of activists, because it is a key lifeline for them, at least as far as the president is concerned. Again, activists ought to ensure that the president gets to know that those two are also myths.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s