Ugandan Anti-homosexuality Law

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was passed by the Ugandan Parliament on 20 December 2013. It is now with President Museveni to be signed, returned with amendments or ignored, in which case it will become law automatically.

The law will extend the existing colonial anti-sodomy laws. It threatens maximum life sentences for those who commit a new offence of aggressive homosexuality, which is repeatedly to have homosexual sex, to have homosexual sex when HIV-positive, or with a disabled person or minor. Landlords will face imprisonment for renting to homosexuals or LGBT—lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender—organisations. The promotion of homosexuality will now be banned, which will effectively outlaw LGBT organisations and charities and significantly hamper HIV/AIDS work.

If this law is passed, Uganda will join a club of nations not only committed to the criminalisation of homosexual acts, but determined to expand legal discrimination beyond the normal boundaries of historical bigotry. The year 2013 was a disheartening one for LGBT activists worldwide: Nigeria and Russia passed and enacted their versions of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, India took a step backwards as its Supreme Court re-criminalised the sexual practice of one of the world’s largest LGBT populations, and the Singaporean Supreme Court rejected an appeal against its colonial era sodomy laws.

Those who support international human rights cannot accept that trend with a sense of mute, inert inevitability. Ugandan activists have demanded that we act; let us not fail to hear them. As the Parliamentary Friends of the Kaleidoscope Trust are aware, last week I and colleagues met Dr Frank Mugisha, the director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, which is Uganda’s largest LGBT group. Although we cannot and should not be seen in the developed world as dictating the direction of local LGBT movements and inadvertently making their position even more difficult, Dr Mugisha was unequivocal about the necessity of our support.

The Bill’s supporters have repeatedly labelled homosexuality as alien to Africa, and as yet another element of western cultural imperialism, along with global brand fast-food restaurants, capitalism and secularism. That is a wishful fantasy for the African homophobe. Far from being esoteric or non-existent, the history of African homosexuality is increasingly well documented. In pre-colonial Uganda alone, same-sex relationships existed among the Bahima, Banyoro and Baganda tribes. The Iteso and the Lango tribes sanctioned men of alternative gender status, and the Lango even allowed mukodo dako, as they called them, to marry.

In fact, one western import is notably responsible for the current homophobia that is rife in Uganda—a hateful strand of Christianity, of the sort that prompted British sodomy laws to be enacted throughout the empire that still scar much of the Commonwealth. Those laws have been used as a fig leaf for bigotry. They represent the worst of the repressive colonial inheritance, not the well-intentioned colonial era good Samaritans, and those who wished to love their African neighbours as themselves. This aggressive, authoritarian version of Christianity is now preached by the disgraceful Scott Lively who, having mined the depths of prejudice in his own country, is now seeking to expand this hatred into Uganda.

A Christianity inclusive of homosexuality is not and should not be the exclusive preserve of western theologians. Archbishop Desmond Tutu made his feelings on the issue quite plain earlier this year:

“I would refuse to go to a homophobic Heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place. I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about Apartheid.”

President Museveni has committed himself to signing the Bill if homosexuals can be proven to be made and not born. I believe that he well understands the actual answer, but a group of so-called scientists have duly presented themselves to establish it. These scientists are led by Members of Parliament with scientific backgrounds from Museveni’s own ruling NRM—National Resistance Movement—party. Their lack of independence is not the only issue. One of them, Dr Kenneth Omona, told the The Observer of Uganda:

“In one study [it is] revealed that actually 50 per cent of the homosexuals revert to heterosexuality if rehabilitated in time. This, in itself, reveals a behavioural aspect”.

That unnamed study seems to be the mainstay of Dr Omona’s views on the issue. If only he listened to his former allies in this area. Exodus International, which used to be the largest international gay cure agency, shut down its operations in 2013 and issued a public apology.

More substantively, the views of those scientists conflict with the opinion of the major medical authorities, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the American Psychological Association. The Psychological Society of South Africa wrote an open letter stating as much to President Museveni in 2009. All those bodies confirm that homosexuality is the result of complex environmental and biological factors.

The supposed scientists may be high and dry intellectually and well away from the mainstream of global scientific opinion, but they draw on a rich vein of popular prejudice. If they were truly scientists, they would be ashamed of that. Another member of the commission, Dr Bitekyerezo, reduced the arguments for homosexuality’s biological connections to a belief in a single homosexual gene. Political courage and scientific objectivity seem to be wholly absent.

Another reason that is cited for the Bill is that it will protect the traditional African family unit. Beyond the difficulty of isolating a traditionally heterosexual African family, that claim founders under demographic evidence. The two countries with the highest fertility rates are Niger and Mali. They do not criminalise homosexuality and nor do 40% of the top 10 countries with the highest population growth rates.

A purported aim of the law is to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and specifically to target those who are HIV-positive. However, the belief that criminalisation decreases the spread of AIDS is a dangerous misconception. UNAIDS, Festus Mogae, the former President of Botswana, and the Zambian First Lady, Christine Kaseba-Sata, are among the many who have called for decriminalisation as a means to halt the spread of infection. The Lancet has even found that:

“The odds of HIV infection in black”

men who have sex with men

“relative to general populations were nearly two times higher in African and Caribbean countries that criminalise homosexual activity than for those living in countries where homosexual behaviour is legal.”

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate. I would have been at the meeting last week, had I not been off with ill health. If the Bill is passed on 24 February, not only will it criminalise sexual acts, but it will mean that if somebody knows that another person is homosexual, they will be expected to report them. Does he agree that that will affect people who need treatment, because they might think that the doctor will be obliged to tell the authorities of their homosexual behaviour?

[Mr Blunt]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I am extremely grateful for her intervention and support. She makes her point extremely well. The consequences of many aspects of the Bill will be simply appalling.

The International HIV/AIDS Alliance has naturally raised fears that the clauses that obstruct promotion will hamper HIV/AIDS charities in working with the LGBT community. HIV/AIDS treatment is dependent on equitable and non-discriminatory access to health care. The grounds on which the Bill is being justified are therefore not only false, but criminally dangerous.

Similarly, the Bill focuses on the protection of minors, thereby conflating homosexuality and child abuse. There is no denying that Uganda has a problem with child abuse. The Ugandan police force reported that it was the second most reported crime in 2011, the vast majority of it being between adult males and young girls. Clearly, what Uganda needs is not further criminalisation of homosexuality, but stronger legal action on child abuse. The confusion of those two separate issues is not only dangerous for the LGBT population; failing to deal with the real problem puts the children of Uganda at risk.

Sexual Minorities Uganda has suggested a range of amendments to the Bill that would better serve the Ugandan people in the effort to prevent child abuse and the spread of HIV. The first is to make the laws on sexual offences gender neutral. The second is to ensure that there is a system of mandated reporting of child abuse. The third is to commit the Government to addressing the risk factors associated with child sexual exploitation. The fourth is to prevent discriminatory access to health care, in line with Uganda’s own HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Bill of 2010.

If President Museveni implements the suggested amendments, or others of similar effect, he will live up to the constitution of Uganda, the Commonwealth Charter and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. They all enshrine the right to freedom from discrimination. He will have bravely stood up for what is scientifically sound and socially decent.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that if the President chooses not to follow the path of protecting the civil rights of the community, our Government should—as we have done with other countries who have persecuted people—start to impose sanctions and travel bans on Ugandan politicians?

[Mr Blunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come to that in a moment.

If President Museveni does what he is being asked to do by amending the Bill in the way that I and—more importantly—Sexual Minorities Uganda, have outlined, he will be vindicated by history. If he fails, however, as my hon. Friend says, we must respond. The responsibility for the original criminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda rests at our feet, and if that were not enough, our own international human rights commitments oblige us to condemn this Bill.

We should examine a range of responsive measures including travel bans for the main supporters of this legislation, not least for its leading cheerleader David Bahati. We should redirect the few Government aid programmes where we work explicitly with the Ugandan Government to suitable civil society organisations. We should conduct a proper audit of other programmes where we, directly or indirectly, deliver support through the EU or the UN to ensure that they are not simply pork-barrel expenditure directed by Ugandan politicians.

Outrage and dissatisfaction about this Bill will not be restricted to the LGBT community, much as we will be the most vocal in raising it. It is for the Government of all citizens of the United Kingdom to uphold the dignity of the individual and freedom from discrimination around the world. We therefore look to our Government to act and protect those values, and to take up the United Kingdom’s special historical responsibility as the original author of this intolerance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come on to that point. What I will say is that we are very aware and conscious of British citizens who work for UK companies that are investing in Africa, and how the Bill might impact on them too.

Only yesterday, I met the executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, Frank Mugisha, to hear first hand the challenges that LGBT people in Uganda face, and to understand what steps are being taken to change perceptions of LGBT rights. This follows on from previous meetings I have had with human rights groups and civil society during my visits to Uganda. I can also tell the House that Mr Mugisha was able to meet ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Development and the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The report by Sexual Minorities Uganda, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate cites, highlights the perpetuation of some of the disturbing myths about sexual orientation and gender identity, particularly, but not exclusively, in Africa. The report’s recommendations, as articulated by my hon. Friend, form the basis to take forward efforts to change social attitudes and behaviour towards LGBT people. I agree with the report’s view that the criminalisation of homosexuality will do nothing to address the concerns of child abuse and exploitation. This can only be effectively tackled through non-gender-specific legislation.

I am aware of the role that some sections of the religious community have played in promoting the Bill. I very much welcome the recent letter sent from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the President of Uganda, and to all primates of the Anglican community, recalling the commitment to pastoral care and friendship for all, regardless of sexual orientation. I am also aware that the Papal Nuncio to Uganda expressed concern at the passing of the Bill, and that he would be working with Uganda’s Catholic bishops on this matter. He noted that the matter

“does not pass a test of a Christian caring approach to this issue.”

The Government share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend at the effect the Bill could have on efforts to combat the spread of HIV/Aids. An open letter to President Museveni, from Uganda’s Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, highlighted the risks to public health. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that DFID is providing £16.3 million over four years to support and improve HIV prevention response in Uganda, which will include provision for specifically targeting most at-risk populations.

As with many of our posts across the world, our high commission in Kampala works tirelessly to promote the universal values that are central to British foreign policy: tolerance, respect, equality, fairness and human rights. We believe that the case for tolerance and equality is best made by local voices. Since the Bill was passed by the Ugandan Parliament, we have worked with civil society to raise awareness of the impact the Bill will have on human rights. Our high commissioner in Kampala is supporting these groups to promote inclusivity, diversity and tolerance, working in co-ordination with international partners. We have provided support for training, advocacy and legal cases relating to the protection of LGBT rights. The high commission also supports the Kaleidoscope Trust, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, and its specific project in Uganda to promote strategic communications. My officials have also engaged extensively with UK and Ugandan NGOs, including Stonewall, the Kaleidoscope Trust and the Human Dignity Trust, to explain our approach.

I have listened carefully to calls in the debate to consider sanctions against those promoting the Bill, but I cannot give the commitment that my hon. Friend seeks to impose travel restrictions on those promoting this legislation. I do not believe that imposing travel bans on promoters of the Bill would be in the interests of LGBT minorities in Uganda or indeed those rightly working to defend their rights. The purpose of our development programme is to support poverty reduction and economic growth in Uganda.

Our development programme to Uganda goes through a variety of channels, including private sector organisations, NGOs and multilateral agencies. My hon. Friend may not be aware but budget support to the Government of Uganda was indefinitely suspended back in 2013, following allegations of corruption in the Ugandan Government. A tiny proportion of the UK’s development assistance is provided through financial aid to the Government of Uganda—only 1.1% of the total DFID allocation. That financial aid is specifically used to support public financial management, to strengthen the Government’s systems for managing fiduciary risk and for tackling corruption. There are very rigorous mechanisms in place to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent properly and for the purposes for which it was intended. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to provide more details and to put a copy of that letter in the Library so that all hon. Members who are interested can see it and be reassured.

As is the case for all the countries we work in, financial aid to the Government of Uganda is predicated on fundamental commitments and agreed partnership principles, which include a commitment to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, improving public financial management, good governance, and transparency and the strengthening of domestic accountability. Although the focus of this debate has been on Uganda, I am only too aware that there are other countries of concern in Africa and elsewhere. My hon. Friend mentioned Russia in his opening remarks.

[Mr Blunt]

Before my hon. Friend goes wider than Uganda, may I gently say to him that the sanctions sought in my speech were extremely limited and focused on travel bans as the only active deterrent for people supporting the Bill. He has not told us why he feels these bans would cause the effect he alleges. It has only taken me this afternoon to get more than 100 parliamentarians to agree to support a letter to President Museveni along the lines of my speech. If this matter were pressed, my hon. Friend might be in a significant minority in the House.

[Mark Simmonds]

I did try to explain why I have come to this conclusion and the negative impact his request would have on those who are LGBT in Uganda and those promoting their rights. Travel bans, if they were to be part of an EU-wide sanctions package, would have to be agreed at European Union level, and are normally done as part of a wider sanctions package. He will also be aware that the Home Secretary has the power to exclude an individual if she considers that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. The Home Secretary’s decision will be made specifically on a case-by-case basis.