David Kato

Eric Joyce Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

In late January, millions of people around the world were deeply saddened to receive news of the horrific murder of David Kisule, better known as David Kato, the prominent human rights activist best known for his brave campaigning on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. David had been beaten to death in his home near Kampala. The shock at the killing was felt in this House particularly by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), who is not able to be here today. He had met David Kato in his celebrated campaigning role for Sexual Minorities Uganda just before his death.

Since then, the Ugandan police have made a number of arrests and one individual has been charged with the murder; in fact, the trial begins tomorrow. However, the trial must not signal an end to David Kato’s case and all that it stands for, as some in Ugandan public life would, frankly, like. That is because the wider cultural and political backdrop in present-day Uganda is characterised by open and often vile homophobia. Uganda is hardly the only place where that is the case, but it is a country which, for the best part of a couple of decades, has had a broadly positive trajectory on democracy and human rights. It has not been perfect, and in some years people might have said that President Museveni had taken his foot off the pedal somewhat, but it is unquestionably the case that Uganda has been one of the better success stories in Africa.

When countries, particularly developing countries, skew their developmental trajectories, we should sit up and take careful notice, particularly when it is a country such as Uganda—there are others—of which, on the whole, we have had a good view. I have a personal record of involvement with politicians in Uganda. It is places such as Uganda that catch our eye. And so it is with human rights: we know which countries routinely abuse human rights and have done so for many years, and we try to do our best through campaigning, relationships with other countries and so on to change that, but when a country does not on the whole have a reputation for treating its population badly, it worries us when the quality of governance suddenly slips back.

The essence of the problem in Uganda, which David Kato’s death has thrown into sharp relief, is that some people in Ugandan public life—politicians, journalists, business people and others—have for some time been seeking personal gain through pandering to and even encouraging homophobia. Prominent among them is David Bahati, the Ugandan MP, who tabled a private Member’s Bill calling for homosexuals to face the death penalty. His name is ironic: I understand that “Bahati” means “peace.” He wants peace for most people, but he wants to kill those who are gay. The Bill whipped up a fervour of enthusiasm among some newspapers, and the oddly named Rolling Stone—a new newspaper, not the famous American counterpart, I do not hesitate to add—eventually published pictures of known members and campaigners in the LGBT communities and urged people to kill them. Not that long afterwards, and perhaps tragically unsurprisingly, David Kato was killed.

David Bahati and Rolling Stone are both a disgrace, of course, but even more worrying at the time was the slow initial response of the Ugandan Government. Some Members and politicians stoked the fire with gusto. Bahati’s private Member’s Bill proposed, among other things, a widening of the definition of homosexual acts and a toughening up of penalties. It called for fines or imprisonment for anyone found to be promoting homosexuality, and the death penalty as punishment for serial homosexuality—the mind boggles.

Some agencies in the developed world chose to view the debate that raged around Bahati’s Bill as providing an opportunity to present Africa through an African prism. In a sense, that is a noble, sound journalistic intent, but they used completely the wrong subject—again, the mind boggles. The BBC asked on its discussion forum whether homosexuals should face execution. That lent international legitimacy to the many people in Uganda and elsewhere who think that the answer is yes. I was reading the responses on my iPhone in the Chamber as they came out, and I was struck by the fact that no one who put a comment on the board was from Uganda. In effect, the BBC had stimulated a debate about whether homosexuals in the UK should be executed. There were people who said, “It is up to Uganda what is done in Uganda but we should probably do that here.” That was the level of debate that that completely insane question stoked. It was most unfortunate, and I subsequently spoke to the head of World Service-Africa. I believe there is an understanding that that question and that particular treatment should not be repeated.

That said, the forum was an indicator of how people sometimes confuse a perfectly noble intent to understand developing world countries and say, “It is not for us to impose our values”—we all know about the tricky relationship that we sometimes have with China in respect of democratic values and so on—with what was, in this case, a universal value. I believe we can all accept that what David Bahati is doing is entirely monstrous.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that proposed measures such as David Bahati’s Bill and some of the public and media debate in Uganda to which he referred provide exactly the right environment for people to be physically attacked and, in the most extreme cases, murdered?

[Eric Joyce]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I believe that everyone I have spoken to in all parts of the House would agree with that. It behoves everyone in the media to reflect on the BBC example, and to separate forcing a post-imperialistic, unacceptable perspective on a developing country from what is actually a perfectly reasonable, universally held value. In this case, the judgment was straightforward. That is something that not just journalists but everyone needs to reflect on when they think about such issues. We are not exercising some kind of imperialistic hegemony just by saying, “Don’t execute homosexuals.”

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which deals with a subject that has not been given the time in the public eye that I would have liked. The Rolling Stone publication that he referred to has been covered extensively in the UK media, but it is not always made clear that it was produced solely to out homosexuals and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, to incite violence against those individuals. It has not been going for a long time—it was created in the past few months.

[Eric Joyce]

That is a profound point. To be honest, I did not know that. I knew that Rolling Stone was a new magazine, but I was not aware of that. When I think about it now, it is obvious. That is a potent point. It has struck me as odd that the proper Rolling Stone, the American magazine, does not sue for breach of copyright, but I am not sure whether the copyright laws would apply in Uganda. My hon. Friend points to part of the general persecution of gay and LGBT communities in Uganda.

It is fair to give President Museveni a bit of credit for establishing a commission to investigate the implications of the Bill. As it is a private Member’s Bill, it seems odd that it should need a commission, to be perfectly honest. The long and short of it is that the commission recommended that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill be withdrawn, although it is important to say that it is still, in fact, pending. It is also important to recognise that Uganda has just had presidential and parliamentary elections, and is now in a period of very little activity. It is possible, although I would hope not probable, that the Bill could go through in a wash-up on a truncated procedure. I suspect that President Museveni would not let that happen, but if the Minister or his diplomats in Kampala get the opportunity, perhaps they could make the point to the Ugandan Government whenever they can that the thing should be withdrawn, the sooner the better.

I shall conclude early so that someone else can speak. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the European Union has developed a set of guidelines for human rights defenders. It is very important, after David Kato’s death, that the issue is fully pressed home not just by our high commission but by representatives of the EU and any EU institutions in Kampala. I am not sure whether the European foreign service—I hesitate to use the name—could also press it home.

The UK is in a position to take a strong lead, as we have a good record on equalities issues. I hope that the Minister will feel able to raise the matter with his Ugandan counterparts when he has the opportunity, and make the strongest case to the Ugandan Government that the UK and perhaps millions of people, and certainly tens of thousands of campaigners throughout the world, will not allow the matter to go away. President Museveni has said that things are done differently there, but he also recognised that there are international standards, and he has openly referred to the UK and US Governments as Governments to which he should pay attention. I conclude on that point, and wait to hear what the Minister says.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Mr Speaker received a letter from an hon. Member who wants to speak, but her office was not advised that she needed the permission of the Member who initiated the debate and the Minister. Does the hon. Member have that permission?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

Yes.

[Eric Joyce]

Definitely.