The Anti-Gay bill in Uganda pushed off the agenda... A victory for humanity...

The Anti-Gay Bill in Uganda was thankfully pushed off the agenda today.

The bill, authored by MP David Bahati in October 2009 mandates the death penalty for 'serial offenders', those with HIV, and those who engage in sexual relations with minors.  This bill would actually only be a strengthening of the already horrific laws against homosexuality in Uganda - currently it is punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years.  I believe homosexuality is actually illegal in around 80 nations across the globe which is just unbelievable and impossible to digest.  The new bill would apply to Ugandans living outside of the country too, and also, anyone who is aware of an 'offender' and doesn't report it within 24 hours would be subject to up to 3 years in prison.

Some of the quotes I have read from Bahati are just astonishing.  When asked to withdraw the bill in 2010 he replied, "I will not withdraw it.  We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality).  The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on".  This type of reasoning is just sickening - to think that homosexuals are some sort of cult waiting out the school gates to tap up youths is just absurd.

The public policy in several African nations has also been severely influenced by certain American evangelicals who have added fuel to the fire by citing ridiculous statistics such as, "homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual" - these being published is horrendous enough, but the fact that people actually buy in to this bullshit is truly frightening and really makes you step back and understand the impact propaganda can have.

One of the the main campaigners, David Kato, who led the condemnation of the bill was unfortunately murdered in January of this year after being 'outed' in a newspaper for being gay.  "Police claim it had nothing to do with his sexuality" - do they really think we are that naive and stupid?  Three months before this a Ugandan newspaper, Rolling Stone, published an article claiming to 'out' 100 gay men, accompanied by the headline 'Hang Them' - honestly the more I read about this the sicker I feel.

Unfortunately the bill has not actually been thrown out yet, but it being pushed off the agenda, at least for the time being is a massive moral victory for all people around the world who value human rights, and in particular groups like Avaaz who compiled a petition, signed by 1.6 million people over the world, to help fight the bill - click here to sign the petition.

Having been lucky enough to have lived in London my whole life, I have certainly been sheltered from a number of global human rights issues.  Growing up in one of the most tolerant cities in the world has given me vast exposure to homosexuals and to me being gay is not unusual - this is something that Londoners can be extremely proud of.  But on a global scale, outside of the bubble that I live in, it is so devastating when you realise just how many people share these nauseating views.  The world would certainly be a better place if all these people were simply wiped off the face of the earth.  As far as I am concerned they have nothing constructive at all to offer humanity.  The only positive to be taken is that there are a far greater number of good people out there who, albeit aren't perfect, do not share the same heinous beliefs.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Super-injunctions, Celebrities & Privacy... Who's in the right?

If you see someone you know, cheating on their partner would you go and tell the partner...?  You would have a moral dilemma and more times than not you probably wouldn’t – but whether you would or wouldn’t doesn’t actually matter.  Compare this to a celebrity who gets caught doing something they shouldn’t.  Is it our right to plaster this across the tabloids about people we don’t know?  Whereas with people we do know we may turn a blind eye?

This post is on the subject of super-injunctions - court orders preventing a given matter being discussed and on top of that, preventing the fact that the order even exists from being reported – essentially making it vanish into thin air.  This has been in the news recently because the Lib Dem MP John Hemming has threatened, using a certain parliamentary privilege, to oust certain individuals - which he has now done so (23rd May).  This has led to a wider debate about issues of privacy...

Personally, I don’t see how it is anyone’s business what these people do in their private lives.  Does the fact that a Premiership football player, now confirmed as Ryan Giggs has been having an affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas impact our lives in anyway?  Not my life no.  Some may argue that due to their public status they gain certain advantages in life and should therefore be prepared to bear the brunt of the media if and when their misdemeanours are uncovered.  I would disagree with this argument...

However, on BBC News (April 26^th), Niri Shan, head of law firm Taylor Wessing made a great point.  If celebrities’ go out and share their private lives in magazines and on television then they are voluntarily inviting public opinion - they surely cannot expect their lives to all of a sudden be private when they decide.  But then part of me feels that in this age of technology, half the population are making their private lives public on a daily basis through the likes of twitter and facebook... So is there even a difference...?

There is also the issue that these super injunctions cost 50K – Yes 50 THOUSAND POUNDS!  Slapping on such a high price tag automatically makes them exclusively available to the wealthy.  The geeza down your local who gets caught by his wife’s best mate can’t exactly nip down to court and buy one!  Imogen Thomas couldn't afford to either so as a result became the sole target of a media onslaught for her part in the affair – yet the ‘other party’ has effectively got away scot free minus a week’s wages – surely that’s not right or fair?

It is not a secret that many people, male and female, have affairs - there is no argument there.  It is also true that certain people are aware of and tolerate their partner's affairs for reasons personal to them.  If a newspaper then becomes aware of the indiscretions and decides to stick them on the front page families can be torn apart unnecessarily in the name of 'news' when the non-offending partner was already fully aware and 'content' with the situation.

What do you think...?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...