Talk:LGBT rights in Uganda/Archive 1

David Kato
" On January 26, [2011,] LGBT activist David Kato, who had successfully sued the local tabloid discussed above for the 2010 publication of his picture under the headline "Hang Them," was bludgeoned to death at (actually in) his home outside Kampala. On February 2, police arrested Sidney Enock Nsubuga for Kato's murder. On November 9, Nsubuga pled guilty and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. " This is accurate but omits a lot of detail. For instance, David Kato had paid Sydney Enock Nsubuga's bail. He was a early 20-something huster/thief - they knew eachother. Also, there is some evidence that David Kato considered paying bail payment enough, and that Sydney Enock Nsubuga expected to be paid, and that this is what David Kato's murder/robbery was about. The Wikipedia article implies that there was a connection between the tabloid's article and his murder, which may serve the purposes of the NGO's, but may not be what actually happened. More details here: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1270664/-/bgvjh8z/-/index.html MrSativa (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Colonial Uganda
So we have nothing on LGBT relations of Pre-Colonial Uganda? --75.82.253.4 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera
… has been awarded the Martin Ennals Award for her LGBT rights activism in Uganda, 78.52.242.119 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete this misinformation
I'm anonymous and new here so I don't want to edit this by myself, but please have a look at this:

In the first info box it says: "Penalty: Up to death." There is no proof for this, the citation links points to mob justice but no state / legal justice as you surely would expect in this info box.

This mob justice story itself (link number 1) is a hoax, the video featuring an unrelated attack, most likely in Kena months earlier. No serious news organization has reported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6F:8E0E:224:6CFD:E908:E872:E851 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been deleted, thank you! mathwhiz  29  02:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ugandan Constitution of 1995
Hi,

I am moving the section on Ugandan Constitution here from the main page:


 * Ugandan Constitution of 1995


 * Like many other former British colonies, there are specific laws against homosexuality in the Penal Code. However, like for instance in Malawi, the post-independence Constitution delivers very specific protections against discrimination, including discrimination on grounds of sex, through Article 21. This would render all anti-homosexual laws unconstitutional. Citing Article 21 of the Ugandan constitution:


 * 21. Equality and freedom from discrimination.


 * (1) All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law.


 * (2) Without prejudice to clause (1) of this article, a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.


 * (3) For the purposes of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.

My reason is that even though it protects from discrimination on the grounds of sex, it might not protect from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. (I am editing from Canada.) In Canada, the Supreme Court, in Egan v. Canada, established a precedent to protect sexual orientation. A similar decision might be needed in Uganda.

I suggest if we find a reference to a reliable source that says "protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex renders anti-homosexual laws unconstitutional", we could move this section back to the article.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kevinkor2,

I have added the following extra reference to this section, and still it is getting deleted:

It was lawyer Chrispine Sibande who first put forward the unconstitutionality of the anti-gay sections in the Malawian Penal Code.

Please stop deleting my contributions.

You are being overactive, and I think you are letting your beliefs in marriage being between a man and a woman get in the way of ordinary contributors.

I don't need 'extra proof' that discrimination based on sex is protected by the Ugandan or Malawian constitution, when it is in the Ugandan and Malawian constitutions.

If you have PROOF that sex DOES NOT refer to homosexuality or gender orientation, you should present it in the article, instead of deleting my contributions.

People have a right to know what the national constitutions have to say.

Stop deleting my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSativa (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving this discussion over to Talk:LGBT rights in Malawi.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really uneasy about the article stating unequivocally that the consitution protects gay men and women from discrimnation. Of the 2 links, the second still does not work for me. This is not satisfactory. The other link is to HIVOS. But I can find no other reliable sources to say that the case was won at the high court. It is also very odd. Why would the constitution say there should be no discrimination when clearly homosexuality is criminal under penal law? The court ruling would have automatically triggered a review of the penal law but this has not happened. More work to do on this. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "'It is also very odd. Why would the constitution say there should be no discrimination when clearly homosexuality is criminal under penal law?'"

1) The Penal Code of 1950 was written in 1950, and the Constitution of 1995 in 1995, when there was a very big difference culturally, temporarily, etc., with regard to who was in power. In 1950, Uganda was a British protectorate, and the Penal Code was written by British individuals, when homosexuality itself was illegal in Britain, and would remain so in Northern Ireland until 1981. However, the Constitution of 1995 was written during the wave of neoliberal reforms during the 1990s. A very diffferent time and place. 2) The 1950 Penal Code never actually mentioned 'homosexuality', which as an identity and concept I'm sure barely existed in 1950. The Penal Code therefore bans 'acts' and age ranges. (Hilariously, there is also a ban on having sex with women under a certain IQ score ("Defilement of Idiots and Imbeciles"), reflecting the writers' influence by eugenic thought.) 3) The Constitution does not protect homosexuals from discrimination, it protects against discriminatory legislation. Clause 1 is very extensive in it's protection against discrimination. Clause 2 starts with "Without prejudice to Clause 1", meaning that the list that follows is not exhaustive, and when in doubt about Clause 2, see Clause 1. 4) Because the Penal Code of 1950 deals with acts that can be engaged in by any gender, straight or gay, it probably is not explicitly discriminatory. However, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, is explicitly discriminatory, right out from the title of the bill itself. I would say it is in direct violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of 1995. 18. Nullification of inconsistent international treaties, protocols, declarations and conventions.

(1) Any international legal instrument whose provisions are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act, are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.

Source: 5) There is more wrong with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. In Clause 18, it tries to add reservations to existing treaties, which is illegal in international law. It has to add this Clause, because in 2009 or 2014, it is impossible to ban homosexuality outright in Uganda. The government is signatory to international treaties and organisations, and then there is the Ugandan Constitution. However it is Clause 18 that makes the law impossible just by itself.MrSativa (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE, April 30, 2015 And I should add - there was even more wrong with the law, in that the law was ratified by the President when Parliament was not in session. The law was thrown out by the Ugandan High Court: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28605400

(BBC) "Uganda court annuls anti-homosexuality law" 1 August 2014

Uganda's Constitutional Court has annulled tough anti-gay legislation signed into law in February.

It ruled that the bill was passed by MPs in December without the requisite quorum and was therefore illegal.

However the legislation that was passed in parliament was "null and void", the presiding judge at the Constitutional Court said, as not enough lawmakers had been present to vote on the bill. MrSativa (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

To the person who has reverted my edits 4 times
... but has no account, probably because you've been banned (esp IP 70.124.133.228):

Hi, you've been reverting my edits on this page.

I must say, for someone trying to do good, you're very bad at it. I FORMATTED the law that was quoted. If you had bothered to look at the page, you will see NO WORDS REMOVED. I removed BIG BLANK SPACES that were bothersome. Here, I've replicated them for you.

Your version:

"Section 145. Unnatural offences. Any person who—" "(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; [or]" "(b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or" "(c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature," "commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life."

"Section 146. Attempt to commit unnatural offences. Any person who attempts to commit any of the offences specified in section 145 commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years."

"Section 148. Indecent practices. Any person who, whether in public or in private, commits any act of gross indecency with another person or procures another person to commit any act of gross indecency with him or her or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any person with himself or herself or with another person, whether in public or in private, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for seven years."

My version:

'''Section 145. Unnatural offences.''' Any person who—
 * (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; [or]
 * (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or
 * (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature,
 * commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.

'''Section 146. Attempt to commit unnatural offences.''' Any person who attempts to commit any of the offences specified in
 * section 145 commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

'''Section 148. Indecent practices.''' Any person who, whether in public or in private, commits any act of gross indecency with
 * another person or procures another person to commit any act of gross indecency with him or her or attempts to procure the
 * commission of any such act by any person with himself or herself or with another person, whether in public or in private,
 * commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

Whose version is better? Mine. Please stop being a dick and reverting good changes. You have clearly been banned too many times to edit with an account. Please stop. mathwhiz 29  02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)