In the last few weeks, attention has been drawn to new legislation proposed in Uganda in the form of "The Anti-Homosexuality Bill". It proposes extreme measures supposedly to "establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family" and "aims at strengthening the nation's capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family". What follows seeks to provide a basic guide to the proposal (based on an online version of the text) and some of its background and to offer an evaluation of it in the light of Anglican teaching and suggestions as to how Anglicans elsewhere in the Communion might best respond.
Who is proposing the law?
It is important to realise that this is not currently government legislation and has yet to be properly debated in Parliament. It is a proposed Private Member's Bill from David Bahati, a member of the Ugandan Parliament, who has studied in Wales. Bahati would appear to be a committed Christian - he lists "Bible Reading" among his special interests on his Parliamentary profile. He has recently written in support of his bill in the Ugandan press.
It is, however, becoming clear that he is not a lone or minority voice. Not only do other MPs support its outlook (eg a woman MP recently in New Vision, a government newspaper), the bill does have significant government backing, especially from the Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo. As far back as July he was reported as announcing such a bill would come forward and was speaking out strongly against homosexuality. He has recently apparently held a press conference in support of the law of which it is reported: "The proposed law would "make Uganda a leader" in efforts against gay culture in Africa, Dr Buturo said. "On the issue of homosexuality, let them forget [about human rights]," he said. "The government has started
biting."
A sense of Buturo's views can also be gained from earlier reports in relation to the UN and homosexuality, the
threat homosexuality poses to civilization, UNICEF and sex education materials and judicial overturning of adultery laws. He has also spoken out strongly in the past against women wearing mini-skirts in part because of their liability to cause traffic accidents. All these examples highlight the quite different cultural context from Western liberalism and demonstrate that homosexuality, though clearly the target here, is not the only cause of concern to those supporting this bill.
It is reported that Buturo is a committed member of the Church of Uganda and that he has been very supportive of the Ugandan church's stance in recent Anglican debates.
A more recent account of developments has appeared on a website which is following the legislation and Buturo closely. Given the powers granted to this minister under the proposed law (see below), there must be very serious concerns about how it will be implemented.
What is the current law?
The Penal Code Act already outlaws homosexual activity in Uganda with severe penalties. Section 145, headed "Unnatural offences", declares that "Any person who -(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; (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". The following section broadens this further to state that "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". In practice, however, prosecutions are apparently rare.
What is now proposed?
The Bill opens (Clause 1) with explicit definitions concerning the sexual organs and actions it seeks to control. It then defines "the offence of homosexuality" (Clause 2) in terms of men engaging in anal or oral sex or any person using "any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex". It further states that the offence is committed whenever anyone "touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality". Conviction, as under the current penal code for actions "against the order of nature", makes someone liable to life imprisonment.
Even more shocking is the penalty for what is defined as "aggravated homosexuality" (Clause 3) which occurs where the offence is committed against a minor, someone in the offender's care or someone with a disability or where the offender is living with HIV, a serial offender or drugs their victim. Here anyone found guilty is
liable to the death penalty.
As under the penal code, any attempt to commit homosexualty could lead to seven years imprisonment while life imprisonment potentially awaits someone found guilty of attempting the new offence of aggravated homosexuality (Clause 4). Further clauses (Clauses 5 & 6) seek to protect and compensate "victims".
Part III creates a raft of new related offences. These relate to such matters as "aiding and abetting homosexuality" (Clause 7), "conspiracy to engage in homosexuality" (Clause 8), the use of threats or detention (Clauses 9 & 10) and the keeping of brothels (Clause 11). Any claim to have contracted a same-sex marriage is stated to be equivalent to committing the offence of homosexuality and so also liable to life imprisonment (Clause 12).
Clause 13 throws its net as wide as possible in a sweeping definition of "promotion of homosexuality". Conviction here could arise from any of a wide range of actions from homosexual pornography to simply offering premises or using electronic devices such as a mobile phone or the internet "for purposes of homosexuality or promoting
homosexuality". It will result in fines, prison sentences of 5-7 years and/or removal of legal status for organisations.
Finally, as a result of Clause 14, all persons of authority are required to police this law. Anyone with "power and control over other people because of your knowledge and official position", which explicitly includes "a person who exercises religious, political, economic or social authority", has to report within 24hrs if they become "aware of the commission of any offence under this Act". Failure to do so makes them liable to a fine or up to 3 years in prison.
Any Ugandan thinking they can escape by fleeing the country is caught by Clause 16 which applies the Act to offences outside Uganda while Clause 17 makes anyone charged under the Act liable to extradition. Where this new law violates existing international legal obligations those obligations are "null and void" and the Minister responsible for ethics and integrity (currently Nsaba Buturo quoted above) is authorised to "make regulations generally for better carrying out the provisions of this Act".
Why is this being proposed and how are Christians in Uganda responding?
At present the answers to these questions are not totally clear but the strong support for traditional Christian sexual ethics and the family means many Christians are likely to be supportive of seeking to encourage such behaviour including by passing laws with stringent penalties for violations. It is clear that the Minister for Ethics and Integrity (possibly representing a wider body of opinion) is concerned about perceived increasing social laxity in sexual morals and particularly about homosexuality which is understood only in such terms. There are also reports of increasing heterosexual and homosexual "defilement" (ie sexual abuse) in schools which is going unreported and unchallenged and this may explain some of the clauses in legislation (eg obligations to report certain offences and concerns for "victims") although it cannot justify its very narrow focus on homosexuality.
In relation to Anglican responses, Colin Coward has written on the Changing Attitude blog that "We have no evidence that the Church of Uganda or other member churches of ACNA or FoCA are directly involved in supporting the Uganda Bill". Other reports, however, have suggested a lot of sympathy with much of the Bill from Christian leaders although also criticism of its introduction of capital punishment and questions about the practicalities of implementing some of its measures.
There have also been suggestions that the recent work in Uganda of conservative Christian "ex-gay" and "pro-family" groups have helped create the atmosphere for the bill and enable it to gain a sympathetic hearing (concerns about a conservative Christian conference were raised at the time by some Christians as well as by those working for LGBT rights). One of the main people referred to in relation to this - Martin Ssempa (see also his blog and here for a critical set of reports about his work from a gay rights activist) who has worked for many years in Uganda in relation to HIV/AIDS - has strongly supported the bill. He has previously been linked to Rick Warren's church but it has now strongly distanced itself from him and Exodus International, the main 'ex-gay' movement which has had links
with Ssempa in Uganda, has given prominence to a call for him to renounce his support, suggesting that it too does not share his views on the legislation.
Is there Anglican teaching relevant to this proposed legislation?
When similar legislation was proposed in Nigeria, Andrew Goddard and Ephraim Radner wrote an article on Human Rights, Homosexuality & The Anglican Communion which addresses a number of key issues in some detail. Anglican moral teaching clearly views the sort
of conduct here classed as "the offence of homosexuality" as morally wrong but it says nothing about how secular law should view such an offence and the legal systems found across the Anglican Communion clearly vary on this. There
are, however, serious questions to be raised about this proposed legislation on the basis of Anglican moral teaching.
- Lambeth I.10 in the same sentence that it rejects "homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture" called on "all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals".If this legislation does not amount to the expression of (and an attempt to give legal embodiment to) an "irrational fear of homosexuals" then it is hard to imagine what would. It would also appear to make it impossible, especially given the requirements to report any offence, for Anglican clergy to "minister pastorally and sensitively" without being in breach of the law.
- As far back as 1978, the bishops of Lambeth stated that "While we reaffirm heterosexuality as the scriptural norm, we recognise the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research. The Church, recognising the need for pastoral concern for those who are homosexual, encourages dialogue with them". This was again reaffirmed in 1998 Lambeth I.10 - "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ".This proposed legislation clearly would create a legal environment which makes the fulfilment of these commitments even more difficult than it already is (perhaps impossible) for Anglicans in Uganda and could potentially lead to any participating in the Listening Process being viewed as guilty of "promotion of homosexuality".
- In 1988 the Lambeth Conference (Resolution 33) urged the Church "to speak out against...all governments who practice capital punishment, and encourages them to find alternative ways of sentencing offenders so that the divine dignity of every human being is respected and yet justice is pursued".The proposed introduction of capital punishment for homosexual offences in this Bill must therefore be spoken against and it is encouraging that there are signs of this happening with Bishop Stanley Ntagali of Masindi-Kitara diocese and the Provincial Secretary reported as opposing this development (although their support for even life sentences signals how alarmingly different their perception of homosexual offences is from that in Western countries).
- Anglicans have repeatedly spoken against what is often labelled homophobia (see extended version of May 2006 Fulcrum Newsletter for details and discussion) with the Primates making clear that "in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship". This legislation, with its detailed concerns about "specific human behaviours", shows no awareness of this reality of "homosexual people" or of human "affections" and is thus fatally flawed from a Christian perspective. In focussing its alleged defence of the family on introducing such offences and severe penalties solely in relation to homosexuality it represents and encourages the victimisation and diminution of "human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex" which the Primates anathematized.
How should Anglicans outside Uganda respond?
Great care is always needed when engaging with the internal politics of a quite different culture and there can be significant misunderstandings, fuelled by reliance on Internet sources of often unknown reliability (what, for example, is one to make of the significance of recent blog reports of accusations of homosexuality against Christian leaders?) and pressure group lobbying by both Christians and non-Christians. Megaphone diplomacy is unlikely to prove of much value and it is also clear that anything perceived as "external threats to the traditional heterosexual family" within Uganda could actually lead to increased support for such legal developments. Already, in the UK, it is clear that those who are concerned about the proposed bill are following different strategies and Changing Attitude has expressed its unhappiness at the lack of response from Fulcrum and other evangelical groups and their unwillingness to agree to a proposed joint open letter. It is also the case that the Ugandan Church has in the past felt itself to be targeted by Anglican groups such as Integrity in the US working for GLBT rights and inclusion and this history will shape their response to comments from elsewhere in the Communion on matters relating to homosexuality.
However, unless we are to succumb to cultural relativism, the proposed legislation cannot simply be ignored given its apparent support from a leading government minister, its incompatibility with Anglican teaching, its undermining of Anglican ministry and mission, and the danger it represents to many Anglicans and others in Uganda who are likely to face prosecution should it become law. We need therefore to:
- Pray for David Bahati (the Bill's sponsor) and the Minister for Ethics and Integrity (who is so supportive of it), for all those who will be involved in any Parliamentary discussion of it (due now in January 2010) and able to amend or defeat it, for all those who now feel even further threatened simply by its publication, and for all those in the Ugandan Church seeking to be faithful witnesses and salt and light in their country.
- Seek to understand more about what is happening and the wider context in Uganda eg most of us in this country would not know the answer to many, if any, of the following questions: (1) how likely is this to become law in its present form, what sort of amendments are realistically possibly, and what will happen if it does enter the statute book?, (2) how does it compare in terms of stringency and penalties to existing legislation in relation to other (hetero)sexual conduct viewed as wrong?, (3) what are the real social and criminal problems which it is a misguided attempt to address and how can they be better addressed? eg has there been a rise in sexual abuse of minors?, (4) is there any reason other than homophobic prejudice and scapegoating as to why the bill and signficant political leaders are particularly targeting homosexual people?, (5) how widespread are the attitudes the bill represents within Ugandan church and society and how can the Christians there and elsewhere in the Communion best reform that culture and its laws?, (6) how is the Church of Uganda ministering to GLBT people?, (7) what are the real threats to marriage and family life in Uganda that this bill claims to be responding to?
- Be in contact with those we know in the Ugandan church. Many evangelicals have strong ties with the church - Archbishop Henry Orombi did not attend the recent ACC meeting because he was attending a New Wine conference in the UK! - and a number of dioceses, theological colleges and other bodies also have strong links. The Anglican Church in North America also includes many who were, until its formation, part of the Church of Uganda. Through personal relationships such as these we can find out more about the proposed law and the challenges of ministry and mission to GLBT people in Uganda and encourage church leaders to oppose legislation which is contrary to Anglican and wider Christian teaching and fulfil the commitments of Lambeth Conferences in relation to Anglican responses to homosexual people.
Where can one keep informed about developments?
The legislation is now being widely discussed on the internet by both Christian and non-Christian groups. Among advocates for LGBT people in Uganda the main sources are Box Turtle Bulletin (who has followed "anti-gay" rhetoric and actions in Uganda closely) and the blog of a gay Ugandan. From those supportive of a traditional Christian stance on homosexuality the most important and best-informed reports so far discovered are those of the respected evangelical psychology professor Dr Warren Throckmorton (especially on his blog) and, more recently, Andrew Marin, whose Love Is An Orientation was recently reviewed on Fulcrum. Throckmorton has also started a Facebook group opposing the legislation which often has updates to developments. Among Ugandan press sources are New Vision (a government-owned newspaper), The Observer and the independent, anti-government Monitor (which has been very critical of the Ethics and Integrity Minister).
