Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014
The assent to the Anti-homosexuality Bill by President
Museveni has generated much debate, controversies and a mixture of reactions.
The most unusual, and yet very strong reactions to the Act emerged from donor
community and the usually docile and insensitive tribe in Uganda called the “Elites”
I think the donor and international community must be
consistent in their responses to policy development in Uganda. If their strong
reaction to the Anti-Homosexuality Act is due to human rights concerns then
they have let us all down. These donor communities have been feeding this ogre
for so many years to the point that it has matured beyond a pet they thought
they were breeding.
For many years, the US and EU countries have supported the
regime of President Museveni even when they know he rigs elections and
blatantly violates human rights. They pampered it with money and protected its
corrupt officials. Sweden, Holland, USA and Denmark have never condemned the many
human rights violation that the regime has afflicted on the opposition with
decisive actions. The donor money has been used for procuring instrument of
repression and for recruiting and sustaining a politicized police while these
donors just look on.
Many of us have wondered why Sweden’s foreign policy towards
Uganda has been very deliberately anti-change. We understand that Sweden
provided citizenship and protection to President Museveni’s family and many
current NRM officials. However, since the NRM came to power, Sweden, and most
of the EU countries have never taken strong measures to admonish the regime
against its human rights excesses.
Human rights preservation is crucial for every human being
irrespective of culture, creed, sexual orientation or association whether one
is gay or not. And yet, these very same standards are not upheld when our
opposition politicians are being humiliated by the Police or our people are
dying senselessly in Northern Uganda.
The donor community did not threaten this regime with stern
action or withdrawal of assistance when the regime enacted the draconian Public
Order Management Act, 2013. The donor community watched with glee when the
likes of Hon Otto Odonga, Hon Ibrahim Ssemuju Nganda and others were whisked
away like ruffians from Parliamentary chambers
I am definitely not in support of the Anti-Homosexuality Act
categorically on professional and humanitarian grounds. As a member of the
medical fraternity, practitioner of public health and Global Health, I know
better that discrimination against minority has profound long term implication
on public health systems. However, I am also sensitive to the dominant culture
of Uganda which views the same sex relationships as objectionable and alien.
The Buggery Act of 1533 criminalized gay activities in Britain
which it considered sinful and punishable by death. Gay rights and activities
only gained prominence between 1967 and 1982 and has just been consolidated by
the Equality Act of 2012. The ultra-conservative section of the North American
society still views gay marriages as improper and a violation of the
institution of marriage. And, of course, the devout mainstream religious following
also consider same sex relationships as a deviation from the religious norms
and teachings. In the US, only 17 States of the 50 have fully legalized gay
marriages.
As global leaders, we must learn to be tolerant with people who
are different from us and cognizant of their stages of development and of mainstream
cultures which shapes their conscience. The celebrated American, Rev Jeremiah
Wright once counseled that being different does not mean being deficient at all.
Take for instance, US, Canada, UK and EU countries criminalizes polygamy and yet
some cultures here delight in it.
My second discomfort with the anti-homosexuality Act,
outside of human rights concerns, relates to health inequities and access to
other pertinent socio-economic services. Our social services are not capacitated
to accommodate vulnerable groups such as women and persons with disability.
Likewise, in the 60s and 70s, most medical experiments and drug tests were
geared mainly to male related illnesses and conditions. This made it very
difficult to contain women specific illnesses and conditions such as cervical
and breast cancers.
Therefore, coming purely from a professional perspective, we
have learned that discriminating against minority groups generate inequalities,
institutionalizes exclusion from social services and yet, exclusion does not
imply extermination of such a group.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment