Ugandan President Says He Will Sign Harsh Anti-Homosexuality Bill; U.S. Objects

The Kampala Observer and the New York Times reported yesterday that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni says he will sign the harsh Anti-Homosexuality Bill (full text- apparently the final version) passed by Uganda's Parliament last December. (See prior posting.) The announcement came in closing remarks at a retreat of Museveni's political party, the National Resistance Movement (NRM). Originally Museveni had reservations about signing the bill, but in his remarks (full text) to the NRM Museveni explained his current decision:

The reason I had not signed the bill is to scientifically answer the question; are there people genetically born homosexual? For me, I had thought that since there were people born albino there could be people born homosexual.

But since the medical authorities, the department of genetics of the Medical School from Makerere, say there is no proof yet that people are homosexual by genetics, I told those scientists to put it in writing and they are going to do so. Then I will sign the bill.

Am taking all these precautions because am historically answerable for whatever I do as a leader. There were mistakes made in the 1930s by Hitler because he wanted to make Germany strong. Some of these issues are very crucial and should be handled objectively not emotionally....

I know we are going to have a big battle with outsiders, but I will be able to say I asked scientists and this is what they said. That homosexuals are normal people behaving abnormally.

In the United States, yesterday President Obama issued a statement (full text) saying that he is "deeply disappointed" by the decision. He added: "enacting this legislation will complicate our valued relationship with Uganda." White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice tweeted yesterday that she had spoken at length with Museveni to urge him not to sign the bill

Catholic Bishops In Various Countries At Odds Over Anti-Gay Laws

Religion News Service reported yesterday on "unusually stark and public fissures" among Catholic bishops in various countries over whether to support or oppose harsh anti-gay laws being enacted or revived in some countries of Africa, Asia and elsewhere. For example, after Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan recently signed new anti-gay legislation, the Nigerian Catholic hierarchy  praised the president's "courageous and wise decision."  However, a few days later an editorial in a newspaper run jointly by the bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland, took a very different view, calling on the Catholic Church in Africa "to stand with the powerless" and "sound the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals." Similar disagreements can be seen among bishops in Europe and Asia.

Nigeria Cracking Down on Gays

Today's New York Times carries a long front-page article titled Wielding Whip and a Hard New Law, Nigeria Tries to ‘Sanitize’ Itself of Gays.  Here is an excerpt:

Rights advocates say they have recorded arrests in multiple Nigerian states, but the country’s north has experienced the toughest crackdown. Mr. Jonathan’s national ban has redoubled the zeal against gay people here and elsewhere, according to officials and residents in Bauchi, where Shariah law prevails and green-uniformed Hisbah, or Islamic police officers, search for what is considered immoral under Islam.

“It’s reawakened interest in communities to ‘sanitize,’ more or less, to talk about ‘moral sanitization,’ ” Dorothy Aken’Ova, executive director of Nigeria’s International Center for Reproductive Health and Sexual Rights, said of the law. “Where it was quiet before, it’s gotten people thinking, ‘Who is behaving in a manner that may be gay?’ It’s driven people into the closet.”...

 “God has not allowed this thing; we are not animals,” said Umar Inuwa Obi, 32, a student who said he was in the mob that hurled stones and bottles at the court and the prison van transporting the gay suspects two weeks ago.

“In Shariah court you are supposed to kill the man,” Mr. Obi said, adding that he favored this judgment. “But the government has refused. That’s why they started throwing stones and bottles.”

(See prior related posting.)

9th Circuit Stays Order Pending Cert. Petition In Case Upholding California's "Change Therapy for Minors" Ban

As previously reported, last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review of a 3-judge panel's decision that upheld California Senate Bill 1172. The bill bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18.  Now in Pickup v. Brown, (9th Cir., Feb. 3, 2014), the 9th Circuit has agreed to stay its mandate in the case while appellants file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the stay.

UK Appeals Court OK's Transport Agency Rule Banning Controversial Ad By Christian Non-Profit

In Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London, (EWCA, Jan. 27, 2014), Britain's Court of Appeal upheld a decision by London's public transportation agency to refuse to allow a Christian non-profit organization that supports gays who wish to change their sexual preference to buy ad space on the side of London's buses. The organization wanted to post an ad that read: "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud, Get Over It". The court held that the policy of the transportation agency to refuse ads that are likely to cause widespread or serious offence or which relate to matters of public controversy or sensitivity does not violated the freedom of expression or freedom of religion provisions (Art. 9 and 10) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Independent reports on the decision. [Thanks to Paul Diamond for the lead.]

Nigeria and Uganda Parliaments Pass Harsh Anti-Gay Laws; Final Approval By President/ Prime Minister Uncertain

Daily Trust reports that last week Nigeria's National Assembly gave final approval to the conference committee's version of the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill 2011.  It imposes a 14-year prison sentence on same-sex couples who enter a marriage or civil union.  Ten year prison sentences are prescribed for anyone who witnesses or aids or abets a same-sex union.  Section 2 of the bill provides:

Any person, who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies and organisations or directly or indirectly make public show of same sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a term of 10 years in prison.

The bill still needs the signature of President Goodluck Jonathan to become law.  Amnesty International on Friday called on the President to reject the bill. (AFP).

Meanwhile, on Friday, Uganda's Parliament passed an anti-homosexuality law described as draconian.  The Guardian reports on some of its provisions:

British campaigner Peter Tatchell noted that the bill extends the existing penalty of life imprisonment for same-sex intercourse to all other same-sex behaviour, including the mere touching of another person with the intent to have homosexual relations.

Promoting homosexuality and aiding and abetting others to commit homosexual acts will be punishable by five to seven years jail.... "These new crimes are likely to include membership and funding of LGBT organisations, advocacy of LGBT human rights, supportive counselling of LGBT persons and the provision of condoms or safer sex advice to LGBT people.

"A person in authority – gay or heterosexual – who fails to report violators to the police within 24 hours will be sentenced to three years behind bars."

He added: "Astonishingly, the new legislation has an extra-territorial jurisdiction. It will also apply to Ugandan citizens or foreign residents of Uganda who commit these 'crimes' while abroad, in countries where such behaviour is not a criminal offence. Violators overseas will be subjected to extradition, trial and punishment in Uganda.

The Guardian adds:

[The bill] was opposed by Ugandan prime minister Amama Mbabazi, who argued that not enough MPs were present for a quorum, a challenge that might yet discourage Museveni from signing the bill into law. The threat of a withdrawal of western aid could also play into his decision.

Canada's First Religious Law School Clears Major Approval Hurdle

In Canada, Trinity Western University, a Christian liberal arts university in British Columbia, cleared a major hurdle this week in its bid to open the country's first private religious law school.  In a December 16 press release, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada announced that it has granted preliminary approval for the school's program. As reported by The Tyee yesterday, the Council of Canadian Law Deans had expressed concern over the school’s mandatory Community Covenant agreement for students, faculty, and staff. (See prior posting.) The Covenant calls for abstention from alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, and "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman." The Deans objected that the Covenant may lead to illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Federation of Law Societies is considering adding a non-discrimination requirement for all law schools. The proposed new law school now must still obtain approval from British Columbia's Ministry of Advanced Education.

India's Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court's Invalidation of Ban On Homosexual Acts

In Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, (Sup. Ct. India, Dec. 11, 2013), a 2-judge panel of India's Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that had held unconstitutional Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as it bans homosexual sexual acts in private between consenting adults. (See prior posting.) Rejecting the lower court's holding that the statute violated constitutional provisions on equal protection and non-discrimination, Justice Singhvi wrote:

Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification.

The Supreme Court also rejected the lower court's holding that the statute infringes the substantive due process right to privacy:

In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Section 377 IPC violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature.

Responding to the argument that police have misused the law, the Supreme Court said:

Respondent No.1 attacked Section 377 IPC on the ground that the same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on ... those belonging to the LGBT community.  [T]he mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the desirability of amending Section 377 IPC.

Times of India reports on the decision.