Nearly three years after it was introduced, the Ugandan Parliament is expected to act soon on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, a draconian piece of legislation that would impose the death penalty on anyone convicted of repeat same-sex sexual acts. While there has been a lot of conflicting information coming out of the country over the past several days, it is likely members of Parliament will vote on the bill before the legislative session that ends December 14.
This horrible piece of anti-gay legislation should be defeated, whether or not it ultimately includes the death penalty. If that punishment is removed, as some media reports suggest will be the case, the remaining parts of the bill are bad public policy that still do not warrant passage. The bill, as we mentioned when it was first being considered, would sanction new levels of violence against gays in a country where homosexuality is already against the law.
The U.S. government has so far not made much of a public outcry, even as developments suggest a vote is imminent, and that is unfortunate. While we understand that it may be counterproductive for the U.S. to make public demands on another country, we think more could have been done diplomatically over the last three years to render the bill dead. LGBT activists in Uganda often cannot readily speak out, lest they risk being beaten or killed.
As we noted in an editorial three years ago, the U.S. government provides federal aid to Uganda, including funds through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Ironically, thanks to U.S. aid, Uganda has one of Africa's most successful HIV/AIDS treatment programs. Continuation of that aid to the country needs to be on the table as the Ugandan Parliament weighs the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Those lawmakers must know that they cannot legislate hate without consequences. Of course, the losers in all of this are the people of Uganda – gay and straight – who have to sit by as their representatives debate how much vitriol they can muster against a group of people, in this case LGBTs.
Equally abhorrent in this dire situation is the outsized role that U.S. evangelicals have had in this process. Several, including Scott Lively, Rick Warren, and Richard Cohen, went to Uganda to advocate an anti-gay agenda among local evangelical leaders prior to MP David Bahati's introduction of the bill in 2009. As the Washington Blade noted in a story this week, the evangelicals exploited homophobic attitudes while they were there; this undoubtedly contributed to the increased climate of anti-gay animus that exists in the country.
While Uganda's anti-gay "Kill the Gays" bill may be the most publicized, actions in other countries in recent months have also demonstrated that homophobia is alive and well. Moscow has banned gay Pride for 100 years – a ridiculous moratorium. Pop star Madonna used an August appearance there to stand up for gay rights, thereby "promoting homosexuality" in the eyes of a citizens group, which filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against her. Last month, the St. Petersburg District Court dismissed the case. And this is in a country that decriminalized homosexuality in 1993.
Speaking of homophobia
The Associated Press last week announced that its stylebook was no longer using the word "homophobia" in political or social contexts. The news organization's stylebook is among the most influential in the country and we think AP's decision is a mistake.
AP deputy standards editor Dave Minthorn told Politico that the term is "just off the mark" and "seems inaccurate." "We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing," he said. The new guidelines state that "-phobia" should only be referred to as "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness."
Well, we hate to break it to the AP, but there are a lot of anti-gay people in this country who have exactly that: an irrational fear of LGBTs. That does not mean they have a mental illness (though some might), just as a person who's afraid of spiders (arachnophobia) does not necessarily suffer from mental illness.
We think the AP's decision was short-sighted, and in fact, the change gives credibility to those who least deserve it: the bigots who hate us. While we don't use the term all the time (anti-gay or anti-LGBT is probably more common), we'll continue to call out the people who are fearful of us when appropriate.