Rep. Baldwin (D-WI)
In a letter (pdf) to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin told the Secretary that she is looking for “swift action” to stop the “Anti-Homosexual Bill” introduced earlier this month in Uganda. From Baldwin’s news release:
“This egregious bill represents one of the most extreme anti-equality measures ever proposed in any country and would create a legal pretext for depriving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans of their liberty, and even their lives,” Baldwin wrote [to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton], joined by Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Howard Berman (D-CA), Vice Chair, Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Ranking Member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). “Particularly given the United States’ substantial contribution to Uganda through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), we believe swift action is necessary to ensure Ugandan leaders understand this bill is wholly unacceptable and antithetical to democratic values,” they wrote.
The bill was earlier discussed at Human Rights Watch, which decried the bill. Their report quoted a representative from Amnesty International:
“Certain provisions in this bill are illegal; they are also immoral,” said Kate Sheill, Amnesty International’s expert on sexual rights. “They criminalize a sector of society for being who they are, when what the government should be doing instead is protecting them from discrimination and abuse.”
The full release is below the jump.
* * * * *
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2009
Baldwin Raises Plight of LGBT Ugandans
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Co-Chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to use the full force of her office to condemn the “Anti-Homosexual Bill” introduced in Uganda’s parliament earlier this month.
“This egregious bill represents one of the most extreme anti-equality measures ever proposed in any country and would create a legal pretext for depriving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans of their liberty, and even their lives,” Baldwin wrote, joined by Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Howard Berman (D-CA), Vice Chair, Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Ranking Member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). “Particularly given the United States’ substantial contribution to Uganda through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), we believe swift action is necessary to ensure Ugandan leaders understand this bill is wholly unacceptable and antithetical to democratic values,” they wrote.
Baldwin is co-founder of the LGBT Equality Caucus, formed in June 2008, with the goal of achieving the full enjoyment of human rights for LGBT people in the U.S. and around the world.
###
Popularity: 11% [?]
Chris Geidner is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who writes at Law Dork, contributes regularly to Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications. An extended biography can be found
I don’t think moral or immoral should be discussed; morals are culturally constructed. Technically applying our “morals” to another country would be ethnocentric, and I’m against that.
I totally disagree with a cultural relativism that says it’s okay for other cultures to murder gay people, or to perform female circumcision. It IS a moral issue, and some morals ARE absolute.
Val,
But what about how Uganda’s traditional culture has been distorted by contact with faiths originating in the Middle East? The fact that this bill is being introduced in 2009 — as opposed to being a law that has existed for as long as anyone can remember — calls into question the extent to which homophobia is actually part of Ugandan culture rather than an import from foreign cultures.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda. And since homosexuality is seen as immoral in many of the major religions we should probably stop using moral absolutism before it bites you in the ass.
Val: Just like ‘open-minded’ does not mean ‘empty-headed’ moral relativism does not mean ‘anything’s okay if the culture supports it.’ If it did, there would be no grounds for condemning apartheid, slavery, segregation, gay bashing, sodomy laws, or the Holocaust — all of which were probably supported by the majority of the cultures that produced them.
“Moral relativism’ does not mean that you may not make moral or ethical judgments, it means that you must take into account the circumstances affecting the specific act you are judging.
Let me give an example. Two teenagers simultaneously gay-bash in two parts of the same town, totlly unconnected. In both cases the gay was totally ‘innocent’ — meaning they aren’t even claiming he ‘came on to them’ not that there should be anything wrong with that. A is an ‘ordinary teenager’ maybe not even that homophobic, but is acting to impress a sexy girl who has a complete collection of PRUSSIAN BLUE albums. B is part of a very strict fundamentalist household who has home-schooled him and kept him from any contact with outside opinions, who has had ‘gays are evil sinners’ drilled into him since he was 5 and has had no reason to question his parents.
Is it ‘moral absolutism’ to state that both committed a bad and condemnable act? Or is it moral relativism to argue that while both should be punished by law, B should get a lesser sewntence because of the circumstances behind his act?
Furthermore, Val, you don’t seem to understand the differences between an ordinary anti-gay law and this particular horror. Perhaps it would be possible to argue acepting some cultures’ criminalization of homosexuality on cultural grounds, but this law goes far beyond this. To quote from a letter I sent to Chris:
The proposed bill would (emphases mine):
The people at risk under the new law include:
any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to the authorities: Failure to do so s/he will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= or put away for three years;
any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the authorities within 24 hours: Failure to do so s/he will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= or put away for three years in prison;
any landlord or landlady who happens to give housing to a suspected homosexual risks seven years of imprisonment;
any Local Council I – V Chairperson or Executive member who does not denounce somebody accused of same-sex attraction or activity risks imprisonment or a heavy fine;
any medical doctor who seeks to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS through working with what are known as most at risk populations, risks her or his career;
all civil society leaders, whether in a Community Based Organisation, NGO, or academic institution; if their organisations seek to have a comprehensive position on sexual and reproductive health, they risk seeing their organisations closed down;
any human rights activist who seeks to promote an understanding of the indivisibility and inalienability of human rights would be judged to be promoting homosexuals and homosexuality, and be punished accordingly;
any religious leader who seeks to provide guidance and counselling to people who are unsure of their sexuality, would be regarded as promoting homosexuality and punished accordingly;
any Member of Parliament or other public figure who is sent a pornographic article, picture or video will become vulnerable to blackmail and witch-hunts;
any media house that publishes ‘pornographic’ materials risks losing its certificate of registration and the editor will be liable to seven years in jail;
any internet café operator who fails to prevent a customer from accessing a pornographic website, or a dating site, could be accused of ‘participating in the production, procuring, marketing, broadcasting, disseminating and publishing of pornographic materials for purposes of promoting homosexuality’; their business licence could be revoked and they themselves could land in prison.
any Person alleged to be a homosexual is at risk of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and, in some circumstances, the DEATH PENALTY.
Accepting this on grounds of ‘moral relativism makes the adjective meaningless, and it isn’t.
“If it did, there would be no grounds for condemning apartheid, slavery, segregation, gay bashing, sodomy laws, or the Holocaust — all of which were probably supported by the majority of the cultures that produced them.”
and the people who opposed them are the cultures whose majority is against it.
Also, I know that ‘moral relativism’ is taking into account the circumstances of the specific act. That wasn’t a question. If we are to say that a culture’s ideas are different from our own it is stupid to say that we are enforcing an absolute moral because if it was absolute they would already be following it.
However, I do have a question about the difference between regular anti-gay laws and this abomination:
So having anti-gays laws is different than laws that strictly prohibit and oppress homosexuality?
I think they are both horrific and should both be stopped. Why not get rid of the first and then they would have nothing to enforce with the second?
oh and about your example- it is relative to our culture that killing another human being is punishable by law. an eye for an eye makes everyone blind, and a nod is the same as a wink to a blind bat.
Furthermore, I would have them both sentenced to death because I don’t want them reproducing.
And Val Voline comes out from behind the mask of concern for respecting other cultures by … being uncritical of them? it’s not like Baldwin wants us to invade Uganda to prevent this … and states the real basis for supporting the law: hatred of homosexuality.