BBC debate: Should Uganda debate gay execution?

  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Dec 16, 2009 8:54 PM GMT
    So, there's a debate on BBC's Have Your Say on the proposed Ugandan bill that criminalizes same-sex activity with prison and the possiblity of execution, specifically on whether those of us enjoy such activities should face execution.

    How do you feel? Should we face execution? Will such a law deter us from our "sinful" ways?*

    BBC: Have Your Say - Should Uganda debate gay execution?

    MPs Condemn BBC Debate On Gay Execution

    * The last two questions are intended to be snarky and not taken as serious questions.

    EDITED: Added asterix regarding snarky questions
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    Dec 16, 2009 9:56 PM GMT
    If the BBC editors think that such evil pursecution is worthy of 'debate' then they might as well start discussion topics such as:

    'Should the Nazi's have the right to kill Jews just because they are Jews' and ' Should white America enslave it's black population just because - well they are blacks'.

    Giving it the forum of debate is partly legitise the stupid idiology.

    And Uganda, no wonder you are a 3rd world country.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14389

    Dec 16, 2009 10:38 PM GMT
    Uganda is an impoverished, third world country where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred. There should be no debate here, the national government in Uganda should know better than to consider such inhumane, horrendous legislation against a group of human beings just because their natural sexual orientation does not meet the primitive minded, backward standards of the very religious and bigoted members of their society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2009 11:07 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidUganda is an impoverished, third world country where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred.


    While there is justification for anger against the Ugandan government, please do not resort to such absurd claims as claiming it is simply a country "where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred."

    That, in and of itself, is an ignorant and hateful statement, and one that can just as easily be applied to your country. The people of Uganda have nothing to do with this legislation. It was, after all, lobbied by an AMERICAN organization, the Ugandan government, widely seen as illegitimate by its own people, is heralded, financed, and supported by the Americans and British; it is, after all, a US puppet regime in Central Africa.

    Further statements such as "no wonder Uganda is a third world country" are also ignorant and hateful statements. All they display is your complete lack of knowledge of how Uganda came to be where it is; perhaps not realizing that it is ignorant rhetoric like that, which allows for places like Uganda to remain as they are. What I am referring to is the Orientalist idea that Africa is so messed up because, "That's just the way Africa is," or "That's how Africans are." The same idea that makes people look at the Rwandan genocide and write it off as a result of "tribal differences," "ethnic rivalries", casting them as "barbaric" and "backwards," nevermind the reality of the situation and involvement of countries such as France, Belgium, the United States, Britain and Canada.

    Africa is the way it is because of neo-imperialism; whether through economic colonialism pushed by the World Bank and IMF, with western multinational corporations and banks; or through western financed wars, genocides, dictatorships, coups, assassinations, etc.

    I would imagine you don't even realize that the most fatal war since World War II is currently being fought in Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and has, since 1996, resulted in the deaths of upwards of 6.4 million people. But because this war is being waged by Uganda and Rwanda (the US and Britain's chief allies and puppets in the region), and because Western corporations are plundering the resources of the Congo, (major corporations from Western Europe and North America, many from Canada), we don't hear about this war, or the genocide and Holocaust our governments are committing against these people.

    And you make statements like, "no wonder Uganda is a third world country" and "they breed ignorance and hatred." Who REALLY, is breeding ignorance and hatred?

    Frankly, you disgust me. Get back to me when your country becomes a third world country, then i can make a statement like, "well look at him, no wonder it's so fucked up with hateful ignorant bigots like that."

    Perhaps, in the future, you should actually consider THINKING or LEARNING about a particular situation, before you make such patently absurd, ignorant, and HATEFUL statements.

    I have been to Uganda, and can say with the utmost certainty that the people there are the kindest, happiest and most INTELLIGENT people I have ever come across in my life. Which is more than I can say about you.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Dec 16, 2009 11:45 PM GMT
    <3
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 12:12 AM GMT
    MeOhMy says " It was, after all, lobbied by an AMERICAN organization, the Ugandan government, widely seen as illegitimate by its own people, is heralded, financed, and supported by the Americans and British; it is, after all, a US puppet regime in Central Africa."

    Good Reminder.

    The Rev. Rick Warren needs to confess his role in crafting this plan for state sanctioned genocide. If the good reverend won't confess, we need to expose him.
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    Dec 17, 2009 2:51 AM GMT
    MeOhMy said
    roadbikeRob saidUganda is an impoverished, third world country where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred.


    While there is justification for anger against the Ugandan government, please do not resort to such absurd claims as claiming it is simply a country "where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred."

    That, in and of itself, is an ignorant and hateful statement, and one that can just as easily be applied to your country. The people of Uganda have nothing to do with this legislation. It was, after all, lobbied by an AMERICAN organization, the Ugandan government, widely seen as illegitimate by its own people, is heralded, financed, and supported by the Americans and British; it is, after all, a US puppet regime in Central Africa.

    Further statements such as "no wonder Uganda is a third world country" are also ignorant and hateful statements. All they display is your complete lack of knowledge of how Uganda came to be where it is; perhaps not realizing that it is ignorant rhetoric like that, which allows for places like Uganda to remain as they are. What I am referring to is the Orientalist idea that Africa is so messed up because, "That's just the way Africa is," or "That's how Africans are." The same idea that makes people look at the Rwandan genocide and write it off as a result of "tribal differences," "ethnic rivalries", casting them as "barbaric" and "backwards," nevermind the reality of the situation and involvement of countries such as France, Belgium, the United States, Britain and Canada.

    Africa is the way it is because of neo-imperialism; whether through economic colonialism pushed by the World Bank and IMF, with western multinational corporations and banks; or through western financed wars, genocides, dictatorships, coups, assassinations, etc.

    I would imagine you don't even realize that the most fatal war since World War II is currently being fought in Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and has, since 1996, resulted in the deaths of upwards of 6.4 million people. But because this war is being waged by Uganda and Rwanda (the US and Britain's chief allies and puppets in the region), and because Western corporations are plundering the resources of the Congo, (major corporations from Western Europe and North America, many from Canada), we don't hear about this war, or the genocide and Holocaust our governments are committing against these people.

    And you make statements like, "no wonder Uganda is a third world country" and "they breed ignorance and hatred." Who REALLY, is breeding ignorance and hatred?

    Frankly, you disgust me. Get back to me when your country becomes a third world country, then i can make a statement like, "well look at him, no wonder it's so fucked up with hateful ignorant bigots like that."

    Perhaps, in the future, you should actually consider THINKING or LEARNING about a particular situation, before you make such patently absurd, ignorant, and HATEFUL statements.

    I have been to Uganda, and can say with the utmost certainty that the people there are the kindest, happiest and most INTELLIGENT people I have ever come across in my life. Which is more than I can say about you.


    You are not the only one who have been to Uganda, I have met plenty members of Uganda population, that due to their religious view, will not accept gays in any term. This also holds true for other sub continent countries.

    And stop apologising for why the situation in Africa has got nothingmuch to do with it's native population either - for sure, the Imperialism of European countries fucked Africa up and corporation America is continuing to take advantage of the situation - the Chinese is moving in fast to grab their share of resource. However, it's also undeniable that the native population has a lot to do with the current situation - tribal distrust and hatred, blind following of extremist religous ideas etc all contributed.

    Just because they are in a dire situation does not make them saints.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 3:04 AM GMT
    America exports not only goods to other countries, but along with it's invasive religious proselytizing it exports homophobia ..

    America Has Been Exporting Homophobia For Decades

    It seems that where ever so-called "Christianity" has gone, ignorance and hatred are right there with it. Not just homosexuality but anything deemed "unchristian" is subject to persecution. Even to the natives in their own lands .. just for instance look up "Indian schools"

    http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/articles/boardingschool.html


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 3:07 AM GMT
    MeOhMy said
    roadbikeRob saidUganda is an impoverished, third world country where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred.


    While there is justification for anger against the Ugandan government, please do not resort to such absurd claims as claiming it is simply a country "where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred."

    That, in and of itself, is an ignorant and hateful statement, and one that can just as easily be applied to your country.


    But that statement (apart from the third-world bit) does apply to my country (and the way things are going, the third-world label isn't far behind). Why would you think you’ve offered some kind of rebuttal? America is enormously ignorant and hateful – bigotry has far too deep a hold on this country – and it’s a problem that exacerbates itself, just as roadbikerob said. You're wrong to say that roadbikerob's statement was ignorant and hateful.

    As for the BBC question, they clearly made a mistake even posing the issue as a debate, since it clearly isn't one.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Dec 17, 2009 5:35 AM GMT
    AskNTell saidThe Rev. Rick Warren needs to confess his role in crafting this plan for state sanctioned genocide. If the good reverend won't confess, we need to expose him.

    This is what his church posted a week ago on YouTube:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 5:52 AM GMT
    And then there is Rwanda:

    Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" Rwanda is voting to criminalize homosexualityThe problematic section in the penal code is article 217 which states that:

    Any person who practices, encourages or sensitizes people of the same sex, to sexual relation or any sexual practice, shall be liable for a term of imprisonment ranging from five (5) to ten (10) years and fine ranging from Two Hundred thousand Rwanda Francs (200.000 RwF) to one million (1,000,000)Rwanda francs."

    The fines range from US$350 to US$1750. The average annual income is just US$370.

    One key phrase of the proposed penal code, "encourages or sensitizes," would have the effect of criminalizing advocacy on behalf of LGBT people. It would also severely impact the ability to deliver health services to LGBT people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 5:58 AM GMT
    Here is another article about the original post. It originally left out the word debate which caused an uproar:

    BBC: “Should Homosexuals Face Execution?”But in response to the furor the the question sparked on Twitter, the internet, and among the forums own respondents, BBC’s editors have since changed the question. It now reads “Should Uganda debate gay execution?” The forum is now closed for comments, but from the outrage expressed by many respondents, it appears that virtually all of them were responding to the original question, “Should homosexuals face execution?”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 6:45 AM GMT
    offshore said
    MeOhMy said
    roadbikeRob saidUganda is an impoverished, third world country where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred.

    I have been to Uganda, and can say with the utmost certainty that the people there are the kindest, happiest and most INTELLIGENT people I have ever come across in my life. Which is more than I can say about you.

    it's also undeniable that the native population has a lot to do with the current situation - tribal distrust and hatred, blind following of extremist religous ideas etc all contributed.

    Just because they are in a dire situation does not make them saints.


    i never made proclamations of sainthood, however, I did, and will continue, to stand by my statement that ignorance is much more rampant in the west, particularly in regards to African issues, than Africans themselves have towards the West.

    Your statement, "it's also undeniable that the native population has a lot to do with the current situation - tribal distrust and hatred, blind following of extremist religous ideas etc," is also riddled with western perceptions of Africa.

    It's easy for people to see Africa as barbaric, divided by ethnic, religious, tribal differences, but this is an absurd claim. It ignores... reality. What created the ethnic differences, after all? The Europeans categorized people according to ethnic identity, creating the categories of ethnicity, such as Hutu and Tutsi, and would favour one over the other, giving one ethnic group the monopoly over government and economy; thus creating the rivalries and tensions between the two. This has not changed since the period of formal independence from the 1940s to the 1960s, where development strategies, heavily influenced and coerced by the west, including European and then American interests, further emphasized ethnic, religious, tribal differences.

    The Rwandan genocide, while largely viewed as the result simply of "ethnic tensions" between Hutus and Tutsis, was in reality a neo-colonial war between France/Belgium on one side, and the US/Britain on the other. With the rise to power of Museveni in Uganda in 1986/7, he instantly created close ties with Washington. The US, with its ally Great Britain, then sought to control Central Africa through manipulation and support to a particular ethnic group in the region: the Tutsis.

    Museveni was helped to power with Rwandan Tutsi exiles, who were then sent to the United States to be trained at US army bases in special forces insurgency training. The US and UK began heavily financing Uganda, bringing in the World Bank and IMF, which were responsible for managing Uganda's finances; and began heavy arms sales to Uganda; including direct financial aid and military equipment and training to the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), based out of Uganda.

    On the other hand, France and Belgium financed and supported the Hutu government of Rwanda. Rwanda was a monoculture economy, meaning its economy rested on the production of one commodity, coffee. This itself, is a relic of imperialism, which imposed monoculture, export-oriented economies on African nations to serve the empires. When world coffee prices collapsed in the late 80s, so too, did Rwanda's economy. Thus, the World Bank and IMF were brought in with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) to "restructure" and "manage" Rwanda's expenditures, including financing the military. France and Belgium then heavily armed and financed and trained the Rwandan Army and Interhamwe.

    In 1990, the RPF launched an invasion of Rwanda, sparking the civil war, which lasted until 1994. Throughout the entire civil war, the RPF was funded and trained by Americans, through their proxy state of Uganda. All the while, the US was "mediating" the Peace Process, which continually favoured the RPF, and applied further pressure on the Rwandan government, which was disunited and fractionalized. The peace process itself, The Arusha Accords, helped to exacerbate the issues. Meanwhile, the IMF and World Bank reforms under the SAP included privatization, deregulation, control over the central bank went to the IMF, which ordered devaluation of the currency, to encourage foreign direct investment. However, the result was that overnight, mass layoffs from state-owned industries took place, and the prices of essential commodities such as food and fuel rose drastically, furthering the ethnic tensions within the country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 6:45 AM GMT

    In 1994, the President of Rwanda and Burundi were on a plane returning from Tanzania where the peace talks were being held, when their plane was shot down. There is a litany of evidence that has since emerged which places the assassination at the hands of the RPF, in particular, Paul Kagame, the leader of the RPF, staunch Museveni ally, and who was himself trained at Fort Bragg in the United States. Among the training given to him and other members of the RPF, was training in using surface to air combat missiles, which is what was used to shoot down the plane. Former UN Secretary General Boutros-Bourtos Ghali, later revealed that the CIA was also behind the shoot down of the plane. When information regarding the involvement of the RPF and the US in the shootdown of the plane was raised in the investigation into the Rwandan genocide at the UN, led by a Canadian, Louise Arbour, the investigation was shut down.

    The result was that the assassination sparked the genocide, in which both the Interhamwe, Hutus, began massacring Tutsis inside Rwanda, which they saw as the base of support for the RPF. At the same time, the RPF made a quick assault towards Kigali, massacring Hutus along the way, indiscriminately. The Hutus killed upwards of 800,000 people while the RPF killed upwards of 60,000 Rwandans until they seized power. Paul Kagame became the President of Rwanda, and now leads one of the most repressive regimes in Africa.

    Madeline Albright, who as UN ambassador during the genocide, worked with the head of the peacekeeping operations division, Kofi Annan, to keep Boutros Ghali out of the loop, and the Security COuncil in the dark. She then became Secretary of State, while Kofi Annan replaced Ghali, who was ousted by Clinton at the insistence of Madeline Albright. So now, France and Belgium were kicked out of Rwanda, business went from being done in French to English, and the US and Britain began heavily financing and arming the new Rwandan government of Kagame, as well as continuing support for Uganda. In 1996, Kagame visited the Pentagon, where he asked for permission to launch an invasion of Zaire, which was led by Mobutu, formerly a US puppet put in by the CIA, but who had outlived his usefulness. So, Uganda and rwanda jointly launched an invasion of Zaire in 1996, which was renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and installed a new US puppet. Albright visited the region in 1997 and delcared Museveni and Kagame to be the "new leaders" of Africa, and said that Uganda was a great "uni party democracy".

    When the new president of the DRC tried to kick out Rwandan and Ugandan forces, another invasion was launched in 1998, thus sparking the civil war, being financed on all sides by Western countries. Meanwhile, western corporations and mining companies flocked to the Congo and began extracting its vast resources and minerals. Among them, Barrick Gold of Canada, which has on its board of directors Brian Mulroney, former Canadian Prime Minister, Vernon Jordan, Bill Clinton's good friend, and had as an adviser, George HW Bush, who began the policy of training and financing the RPF.

    Fast forward 11 years, with the conflict still raging, and we have the largest war in the world since World War II, which if it took place in Europe, would be called World War III, with the world coming to the aid of Europeans; but because it is in Africa, where upwards of 6.4 million people have been killed in the Congo in a Holocaust that we call "foreign policy"; we see it as "ethnic" and "tribal" conflict. This is an inherently racist viewpoint, and serves as the justification for further western imperialism and intervention in the continent.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 6:46 AM GMT
    Sudan is another example, conflict is not based upon religious lines in such a simple way; but the South is financed by Uganda, which funds and trains the Sudanese People Liberation Army; which is still heavily armed and financed by the US and Britain. Meanwhile, China supports the government in Khartoum, and funds and arms it; while the US funds arms coing through CHad in the west. Sudan's war is about oil, not religion. China has access to its oil, while the US and western nations don't, so we hear calls for "intervention" under the guise of "humanitarian assistance". Meanwhile, the West is complicit in a genocide in the COngo, of which barely a word is whispered, becasue our corporations and leaders are profiting off of the plunder of its resources.

    In both instances, Africans suffer, while the Western imperialists profit. So before you blame Africa's problems on "ethnic" and "tribal" or "religious" differences, it's best to do a little research to see how patently absurd that claim is: where do the ethnic, tribal, religious lines come from? how were they used to divide and conquer the people among each other? how are they still used? what other major factors play a part? what role do western nations play, either covertly or overtly? what role is played by multilateral institutions such as the IMF and World Bank? whose interests are served by war and conflict?

    and thus, one of the most important things to understand: that it is precisely this view of Africa, as a jumble of "ethnic" rivalries, with "barbaric" acts of "non-political" violence - which allows the plunder of Africa by western nations to continue unabated. It is this "idea" that people have about Africa, an inherently Eurocentric and Orientalist perspective, which serves as justification for the state Africa is in: "Well, that's just the way it is, that's just how Africans act/are/view the world"...

    Once upon a time, black people were, in "conventional wisdom" portrayed as a sub-species, so as to justify their exploitation and enslavement. But in the minds of the people perpetrating, or perhaps simply even observing slavery; it was a given, "that's just the way black people are." White people were seen as "superior."

    How is this perspective any different?

    This is why I defend, and will continue to defend Africans against western ignorance; because western ignorance of Africa and Africans allows for them to be murdered, oppressed, impoverished, raped, brutalized and "ethnically cleansed" all for the "greater good": PROFIT and power.

    In the wide schemes of things; instead of castigating an entire people, say, Ugandans, for allowing their corrupt, unaccountable government to impose a law which seeks to murder gays; we should maybe consider the historical-socio-political-economic situation at hand. Where did African "Christianity" come from? Colonialism. Where did this law come from? America. Why is Museveni there? He is a US puppet. Why is African society the way it is, where something like this could potentially be accepted? It is the legacy of the formal colonial era, and the reality of the current, post war and post Cold War neo-colonial era.

    Perhaps the best thing to do is to leave Africa for the Africans. Then someone like Museveni wouldnt be in power in the first place. This seems like the best idea; they are perfectly capable of doing so, as much or more so than any other people I can imagine. I think 500 years of Western imperialism, plunder and murder is enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 6:53 AM GMT
    Satyricon331 said
    MeOhMy said
    roadbikeRob saidUganda is an impoverished, third world country where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred.


    While there is justification for anger against the Ugandan government, please do not resort to such absurd claims as claiming it is simply a country "where ignorance and hatred breeds more ignorance and hatred."

    That, in and of itself, is an ignorant and hateful statement, and one that can just as easily be applied to your country.


    Why would you think you’ve offered some kind of rebuttal? America is enormously ignorant and hateful – bigotry has far too deep a hold on this country – and it’s a problem that exacerbates itself, just as roadbikerob said. You're wrong to say that roadbikerob's statement was ignorant and hateful.


    That is my point. And not just America, but the West in general, Europe and North America; is incredibly ignorant, most especially when it comes to issues of Africa. My point was that his ignorance of Africa is prevalent in his statement that writes off Uganda as simply a place of "ignorance and hatred" which is patently false.

    My understanding of Ugandans in my interaction with them, is that they are far more aware and interested in the world around them; and are more informed than the majority of people I have come across in Canada. I have never met so many intelligent people in one place in all my life; nor have i met so many kind or generous people. People with so little, offer so much. Nor have i ever met such genuinely happy people. People who have next to nothing by our standards, yet are so content and happy with what they do have.

    There is a lot we can learn from African, and in this case more specifically Ugandan, ideas of community. We shouldn't be so quick to judge when we know so little about the reality on the ground. Ignorance is everywhere, but I would argue it is more rampant in somewhere like Canada or the US, especially in regards to African issues; than it is in Africa, say in regards to western issues. While not everyone in the west is or can be classified as ignorant, it is a general societal statement.

    Don't write off Africans so easily. It's ignorant.
    Thus, my point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 7:39 AM GMT
    I certainly don't agree with criminalization and certainly not execuation of homosexuals, but I do think that this bill represents a departure of what is often the African norm. Most African countries have laws against homosexuality and homosexual behavior, but these laws have generally not been questioned and never were discussed -- in general homosexuality is a taboo topic, and there are no legal protections for homosexuals.

    The only country that does protect homosexuals and allows gay marriage is South Africa, but this was through the courts, and a result of the rather liberal constitution that was enacted after Apartheid, but these rights would not have been enacted through a legislature, and most South Africans are more conservative than what their laws have allowed -- but then again they haven't revolted against court decisions as we have in the US.

    This bill is interesting in that it interposes homosexuality into the mainstream political discourse of Uganada -- and probably a first in many ways in Africa. It also represents a democratization in the country in that the bill is even debated and that it is responsive to outside interests -- the talk of removing killing homosexuales after intense foreign opposition.

    I don't doubt that Uganada will pass some sort of anti-homosexual bill, but the 'weed' of homosexuality will have been introduced into mainstream politics in the country and will have benefited from an intense discussion on the subject -- again somethin almost unheard of in Africa. And once introduced that 'weed' of homsexuality will be hard to erradicate. Homosexuality as a topic of discussion and debate represents a departure from the past when it was taboo, and not even a topic of discussion, so this represents a break from the past where homosexuality enters the political discourse as a legitimate topic of discussion.

    It should be remembered that not long ago homosexuality was taboo Western countries -- there was, and still is discrimination, and that discrimination against homosexuals was not a topic of discussion as the politcal and cultural consensus roundly condemned homosexuality period. It has only been recently that homosexuality has become a mainstream topic of discussion both culturally and politcally in the West, and still at times remains tenous. But the legitimization of homosexuality has only followed once it was allowed to become a topic of conversation -- and that ultimately was when those against homosexuality lost, though they still may no realize it. The arguments against homosexuality only really work when it is not a legitimate topic of discussion.

    The Ugandans supporting this bill my think they countering the sin of homosexuality, but they are entering it into the political dialogue and once enterred it will be hard to erradicate. Those inacting these laws may think they are illigitimizing homosexuality, but they are also legitimizing it into the political discourse and from then a way of legitimitally challenging those laws against it.

    The law itself it bad and should be roundly condemned in the harshest terms and possibly with sanctions, but it represents an opening for dialogue on homosexuality in Uganada.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 17, 2009 11:50 AM GMT
    Rick Warren and the holy hypocrites that associate him are responsible
    for this horrific genocide that we are seeing unfold right before our eyes

    Warren puts out a letter distancing himself from this mess???

    "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."
    Are you kidding me you fat bastard???? icon_confused.gif

    http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/rick-warren-on-museveni-ssempa-and-wagner-i-know-not-the-men/

    You've been dealing with these men for years

    <object width=

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    ">
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 17, 2009 12:04 PM GMT
    Here is NPR's morning Edition coverage of the Ugandan Bill
    Listen to it
    This is MUCH more dangerous than I previously thought
    It echoes of previous holocaust-like events where people are afraid to counter the evil speak because they are afraid to be branded themselves

    This is why religion is inherently evil in any form
    because this is always the final outcome

    http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=121485018&m=121498004
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 2:42 PM GMT
    MeOhMy saidThat is my point. And not just America, but the West in general, Europe and North America; is incredibly ignorant, most especially when it comes to issues of Africa. My point was that his ignorance of Africa is prevalent in his statement that writes off Uganda as simply a place of "ignorance and hatred" which is patently false.

    My understanding of Ugandans in my interaction with them, is that they are far more aware and interested in the world around them; and are more informed than the majority of people I have come across in Canada. I have never met so many intelligent people in one place in all my life; nor have i met so many kind or generous people. People with so little, offer so much. Nor have i ever met such genuinely happy people. People who have next to nothing by our standards, yet are so content and happy with what they do have.

    There is a lot we can learn from African, and in this case more specifically Ugandan, ideas of community. We shouldn't be so quick to judge when we know so little about the reality on the ground. Ignorance is everywhere, but I would argue it is more rampant in somewhere like Canada or the US, especially in regards to African issues; than it is in Africa, say in regards to western issues. While not everyone in the west is or can be classified as ignorant, it is a general societal statement.

    Don't write off Africans so easily. It's ignorant.
    Thus, my point.


    Since you acknowledge that ignorance is everywhere, it follows you think it is in Uganda (and since roadbikerob’s statement did not offer an internationally comparative assessment, your discussion of the West is off-point). Thus, the only point on which you could have disagreed would be on his claim that Uganda is hateful – but the neighborliness you describe Uganda as having does not obviate hatefulness, as any southerner knows. You’re either claiming otherwise, which would be just ignorant, or you haven’t really offered any relevant criticism.

    ~~~

    Wrerick – I’m sure the very-long term prognosis is better than the current situation, but I don’t know that a bill that requires people who know of homosexuals to turn them in will advance political discourse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 2:55 PM GMT
    Satyricon331 said
    MeOhMy saidThat is my point. And not just America, but the West in general, Europe and North America; is incredibly ignorant, most especially when it comes to issues of Africa. My point was that his ignorance of Africa is prevalent in his statement that writes off Uganda as simply a place of "ignorance and hatred" which is patently false.

    My understanding of Ugandans in my interaction with them, is that they are far more aware and interested in the world around them; and are more informed than the majority of people I have come across in Canada. I have never met so many intelligent people in one place in all my life; nor have i met so many kind or generous people. People with so little, offer so much. Nor have i ever met such genuinely happy people. People who have next to nothing by our standards, yet are so content and happy with what they do have.

    There is a lot we can learn from African, and in this case more specifically Ugandan, ideas of community. We shouldn't be so quick to judge when we know so little about the reality on the ground. Ignorance is everywhere, but I would argue it is more rampant in somewhere like Canada or the US, especially in regards to African issues; than it is in Africa, say in regards to western issues. While not everyone in the west is or can be classified as ignorant, it is a general societal statement.

    Don't write off Africans so easily. It's ignorant.
    Thus, my point.


    Since you acknowledge that ignorance is everywhere, it follows you think it is in Uganda (and since roadbikerob’s statement did not offer an internationally comparative assessment, your discussion of the West is off-point). Thus, the only point on which you could have disagreed would be on his claim that Uganda is hateful – but the neighborliness you describe Uganda as having does not obviate hatefulness, as any southerner knows. You’re either claiming otherwise, which would be just ignorant, or you haven’t really offered any relevant criticism.
    .


    *sigh*

    The statement that Uganda is a place of "ignorance and hatred" is a sweeping generalization which is, itself, an ignorant statement; which has the effect of continuing a racist, hateful stereotype of Africa as backwards, barbaric and "lost".

    If I were to make sweeping generalizations about Americans based upon the conduct of their government - calling Americans vicious, racist, murdering imperialist scum-bags - people would be up in arms. However, I know this to not be true of Americans, though it can characterize SOME Americans.

    But because we are making sweeping generalizations about Africa and Uganda, it's okay. Let's DEFEND these sweeping generalizations, because after all, these people are "barbaric", "backwards", living in a different century, where all they see are religious and ethnic differences, and are prone to apolitical violence. Oh those silly Africans!

    If the poster had said that Museveni (if he even knows who that is), or "The Family" (which promoted the bill), are "hateful and ignorant" people(s) who are only serving to "promote more hate and ignorance" that would be an accurate statement.

    But because he said "Uganda", and thus, Ugandans are hateful and ignorant, he is making patently false and absurd statements; which wreak of internalized racism and Orientalist conceptions of Africa. This is not to say that he is consciously being racist, but these Orientalist ideas of Africa, ARE inherently racist, and he doesn't do anyone any favours, least of all himself, by regurgitating this wannabe-intellectual vomit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 3:00 PM GMT
    debate? no
    abolish? YES!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 3:03 PM GMT
    MeOhMy: “But because he said ‘Uganda,’ and thus, Ugandans are hateful and ignorant . . . .”

    I see the problem is that you’ve projected your own invalid reasoning onto someone else. If he had said Ugandans are hateful and ignorant without acknowledging that exceptions exist or even predominate, then you would have had a point.

    edit: Entertainingly, if your deduction that an adjective describing a country applies to all its citizens were true, then when you characterized Canada as ignorant and hateful, you claimed that those labels applied to you. They may or they may not, but Canada’s ignorance and hatefulness is not a sufficient basis from which to draw the conclusion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 3:06 PM GMT
    The interesting question, MeOhMy and Satyricon, and where your conflict really lies, is this: to what extent should we pursue the project of liberalism in evaluating morality locally?

    I fully agree with MeOhMy that Africa is cruelly misrepresented and misunderstood almost universally outside of it. I am less inclined to be as generous as him toward the mistakes of African countries, however: for every Zimbabwe there is a Botswana; for Uganda there is a South Africa. In fact, I would contend that MeOhMy's overemphasis on the role of colonialism is problematic in itself as this prevalence of easy outsiders to blame [and I really am thinking specifically of Zimbabwe here] severely limits the introspection that might yield better government.

    So as a committed liberal, allow me to sweep aside the relativism. It is senseless to try to justify this bill, or its debate, in Uganda by any means. It is morally abhorrent and, if passed, will be entirely contrary to the credibility of that country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2009 3:16 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidThe interesting question, MeOhMy and Satyricon, and where your conflict really lies, is this: to what extent should we pursue the project of liberalism in evaluating morality locally?

    I fully agree with MeOhMy that Africa is cruelly misrepresented and misunderstood almost universally outside of it. I am less inclined to be as generous as him toward the mistakes of African countries, however: for every Zimbabwe there is a Botswana; for Uganda there is a South Africa. In fact, I would contend that MeOhMy's overemphasis on the role of colonialism is problematic in itself as this prevalence of easy outsiders to blame [and I really am thinking specifically of Zimbabwe here] severely limits the introspection that might yield better government.

    So as a committed liberal, allow me to sweep aside the relativism. It is senseless to try to justify this bill in Uganda by any means. It is morally abhorrent and, if passed, will be entirely contrary to the credibility of that country.


    Although I don’t think it’s where our conflict lies, it is an interesting question. It’s interesting, I think, at least partly because that unless you start with relativism in your premise set, it is extremely difficult to deduct it from any ethical system – and thus it is very much a question of first principles. Naturally, I agree with your conclusion. icon_smile.gif