Sujetos obligados al cuidado de la salud de los trabajadores

Reviewed literature suggest that Uganda’s attempt to redefine its position on homosexuality through the law was partly to neutralize pro-gay activism that had become increasingly active in challenging the violation of sexual minorities’ rights in the country (Jjuuko 2013). The most outstanding cases that depict a prior growing confrontation between the LGBTIQ activists and the Ugandan government included: Victor Juliet Mukasa and Yuonne Oyo Versus Attonney General and Kasha, cause No 247 OF 2006. The second was Jacqueline, David Kato and Onziema Patience Versus Rollingstone publication Limited and Gile Muhame. According to Jjuuko, in the former case the applicants accused the Ugandan attorney general’s servants for “violating their rights to privacy, property, and freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading punishments” (2013:394). In the latter case the applicants challenged the Rollingstone newspaper for its 2nd October 2010 publication in which it published purported pictures of homosexuals under a headline ‘100 pictures of Uganda’s top homos leak’ and at the same time appeared to persuade the public to ‘hang them’. Whether or not these cases were ruled in favour of the LGBTIQ applicants, the development demonstrate a growing confrontation between homosexuality activism and homosexuality intolerance in Uganda. This also means that homosexuality debate or homosexuality rights recognition was an issue in the Ugandan society which at the time could stimulate local reactions.

homosexuality activism as shown above, local reactions over homosexuality can be analyzed from another standpoint; this involves local suspicions and skepticism over existing knowledge on homosexuality. Although a body of scholarship has attempted to demonstrate historical existence of homosexuality in Ugandan traditional societies, such knowledge is still viewed with suspicion and skepticism (Tamale 2007b, Lunyiigo 2011). This is often seen as entry points of foreign domination. Such knowledge is considered incompatible with the Ugandan cultural worldview and attempts to replace what is thought to be ‘traditional’, ‘cultural’ and ‘morally upright’ in Uganda. Given this standpoint, which mostly characterizes dominant voices, debates on homosexuality in many Ugandan societies attempt to resist the assumed foreign domination and imposition of foreign systems of knowledge. The Ugandan government position on homosexuality as informed by the 1995 Ugandan Constitution with the 2005 amendments, is vastly claimed to rule against homosexuality. The practice of homosexuality is thus argued to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Moreover, article 2 of the 1995 Ugandan Constitution and as amended in 2005 states:

This Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda. If any other law or any custom is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and that other law or custom shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void (1995 Constitution of Uganda, Article 2).

It could be noted that during the “2008 General Assembly Declaration on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity” Uganda is on record for having been one of the States that voted against the declaration (Human Dignity Trust 2015:9). In the same conference, it was stated then that, “[e]arlier in the day, the General Assembly also adopted a resolution condemning extrajudicial executions, which contained a reference opposing killings based on sexual orientation. Uganda moved to delete that reference” (United Nations General Assembly, 2008).

When it comes to what is interpreted as a reference to homosexuality, the 2005 amendment of the 1995 Ugandan Constitution restricts the right of marriage from same-sex persons. Article 31(1&3) of this Constitution states: “A man and a woman are entitled to marry only if they are each of the age of eighteen years and above and are entitled at that age”- a) to found a family… (3) “Marriage shall be entered into with the free consent of the man and woman intending to marry” (Uganda's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2005). The repetition and emphasis on the pronouns ‘man’ and ‘woman’ other than the mention of ‘man and man’ or

woman and woman’ in relationship to marriage demonstrates that marriage is guaranteed in Uganda only between persons of opposite sexes. Marriage between persons of the same sex is not only silent but expressly prohibited in article 31(2) of this Constitution which states “Marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited” (Uganda's Constitution of 1995 with Amendments through 2005). This provision therefore lays a ground for local popular perceptions that legal and acceptable families are those formed under the heteronormative norm. Given that the Ugandan constitution rules against homosexual marriages chances are high that the law would be used to police and demonize homosexual acts without necessarily being influenced by external factors.

Apart from the Ugandan Constitution and the 1950 Panel Code Act, the Ugandan government argues for the criminalization of homosexuality on other grounds such as from a scientific point of view. This view is documented in the scientific statement prepared by Uganda’s Ministry of Health. The statement signed on the 10th February 2014 attempts to respond to two central questions: (a) “Is there a scientific/genetic basis for homosexuality? (b) “Can homosexuality be learned and unlearned?” (Scientific Statement from the Ministry of Health on Homosexuality-SSMHH 2014:2). In its findings, the scientific statement states that “homosexuality is not definitively associated to genetic responsibility; that homosexuality is not a disease; that homosexuality is not an abnormality; that in every society, there is a number of people with homosexual tendencies, and that homosexuality can be influenced by environmental factors such as culture, religion, information and peer pressure” (SSMHH 2014:8).

The document seems to claim that homosexuality in Uganda is related to factors that challenge Uganda’s sovereignty. The document recognizes tensions and controversies over homosexuality in the country, and also points out that such tensions are fuelled by external forces from Western countries. This assertion is important for our inquiry since it attempts to divert Uganda’s responsibility over its intention to criminalize homosexuality and instead seems to blame the outside world for influencing its internal affairs. Although the document does not elaborate on the nature of influence and why such influences are not resisted, it motivates an inquiry as to whether such claims have a similarity with those made by the AAEs while in Uganda. Through the USSMHH document, the government claims that homosexuality is a contributing factor to incidences of sexual exploitation of the vulnerable, especially if it is not controlled or regulated. Among the key motivation as to why homosexuality needs to be controlled or regulated, the document highlights a need to protect the family, the weak and the vulnerable. If criminalization is synonymous to ‘control or regulation and if by

control/regulation the government suggests criminalization, then we can hold that prior to the coming of the AAEs, the government had possessed intentions of criminalizing homosexuality.

Apart from Uganda’s SSMHH, the government also released another document through its Foreign Affairs Ministry to be used at all its foreign missions.24 The document suggests similar positions as did the SSMHH. Among the raised concerns, is the intention of finding a remedy to the recruitment of Ugandan citizens into homosexuality and curbing the practice of homosexuality with the intention to safeguard children from being recruited into homosexual practices? The document further reveals Uganda’s claim that homosexuality is linked to mercenary actions and its practice in the country contributes immensely to social disorientation. It can be deduced from this document that the Ugandan government recognizes the presence and practice of homosexuality even though it does not indicate explicitly how and when homosexuality found its way into Uganda. This however, doesn’t hinder the document from suggesting that, unlike local contexts, foreign contexts have contributed a lot to what it describes as the exhibition of homosexuality in Uganda. The document further suggests that exhibition of homosexuality is contrary to the local norms which promote privacy and secretiveness around issues of sexuality.

From a socio-cultural perspective, homosexuality is viewed as a danger to the young generation (Oduch 2014). The danger mostly lies in the belief that the growth of homosexual communities in the country, implies an eminent extinction of the society since homosexuality is believed not to support child bearing. It is further believed that the current experience of homosexuals’ lifestyles involves not only the sexual practices but also supporting the growth of a homosexual society by recruiting new members. The process of recruitment is believed to target young people in Schools (Oduch 2014). Views that advance the aspect of recruitment also suggest the aspect of economic influence employed by recruiting agents over their targeted group. It is claimed that recruiters use money as a tool of power to lure members of heterosexual communities. Money is believed to play a big role such as ‘silencing homosexuality opponents, promote and finance pro-homosexual gatherings which in many anti-homosexual camps has been regarded as homosexuality promotion. Given these beliefs, calls for criminalizing homosexuality in Uganda have been reinforced. According to Edison Akugizibwe as quoted in

24_{This document is identified by the quote number MOT 153/271/01. It was addressed to all Uganda’s foreign missions}

advising them of the government position over the 2014 Anti-homosexuality law. The document intended to “communicate the position of government regarding the recently enacted Anti-homosexual law. It outlines: the purpose of the law; the law vis-à-vis Uganda’s international human rights obligation; and broader international consensus on the issue of anti-homosexuality” (Memoire on the Anti-homosexuality law 2014)

the Human Rights Trust, Museveni the current president of Uganda asserted and reiterated, as is his duty to stop homosexuality:

In my role as a strategist and a responsible leader for our country, there is no debate regarding the promotion of homosexuality. That one I totally agree with everybody that anybody who is promoting homosexuality we must stop him… this must be stopped by law and harshly. Secondly, I do not accept those who become homosexuals for mercenary reasons. Thirdly, I cannot accept exhibitionism of homosexual behaviour that must be stopped and stopped harshly… (Akugizibwe 2015:4).

A similar view is held by the current Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity Simon Lukodo. He calls homosexuality as a human disorder, a sickness. He holds, “It [homosexuality] is like a drug addict…So, we are saying anybody found committing this incredible and abominable act should be checked and isolated from society ...If you are found practicing it, we shall take you to a cell (Buchanan 2014).

It could be stated that both Uganda’s President and Uganda’s Minister of Ethics and Integrity are speaking as informed leaders on the question of homosexuality and its presence in Uganda. Their views are important to consider, since they are not just speaking as ordinary citizens but as political leaders attempting to provide a position on Uganda’s government with regards to homosexuality. Per this position, homosexuality ought to be criminalized for various reasons; it is portrayed as dangerous to the Ugandan society, since it is considered a sickness that can ruin the lives and wellbeing of the citizens of Uganda. From this worldview, to demonstrate good leadership would require among other things to support homosexuality criminalization over a growing demand to recognize the rights of homosexuals. Furthermore, it would inevitably require to safe guard the sovereign status of Uganda as a country from the supposed mercenaries who seem to invade the state through what political leaders call the promotion of homosexuality. Also, it would call for a need to safeguard the population since homosexuality is said to be dangerous to human health as it could be said to be a drug addiction.

In the context of establishing the extent to which the AAEs influenced the criminalization of homosexuality in 2014, one cannot take for granted the public opinions of the political, cultural and religious elite. High ranking politicians are usually manipulative and expected to possess certain power of dominance over the common people. Before the common person, politicians appear to be knowledgeable, and well informed on virtually all aspects. As Sylvia Tamale has elsewhere observed, when one is assumed to have a certain degree of knowledge over others, the impact is undeniable (2014: 115). I would hereon agree with Tamale that “behind the mask of knowledge lies real power dynamics. Knowledge reflects the ‘truths’ of the powerful, of

those that pen and record history” (2014:115). Therefore, if a politician in the capacity of a head-of-state or a religious leaders assume vocal positions on a contentious issue such as homosexuality, it is most probable that the public may tend to be influenced by his or her superior voice.

But the negative opinion on homosexuality as represented by the local voices can be located within a wider African body of thought that attempt to challenge western constructs of knowledge on African sexualities during the mid-twentieth century. The attempt to redefine what homosexuality means for the Ugandan society irrespective of what the western or other societies hold could be read under a framework that continue to resist mid-twentieth century white-male dominated scholarship on African sexualities which paid less or no African societies experiences at the time. One of the major advances of the power of knowledge demonstrated by the mid-twentieth century white dominated knowledge on African sexualities was to “characterize Africans as essentially heterosexual and promiscuous, or by portraying this essence as deeply pathological and dangerous”(Eppretcht 2009). It was almost certain to this body of scholarship that there existed differences between Africans and the rest of the world basing on the argument that Africans has “exotic influences that denied desire, creativity, or possessed complex emotions too ostensibly primitive, taboo-encrusted or were close to nature” (Eppretcht 2009). It could be noted that the prevailing politics of sexuality which has closely focused on African societies and homosexuality is interpreted by most Ugandan cultural, r religious and political leadership as a representation or a replay of the mid-twentieth century constructions of African sexualities. While the AAEs’ contribution to the making of the 2014 AHL would inspire recognition, it would be worth noting that this may be limited to the Ugandan context which seeks to reassert its voice in an area was previously dominated by western powers of knowledge such as missionaries, colonialists, and explorers.

4. 4. Conclusion.

The central focus of this chapter was the 2014 criminalization of homosexuality in Uganda. It has been revealed in the chapter that homosexuality criminalization is not simply a Ugandan issue but a global subject of contention. The discussion on homosexuality criminalization is marred by ambiguities fronted by language. This has been found to be a hindrance for a clear articulation as to whether the 1950 Penal Code in Uganda criminalizes homosexuality in similar terms as does the 2014 AHL. Nevertheless, the 1950 Penal Code has been viewed as a

considerable motivation for the legislation of the 2014 AHL in Uganda. However, far from restricting homosexuality criminalization to both colonial and postcolonial periods in Uganda, or to the event of AAEs, the chapter has argued that certain restrictions, prejudices and myths on homosexuality in some pre-colonial societies of present day Uganda, form aground for future possibilities of homosexuality criminalization as understood today. The Chapter found that describing the 2014 AHL as a totally new form of homosexuality criminalization in Uganda was misleading; this is because it denies previous forms of homosexuality regulations even though these forms do not explicitly define homosexuality in the same details and linguistic understanding of the 2014 AHL. The next chapter turns the exploration to the American anti-homosexual evangelicals.