Ugandan people who support gay rights want other countries to put more pressure on Uganda’s government to get rid of a law against gay people. Uganda’s Constitutional Court said no to canceling the law on Wednesday.
Activist Frank Mugisha said that the ruling on Tuesday was unfair and very bad.
Mugisha said that this decision means donors should give less money to Uganda. No one should give money for hurting LGBTQ+ people and violating human rights.
The court said it’s okay to punish people for being gay. They can get the death penalty or go to prison for a long time if they are accused of being gay.
Last year, President Yoweri Museveni approved the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Many people in East Africa support it, but rights groups and others outside of the country strongly disagree with it.
The court said that LGBT people should not be treated unfairly when trying to get medicine, but the US Secretary of State said that this isn’t enough to protect their rights.
“He said that the rest of the AHA is very dangerous for the people of Uganda, especially LGBTQI+ Ugandans and their friends. It also hurts public health, limits freedom for citizens, ruins Uganda’s image in the world, and makes it harder to get foreign money for the country. ”
Nicholas Opiyo, a person who fights for people’s rights in Uganda, said he was unhappy with the outcome.
“We have to follow the court’s decision, but we strongly disagree with it and how they came to that decision. ” Opiyo said we went to court hoping it would defend human rights by following the law, instead of listening to people’s feelings and unclear cultural values.
In Uganda, being gay was already against the law because of a rule from when it was ruled by another country. If someone is found guilty, they can be sent to prison for the rest of their life.
Tag: gay rights
-
LGBTQ+ rights advocates demand increased international scrutiny of Uganda
-
I abhor gay people the most! – Alleged old Facebook post of Dela Sky; lawyer fighting for gay rights now
A post that has surfaced online purported to be the words of defender and advocate for gay rights in Ghana, former Citi FM journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, has surprised many.
In a tweet (screenshot) by X user (formerly Twitter) @receipts guy, it shows an alleged post by the now defender of gay rights cursing homosexuals and expressing his distaste towards them after a gay person reached out to him to help advocate and defend gay rights in Ghana.
The tweet reads,: “Have (sic) just received a shocking email from a self-confessed homosexual based in Accra. Folks, can you imagine the YOUNGMAN is asking me to help him lead what he calls ” a sustained media campaign to pressurise Ghanaian authorities to recognise GAY RIGHTS in all forms?”MASSA, I BEG YOU IN GOD’S NAME; PLEASE TRY ELSEWHEREINFACT if there’s anything I abhor most in this world, it is HOMOS>GOD PUNISH YOU!!!”
See the screenshot below:
In a turn of events, the journalist who openly cursed the self acclaimed homosexual is now the defender of the promotion and protection of gay rights in Ghana.
He has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, alleging that there were an insufficient number of Members of Parliament present in the chamber during the voting process.
Under parliamentary regulations, for a bill to proceed to the president for approval, at least half of Ghana’s 275 MPs must be in attendance and participate in the voting procedure.
The precise number of MPs who participated in the vote last Wednesday has not been disclosed by the Ghanaian media.
The bill, widely criticised by both the UK and the US, along with various rights groups labelling it as regressive, has sparked significant condemnation.
Previously, President Akufo-Addo had indicated his willingness to sign the bill if it reflected the desires of the majority of Ghanaians.
However, he is now aiming to reassure the diplomatic community of Ghana’s steadfast commitment to upholding human rights principles.
He acknowledged that the bill had “raised considerable anxieties in certain quarters of the diplomatic community and amongst some friends of Ghana” that the country may be “turning her back on her, hitherto, enviable, longstanding record on human rights observance and attachment to the rule of law.”
“I want to assure you that no such back-sliding will be contemplated or occasioned,” he added.
-
Gay rights vrs free speech: US Supreme Court discusses clash
The United States Supreme Court has heard arguments in the case of a graphic designer who declined to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
It is the most recent case to reach the Supreme Court, and it pits free speech rights against anti-discrimination laws.
Lorie Smith of Colorado claims that her Christian faith prevents her from providing services to same-sex couples.
However, this may be a violation of a state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on sexual orientation.
Most US states have anti-discrimination legislation in place.
Ms Smith, 38, has argued Colorado’s public accommodation law violates her First Amendment right to free speech, as the state would be forcing her to express a message she does not agree with.
“If the government can censor and compel my speech, it can censor and compel anybody’s speech,” she told CBS News before arguments began on Monday. “We should all be free to live and work consistently with our deeply held beliefs.”
The graphic designer and her supporters argue that ruling against her could force artists to do work that is against their faith.
Her opponents, however, argue that a victory for Ms Smith could pave the way for businesses around the country to discriminate against customers for a variety of reasons such as religion, ethnicity or national origin.
The conservative-leaning court must now decide whether Colorado’s enforcement of the law violates the free speech clauses of the First Amendment.
And on Monday, its six conservative justices signalled sympathy for Ms Smith after more than two hours of arguments. The three liberal justices leaned towards the state.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked if a business offering to write vows could ever refuse to write something. “Can they be forced to write vows or speeches that espouse things they loath?” he said.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal minority, asked if ruling in favour of Ms Smith could lead to discrimination on other grounds such as race or disability. “Where’s the line?” she said.
In 2016, Ms Smith filed a lawsuit that sought to block the state’s public accommodation law. After two lower courts sided with Colorado, the case headed to the Supreme Court.
The case has highlighted a partisan rift in the US, with President Joe Biden’s administration and 20 largely Democratic states standing behind Colorado and arguing that a ruling in Ms Smith’s favour could have far-reaching consequences.
Another 20 Republican-leaning states, along with various religious groups, have voiced their support for Ms Smith.
The court has heard similar cases in the past involving a florist and a baker.
A case in 2018 centred on a Colorado-based baker, Jack Phillips, who argued that being legally required to create a cake for a same-sex wedding violated his rights to free speech and religious freedom.
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in his favour, finding that Colorado failed to show tolerance for Mr Phillip’s beliefs.
The court, however, left open the question of whether states can apply public accommodation laws more generally.