Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 2013

Position of LGBTI People in Uganda: Discussion

I remind members, witnesses and those in the public gallery to ensure their mobile telephones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference, even in silent mode, with the recording equipment in the committee rooms. The purpose of the meeting is to have a discussion with Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera, executive director of Freedom and Roam Uganda, on the position of LGBTI people in Uganda. I am delighted to welcome her. I met her briefly earlier. She is accompanied by Mr. Colm O'Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, and Ms Aisling Seely of Amnesty International Ireland.

In our work programme for the year the joint committee selected a number of priority areas, particularly the area of promotion of human rights and equality in terms of gender, sexual orientation, religion and ethnicity. There has been increased awareness and significant progress in many countries, including Ireland, in human rights issues and in respect of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. However, progress has been slower in many other countries. In Uganda a growing culture of homophobia and intolerance has had negative consequences for the gay rights community there. The anti-homosexuality Bill which is awaiting consideration in the Ugandan Parliament provides, among other things, for the death penalty in cases of aggravated homosexuality. It is against this background that Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabasgesera will address the committee. She is executive director of Freedom and Roam Uganda, an NGO which seeks to empower gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people and jointly advocate for respect, protection and fundamental rights in Uganda.

Before commencing, I advise that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances at the committee. However, if witnesses are directed by the committee to cease making remarks on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera to address the committee.

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

Thank you and good afternoon. I thank the committee for the platform it has given me. I do not usually get such a platform back home. I am happy to speak about the anti-homosexuality Bill that is currently pending in the Parliament of Uganda, but I also want to speak about the realities of the LGBTI community in my country. We are facing a media witch-hunt. The media are continuing, with impunity, to expose LGBTI people's addresses, names and pictures. A week ago one of my staff members was outed and beaten on the streets in broad daylight and nobody, not even the authorities, could protect her. We have issues with protests that are still continuing. Yesterday, a hundred metres from the grave of my late friend, David Kato, who was murdered two years ago in his house, there was a protest to launch the campaign against homosexuality in Uganda. They called on all people in the community and around the village not to accept anything to do with homosexuality. They attacked the mother of the late David Kato, who is a very old woman and is sick in hospital. We continue to face challenges in the health sector. We are not included in the national HIV-AIDS policies. There was a case in which one of our colleagues was recommended to a referral hospital and, on his recommendation, it was stated that he was a homosexual and HIV-positive. He was refused treatment and lived in the corridors of the hospital without any help.

We also have issues concerning censorship of our meetings. Some of our meetings have been broken down and we face harassment and illegal arrest. I myself was arrested in August last year with other members. We were arrested having been found having a gay pride meeting in a public park and were imprisoned for approximately four hours. Thank God, we had just met Mrs. Hilary Clinton who called the authorities and told them to release us. Recently, two of our young youth co-ordinators were arrested and kept in prison for four days without charge. When we tried to establish the charges against them from the police, they refused to state the charges. However, in the police station these workers were harassed and sexually abused. We also have a case of a transgender woman who has been arrested over 32 times. Every time she has been arrested she comes out sick because she has been sexually abused and beaten by other prisoners. Therefore, there is a lot going on.

The responsibility for what is going on comes back to the government, because it does not hold the perpetrators accountable. The media continue to act as they have been doing. Two weeks ago a radio station started up and its main purpose is to discuss homosexuality and incite harassment and violence. They are doing this with impunity because the government is doing nothing to stop them. Gay pornography is being shown in church to incite harassment, but the government does not hold these people accountable. There is a lot of harassment because of the proposed anti-homosexuality Bill, which has a lot of support from all Christian denominations and politicians. This issue is the only one to unite the opposition and the ruling party in the country.

It is very depressing not knowing one will wake up alive another day or not knowing when one leaves one's house whether one will be able to come back to it. Many people incite violence against us and abuse us on the streets. They threaten us and say all kinds of things and warn us that they are waiting for the Bill to be passed and become law. I and my office have been attacked. People threw bricks at my office and sent me letters saying they would burn the office building down. Just yesterday, someone was in front of my house preaching against me trying to remove me from my house. This was not the first time this happened. This man did this previously for three full weeks and called on people to come and join him in casting demons away from their village. It is a challenge for us in the community knowing we are not protected by the law.

Could Ms Nabagesera elaborate on the position regarding the current status of the Bill? Who supports the Bill and at what stage is it in Parliament?

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

Last year, the Bill was recalled in Parliament on 7 February and at that time all the Members stood up and began banging tables and screaming out "Our Bill, our Bill". We witnessed both the opposition and the ruling party doing this from the public gallery, so it has a lot of support. Today, it is the third item on the Order Paper to be discussed, but it has not yet been discussed.

When does Ms Nabagesera envisage the Bill being discussed?

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

We cannot really say when because it keeps moving up and down on the Order Paper. Sometimes it is the first item and sometimes the second. However, it has a lot of support and there is a 99% chance that if it is tabled and put to a vote, it will be passed into law.

How much pressure is coming on the government and the parliament from NGOs and donor countries with regard to this Bill being put through the House?

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

There is a lot of condemnation from the international community, but also in Uganda there is a lot of condemnation from civil society. Human rights organisations, health service providers and women's rights organisations have come together and are standing in solidarity with us and have condemned the Bill. The Uganda Human Rights Commission has also come out openly and condemned the Bill. At the same time, the donor countries have come out and threatened to cut aid, but we have made it clear that is not going down well in our community because we are being scapegoated on account of that. We have made it very clear that we do not want aid to Uganda to be cut because even the LGBT community benefits from the aid. We have been advising our donor countries and partners there should be clear guidelines on policies between donor countries and Uganda so that if there is discrimination against certain groups and they are not getting the services they should be getting, some of the aid will be channelled to civil societies dealing directly with these issues.

I welcome our guests. What we have heard from Ms Nabagesera is frightening and alarming. The briefing papers we received from Freedom and Roam, Uganda and from Amnesty International painted a similar picture. Ms Nabagesera's contribution highlights for us the serious concern the international community should have in regard to this issue.

The question asked by the Chairman is important. We have had a very strong relationship with Uganda through the Irish Aid programme over the past number of years, and substantial amounts of Irish taxpayers' money have been transferred to different programmes there. We have been told and assured by the Department of Foreign Affairs that those funds have been put to good use and that there are good outcomes in regard to school completion and the development of much needed health services. Has Ms Nabagesera had the opportunity to speak in other parliamentary fora throughout Europe? What can we do to help apart from raise these issues through our Department of Foreign Affairs and the Tánaiste our Minister? I presume it would be worthwhile for Ms Nabagesera to speak to similar parliamentary committees in other member states of the European Union and through the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.

The issues Ms Nabagesera has highlighted for us must be promulgated and people must learn about the desperate environment in which she works, of intimidation, censorship and harassment, and about the proposed legislation to institutionalise discrimination. This scenario is a concern and relevant parliamentary fora must be made aware of it.

I have two questions. In Britain there have been protests around the plans to deport Ugandan nationals with a public profile as LGBT activists. What are Ms Nabagesera's views on what deportation might mean for those people? Ireland has close diplomatic relations with Uganda and it is one of the biggest recipients of Irish Aid. How best can the Irish Government challenge the proposed Bill? Amnesty International says we should not withdraw donor aid for Uganda. Should the Government be acting quietly and privately on this issue or should it be speaking out publicly on the issue?

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

I have had a chance to speak to parliamentarians in Sweden and Italy and in January this year we had a meeting in Amsterdam where the Intergroup supporting LGBT rights of the European Parliament organised a discussion of the LGBT toolkit and how it can be used in our countries and how we can use it to force our governments to implement changes. We also have workers in Uganda who are LGBT. This meeting went well. We have also been advising politicians, members of parliament, the international community and governments that during the universal periodic review, Uganda accepted three recommendations to protect LGBT persons and to investigate violence and abuse of LGBT persons. However, this has not been implemented since March last year. Therefore, we are working through our diplomatic missions to lobby and try to see how aid can be tied to the policies that were accepted by Uganda. We are using these small avenues to get our international diplomatic missions to try to push the country towards upholding the commitments made during the universal periodic review.

I have not had the opportunity to speak with many parliaments around the world.

It is something that we are working on to say that we can get allies from the international community to really try to put pressure on our government. So far the pressure has worked internationally. People are speaking out openly. The Prime Ministers of Canada and the UK, and President Obama, have spoken out well and the government at home feels that it is being pressurised and forced to take something that is a Western import but it also helped us because it realised that the world is watching and that it is a foreign policy issue. The President came out openly and advised the Members of Parliament to go slowly on the homosexuality Bill. The only problem we have now is that Members of Parliament are pushing for the Bill to go through. They say the President is being bribed and pressurised and that they will go ahead and pass the Bill because they do not need the donor aid. They have found oil and can work with that. That is why the Bill is moving up and down on the order paper. It is popular with the people of Uganda but there is also a lot of international pressure on the government and that is why they are trying to find a way to get rid of the Bill but also save face.

Deportation is another issue. All the people who face deportation in the UK are exposed in the media and that means at home they are being watched and exposed as well as outed in the media, which puts their lives at risk when they come home. Last month upon my arrival at the airport my passport and my laptop were confiscated for a week by immigration officers to prevent me from travelling out again. That is how I missed my previous appointment to meet Amnesty International in the US because we use these avenues to build solidarity and networks for support. It is dangerous for those who are exposed in the newspapers to come home. There was a case in which a lesbian was deported last month and two weeks later she was found dead in Uganda.

It is an honour to be in the presence of Ms Nabagesera because we revere her for her extraordinary courage. None of us in this country who have been involved in easier aspects of this trouble have had to confront anything like the brutality, the viciousness and violence that happens in Uganda. I was also honoured to meet David Kato at a meeting of Front Line Defenders in Dublin Castle and I had no idea that within a matter of months he would be so savagely murdered. It is very important that Ms Nabagesera is here and that people here who may have different views on this issue should hear what it is like because it is so clearly a fundamental human rights issue.

The briefing was helpful but only 10% of it was relevant to the gay issue. The others had some marginal relevance but they displayed a remarkable degree of corruption within the Government of Uganda which is a difficulty that must be examined. It was very interesting and useful that Ms Nabagesera was able to tell us that, as I suspected, it would be counterproductive to have used sanctions and so on because people would then be punished again.

I would like to ask about a couple of issues that might be helpful and which our committee might consider. In the list of aid that we give €500,000 goes to male advocacy. I assume that is for violence against women but I wonder if we could earmark some for this very specific area. Would that be useful or would that also expose gay people to antagonism? Looking at it from outside I think that could be helpful but I might be quite wrong.

Could Ms Nabagesera signal to us the names of some of the leading members, starting with herself and David Kato's bereaved, elderly and sick mother? Having been interested for a very long time in human rights I have found when I travel or even at a meeting such as this that if one signals directly to the diplomatic representatives here and asks them to transmit to their capital that as a people, a Government and a committee on foreign affairs we are taking a specific interest in the welfare of these people it may serve to protect them. If Ms Nabagesera feels that would be useful perhaps she could supply us with an appropriate list. We cannot protect the whole gay population but it would be helpful if key people could be protected.

I want to know about the type of pressure we could apply. I say with great sorrow as a practising and believing Christian that it seems to me that the Christian churches are almost entirely responsible for this appalling mess and it is a disgrace. That is the European inheritance. That is what they imported, not homosexuality, which exists throughout the mammalian kingdom. We have an interesting situation here where the Papal Nuncio is the doyen of the diplomatic corps and it might be possible for us to write a polite letter asking that the hierarchy in Uganda make it very clear that this is not consonant with Christianity at all. I would be happy to write privately to the Archbishop of Canterbury who I imagine would be surprised to learn of my existence but as an Anglican I think we should lean on him and on the Archbishop of Dublin as well.

I do not wish to take up too much of Ms Nabagesera's time but I would like to know if any of these measures would be helpful or if any are completely out of order. Why not try to get something done at the Inter-Parliamentary Union? It deals with journalists' standards. There are also the International Press Association and the NUJ. The newspapers have taken this up because the sensationalist events earn money for them, particularly when churches show pornography. It might be possible to explore those avenues. I will be interested to know if any of these suggestions would be counter-productive or if any of them would be good and if so could Ms Nabagesera facilitate us?

I thank our guests for appearing before us today and I congratulate Ms Nabagesera on her submission. I agree in general with Senator Norris. There are several points we need to establish in respect of discrimination and discriminatory legislation. Discrimination is one thing but discriminatory legislation is another matter because it carries the imprimatur and approval of society. That is a very dangerous thing, particularly in the so-called enlightened world in which we now live. It is important that we create a clear impression throughout the international community that discriminatory legislation is unacceptable. Violation of human rights is unacceptable. I recognise that we are not encouraged to impose conditions on aid and I understand all the reasons for that, nonetheless we need to make it clear that insofar as aid is concerned we need the societies to which the donation is directed to recognise that we do not propose to support in any way, shape or form, discrimination or the violation of human rights. To what extent we have to pursue that remains with us. All the countries to which we donate aid should recognise that we are not here for the taking. We should not be expected to donate indefinitely if there are blatant violations of human rights and disregard of international norms in human rights. I strongly support Deputy Norris' points in that regard and I suggest that perhaps as a committee we liaise with our colleagues in relevant similar committees throughout the EU with a view to mobilising opinion throughout the Union to this effect.

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

I thank Deputy Durkan. We have been discussing with donor countries the need to put policies in place and guidelines on how the aid should reach the communities to which it is directed. Some have made this very clear. The German and Swedish Governments have come out very clearly on this but we have not yet heard it from other governments. We have told them that if the government does not have clear policies on how this aid should reach the communities our government will continue to discriminate and to leave out a group of people. It said openly in 2008 that it did not have funds to include men who have sex with men in the HIV-AIDS policies yet we know that Uganda receives a lot of donor aid to fight HIV and AIDS.

It would be very much appreciated if this committee were to discuss this issue with other committees in the European Union.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

On the question of aid and the advocacy which Members of the Oireachtas and other parliamentarians in Europe may be able offer, it is crucial to acknowledge that statements made in the global north can have a very direct impact on the safety and well-being of the LGBTI community and activists in Uganda in particular. Suggestions that aid might be cut - I acknowledge no member here has suggested that - in opposition to this Bill will only increase the vulnerability of that community. The view is that everything that happens in Uganda at the moment, every single political development, is the fault of the gays; it is that extreme.

We had a very positive meeting this morning with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Irish Aid to discuss Ireland's aid programme. Kasha Nabagesera made it clear at the meeting that neither she nor the LGBTI activists in Uganda were asking for aid to be cut. As members of general Ugandan society, they are also dependent on some of the services and initiatives provided through that aid programme. However, they would support a targeting of some aid to support civil society in Uganda.

Approximately 39 organisations joined forces with Kasha and her colleagues in opposition to the Bill. Those 39 organisations - many of which are human rights organisations - have now been blacklisted by the government and signalled for closure. There is a very heavy suppression of any organisation that speaks out in favour of LGBTI rights generally.

I refer to two issues with regard to the legislation. Homosexuality is already a criminal offence in Uganda. It is noteworthy for us in Ireland and particularly for those such as Senator Norris who managed to secure the repeal of that legislation that Uganda operates under the same post-colonial laws as did Ireland until 1993. It is exactly the same legislation. What is different about the current legislation is not just the threat of the death penalty but also the focus on suppressing freedom of expression.

The promotion of homosexuality is forbidden. Any reference to homosexuality in the public sphere must be negative; it must be an attack. The rhetoric is increasingly violent. Anyone who seeks to defend or push back on that rhetoric is accused of promoting homosexuality. The narrative put out by the evangelical churches who are behind the legislation, also by the media and supporters of the Bill and many politicians, is that LGBTI activists are actively recruiting children to homosexuality; that this is the focus of their efforts; that they are seeking, for instance, to destroy the traditional African family. That community is being particularly scapegoated for the most extreme and bizarre things in Uganda - a situation that is somewhat familiar to us in this country. It is very important that the rhetoric is calm and reasoned.

This is the reason we suggest that the committee might wish to consider the three recommendations from Uganda's recent UN universal periodic review. Uganda accepted three recommendations which all refer directly to the need to investigate and prosecute those guilty of violent attacks on members of the LGBTI community. One of the recommendations also referenced stopping discrimination of LGBTI people in Uganda. If Ireland worked to support the Ugandan state by means of its diplomatic influence in order to help it to deliver on the accepted recommendations of the UN profiles, this would be a way to begin that dialogue. I ask Ireland to consider discussions with the Ugandan Government in an effort to create an environment in which an appropriate public debate or discourse on these issues would be more possible. That is a longer-term piece of work but is one that needs to begin.

I welcome Ms Kasha Nabagesera and her advocates. I know Africa reasonably well, having lived there for four years. My question to Kasha is, why Uganda? Is there something going on in Uganda that has caused the targeting of homosexuals? I agree with Colm O'Gorman and other speakers that our response must take into account the sensitivities of the Prime Minister, the President and the Government of Uganda with regard to western influences on these issues. I am trying to decide whom we should target. Colm O'Gorman referred to evangelical churches. In parts of Africa, homosexuality is deemed to be not the norm. However, who is stirring the flames in Uganda? The reaction seems to be disproportionate to anything else we hear from the rest of Africa. Is it political populism? Have the evangelical churches something to do with it? Is it the Muslim community in the northern region? Capital cities are usually more open-minded than rural areas. I do not know if there is a difference in emphasis among the citizenry of Kampala as the capital city as against a tribal community or the Muslim community.

Historically we have reason to be very scared of people who advocate this type of anti-gay philosophy. It happened in Rwanda when certain priests got hold of the airwaves and there was resultant savagery between Tutsi and Hutu. What is happening in Uganda and who should be regarded as the enemy who is promoting this horrendous legislation? They are parliamentarians but their populism must be a response to other pressures coming up the line. Does this make sense to the witnesses?

I welcome the delegates. I hope they will enjoy some rest and relaxation here for the few days. It must be a welcome break from the stress and dangers under which they live in Uganda. I know they are working very hard but at least they are away from the physical danger of being taken in by the police.

We are told that the President of Uganda, privately, does not agree with the Bill. I ask if that gives the witnesses hope considering he is a powerful person. Particularly frightening is the extent of the opposition. There does not appear to be anyone. The human rights organisations which were supportive have been blacklisted so they are also in a very difficult situation.

I agree with Colm O'Gorman about aid. However, there needs to be a human rights approach to aid otherwise I do not know what is its purpose. The point about Irish Aid targeting particular groups such as LGBTI groups might be a means of indicating that the Irish Government and Irish Aid will not support discrimination in society.

This committee is planning a visit to Uganda. Perhaps if the committee delegation asked specifically to meet the LGBTI group or a similar group, that might be a means of indicating our support and our positive engagement with the kind of work carried out by such groups.

Wearing my AWEPA hat, Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, and following from Deputy Eric Byrne's remarks, I ask about support from the African Union and other African countries who are not as discriminatory as Uganda in this matter. I advise the witnesses to take heart from what has happened in this country even though it took quite a long time and much progress has been made on the issue. I acknowledge, however, that the situation in Uganda is far more serious and dangerous than was the case in Ireland.

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

On the question about why this is happening in Uganda, it is not just happening only in Uganda. We make our stories heard; we put our stories out there. That is why everyone knows about Uganda. Other countries are also going through the same, including our neighbours in Kenya. Even South Africa, which has the most progressive constitution in the world, has the highest number of hate crimes and murders in Africa. The reason it happens in Uganda is because Uganda is a very Christian country, from the first family down to the most lowly family in the country.

They have many allies and friends around the world, some of whom are very powerful. They are called the family in the United States and have exported their fundamental religious views and agenda to Uganda because they are against homosexuality. They sent to Uganda their priests who held a conference over three days in which they preached the anti-gay agenda. Our members of Parliament attended that conference at which they were advised that our law was very weak. They advised parents attending the public seminars that homosexuals would recruit their children and that they were sick. That created anger among the general public in Uganda. People who previously did not have an objection to homosexuality were told all these lies and Members of Parliament, religious people, teachers, students and even young people are now protesting on the streets. There are many protests in the country. Children are being taught in school that homosexuals should not be tolerated, that homosexuality is a sin, that it is against nature and our traditions. A range of people in the country are involved in this.

We want to show the world that we cannot allow this hatred to be imported into the country. The evangelicals who preach this hatred have been coming to Uganda for the past four years and we are now suing them in the Massachusetts courts to show the world that this is unacceptable. They cannot leave their country where their agenda failed and take it to a poor nation. They took advantage of a poor country and are putting a great deal of money into these campaigns, which are happening every day. As I said, the latest was on Easter Sunday. They have continued to send people to Uganda from the United States who in their commentaries refer to homosexuality as being a sickness. It is coming from every angle in the country. We had a debate on the issue with medical students and one would expect medical people to debate the issue using science and to listen to the argument, but instead they were using the Koran and the Bible to debate it and were calling for homosexuals to be put to death.

This issue is uniting everyone in Uganda. It is the only issues which is bringing the opposition and the ruling party together. It is the only issue which is bringing Muslims, Catholics, Anglicans and evangelicals together. There is a religious task force to campaign against homosexuality. There is an east African task force to fight it. All of these organisations are being led by Ugandans and a range of people are involved. If the Bill is passed, it will call on parents, teachers, friends, landlords, brothers and sisters to report suspected homosexuals. They are saying they want to encourage a tradition of the family, but instead they will break up families. A range of issues are involved, but there is a great deal of hatred towards homosexuals.

The problem is that we are being silenced in people hearing our stories. Only the anti-gay groups are given time on the airways. When radio station hosts tried to interview us, they were fined. Radio hosts have been suspended for having us on their programmes. As a result, people are only hearing stories from one side. They are not hearing from the victims. This is terrible because when one wakes up, every channel one tunes in to is broadcasting anti-gay messages. If one goes to church, the message is anti-gay. If one goes to hospital and is identified, one is surrounded. It is becoming unbearable, which is the reason we are losing many members of our movement. Many people are leaving the country. In the past eight months six activists have left. That makes the community smaller and weaker because people are afraid. Many have gone back into the closet because of the media witch-hunt taking place every day. People from among the religious leaders have stood up openly to support us. A bishop has stated openly that we do not need to condemn homosexuals but rather bring them together. He was excommunicated and even denied a pension.

The Government is closing down all of the places where we gather for our meetings. We are suing it, but every time the lawyer who is defending us in court is shown on television, his children cannot attend school that day because other children bully them and say their father is a homosexual. The situation is becoming unbearable. Even the powerful people who want to support us risk being stigmatised in public. People are using the gay issue as a political ladder. They only have to tell their constituents that they will protect their children by supporting the Bill in parliament and the people vote for them.

The President has come out openly and admitted that there have always been people who are homosexual. He has said they were never persecuted or harassed in the past, but that if they have begun recruiting and encouraging children to be homosexual, we must stop them. He is being ill-advised by the people around him, which is a challenge for us. We hope that if we tell him our stories, he will listen to us. He is not homophobic, but we must separate the executive from the parliament. The Members of Parliament are willing to pass the Bill. It is a Private Members' Bill from a ruling party and, therefore, benefits from the President's party, but he has no say in the matter. If the Bill is passed into law and given to him for signature and he vetoes it, parliament can override him and pass it into law. That presents a major challenge.

We tried to lobby the members of the Interparliamentary Union who came to Uganda to engage in dialogue with our Members of Parliament. Most of them told us that it did not go well. They produced a declaration during the meeting, but it was turned down by the government. The Speaker of the parliament refused to meet the group that had come to discuss the Bill. It is a challenge that Members of Parliament believe what they are being told by people from the West.

Mention was made of the violence witnessed. We work with some organisations run by women who are facing a challenge because the government is trying to close down organisations that work with people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, LGBT. It has introduced a Bill to provide for the annual registration of non-governmental organisations, NGOs. If they talk openly about LGBT issues, they may not be registered subsequently because the government will see them as a promoter of homosexuality. This presents another major challenge.

I will give way to Deputy Dominic Hannigan who I understand has to attend another meeting.

That is very kind of the Senator.

Ms Nabagesera is very welcome. I thank her for her sobering update on what life is like for the LGBT community in Uganda. I am a member of the LGBT community in Ireland and can recall what it was like in this country before decriminalisistation. It was thanks to people like Senator David Norris that our lives improved immeasurably. We have now achieved many of the rights we had set out to achieve all those years ago. It was a long but ultimately successful struggle. I recognise that the position is very different in Uganda, but it is important that we stand together in solidarity with the delegates. Issues remain to be dealt with in some European countries. Issues also remain in terms of the way some countries bordering Europe treat LGBT people. That is something we have not got right on this side of the world.

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about the position in South Africa which was a trailblazer in its day in terms of LGBT rights. How much pressure is it putting on countries such as Uganda, Malawi and others? How much pressure is being exerted from within the African Union to try to effect real change?

I again thank Senator Jim Walsh for allowing me to contribute.

I also welcome Ms Nabagesera and the other members of the delegation. She has painted a challenging picture for us of what is happening to the homosexual and lesbian community in Uganda. I ask for clarity on some of the issues raised.

The measures included in the Bill appear draconian. Two of the provisions were outlined in the briefing document we received from the Department, one of which was related to the death penalty in the case of aggravated homosexuality. This was highlighted as one of two very controversial and extreme elements.

What is meant by "aggravated homosexuality"?

Consider the sentence of three years' imprisonment for the failure to disclose the identity of gay persons, which obviously affects family members, medical practitioners, etc. What is the current law? The proposed Bill is a Private Members' Bill. The note we received states the Ugandan Government would say that in a democracy such a Bill is on the table and can be moved.

The real issue is the decriminalisation of homosexuality. What efforts are being made in that regard in Uganda? Once that is achieved, the other issues are more or less resolved. I sympathise with Ms Nabagesera when she talks about outside influence. In Africa, unfortunately, many battles of the kind in question are taking place. There are American groups trying to promulgate their views on abortion and to make acceptance of these views a condition for the granting of aid there. That is an appalling breach of human rights. Issues certainly arise in connection with the principle to which the delegation referred.

President Museveni is generally regarded as having generated an improvement in human rights in Uganda. He has said to Government officials here that his Government would not be supporting the Private Members' Bill. To what extent does Ms Nabagesera take comfort from that? As with many Private Members' Bills we have here, if they are not embraced by the Government, they do not go very far.

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

"Aggravated homosexuality" refers to every homosexual who has a partner. "Aggravated" means that one does something repeatedly. Basically, most of us would be put to death.

On the question on the three year sentence, the current law is that any person caught having carnal knowledge against the order of nature faces life in prison. It is believed that life in prison is a very weak law and that is why the death penalty is proposed. People have been prosecuted.

Is it known how many have been sentenced with life imprisonment?

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

We are compiling facts on violations, arrests, illegal detentions and every abuse the LGBT community has faced to help us challenge the current laws in court. According to the research, eight people have been charged under the law. Many people have been arrested and have not been charged with sodomy, which is the usual charge, but with disorder, for example. It is another law that is used to disguise why one is being arrested. There have been cases in which people have been arrested because they have been blackmailed. The police extorted a lot of things from them because they are homosexuals. The police have refused to outline the charges; they just lock up and release the suspects. The police have failed to tell us why they arrested the individuals in the first instance.

There was a reference to media censorship being such that we cannot even go out and share our stories. When we do so, we are told we are promoting an illegal practice. That is why we want to start the process of decriminalisation. It will not cover all our problems but at least give us avenues to do our work without being called criminals.

Consider President Museveni's comment that he and his Government do not support the Bill. It is great because if the country and people pushing for the legislation hear the President is not supportive of it, it carries a lot of weight. However, the President called together his ruling party and advised it that it should go slow on the issue. Its members walked out on him in protest because they say he is being bribed and is bending to pressure. However, as I said, even if the President refuses to sign the Bill, or if he vetoes the Bill if it is supported in the Parliament, the Parliament can overpower him because it is a Private Members' Bill.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

It is important to recognise that the political and public discourse being created as a result of the Bill, in and of itself, is the key threat. It is very unsettling and disheartening at times to hear Ms Nabagesera speak of the Ugandan committee's wish that the Bill would just pass on the grounds that the activists would know how to deal with it and have strategies. At the same time, we hear very clearly that their view is that if the Bill is passed, many people will be killed. While physical attacks are happening and members of the community are beaten badly, people are told repeatedly to wait until the Bill is passed, at which time the problem will really be solved. People are waiting for the Bill. It is not just that the Bill carries the death sentence. It is that it is seen by very many as a licence to openly kill, with impunity, members of the LGBT community.

On Senator Norris's suggestion that there might be engagement with officials from the Roman Catholic Church, the majority church in Uganda, I had it pointed out to me recently that the Catholic Church has come out against the Bill in Uganda. I will give the statement to Senator Norris if he wants to see it. The statement from the Catholic bishops' conference of Uganda starts with the line, "We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government's effort to protect the traditional family and its values." It states homosexuals are in need of repentance, conversion and rehabilitation. It expresses concern that the Bill does not allow for that to happen. Specifically, according the church, the criminalisation of people who have knowledge of homosexuals creates a difficulty for priests, teachers, etc., who might assist them in repentance and conversion on that basis. Thankfully, the statement points out that the death penalty is a significant issue, and it has particular difficulty with it. However, the statement ends thus: "Additionally, in our view the proposed Bill is not necessary considering that acts of sodomy are already condemned under section 145 of the penal code." It asserts the legislation is unnecessary because there is already a sentence of life imprisonment in place under Ugandan law. In the interest of trying to influence key influencers, that statement is possibly a route of potential influence. I hope church leaders, particularly leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, will be able to influence the kinds of statements being made in Uganda. The Ugandan bishops' statement is not a rejection of the legislation but a statement of support for its intent and design and a reaffirmation of criminalisation. The route I suggest could be useful.

Would it have been better if the statement had not been made at all?

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

The statement was utterly unhelpful.

I am grateful, as a non-member of the committee, for the opportunity to speak. I welcome Ms Nabagesera and thank her for her testimony. I congratulate her not only on her gargantuan and trojan work but also on her winning of a GALA award. She is in good company. It is a tremendous honour for her. The GALA award is the human rights award bestowed by the National Lesbian and Gay Federation of Ireland.

Deputy Buttimer and I got one.

I endorse Senator Norris's request. I wish to add to what it is proposed be written to Archbishop Brown, the papal nuncio. The committee should engage with the Irish bishops' conference on the issue. Having listened to Mr. O'Gorman's remarks and having heard the Ugandan bishops' letter, I believe the latter is appalling. I say this as a Christian and practising Catholic.

Today puts life into perspective. New Zealand passed a gay marriage Bill, becoming the 13th country to have done so.

Last Sunday, a plurality of the Irish Constitutional Convention passed a motion regarding civil marriage in our country. This was a tremendous affirmation and ending of discrimination and intolerance. Yet we come back to today where we are given a testimony by a fantastic person of the life and lack of basic rights of people who are born gay. Let us not forget that the allies of gay people are also condemned and treated as second-class citizens.

My first question is in the context of the mental health of gay people and suicide. I suppose Ms Nabagesera can never give us the proper figure but have we any idea of the number of people who have either left Uganda to seek asylum elsewhere because of their treatment or committed suicide?

The briefing we have places heavy emphasis on the fact that the President is opposed to this. I am disappointed that the IPU conference in Uganda, which I attended in the past in Geneva, did not and was not able to broker a motion sending out a strong possible signal of its unhappiness with what is happening and its belief that it should not be tolerated in any shape or form.

I commend Ms Nabagesera and her friends and colleagues. No matter how much they think they are not being listened to, I know straight and gay people within our society and Parliament who are appalled and very supportive of what they are doing. We will do whatever work we can to help fight this injustice. There must be a continual promulgation of the lack of basic rights for everybody involved. I congratulate Ms Nabagesera on her great work. She should not feel she is alone because she is not.

I welcome Ms Nabagesera to the meeting and thank her for her contribution. As someone who, along with Senator David Norris, was one of the strongest supporters in the Seanad of decriminalising homosexuality - I was spokesperson for justice in the Seanad at the time - I have read much about the situation in Uganda. However, it is a different matter to hear it face to face from someone who has had experience of it. One can read much about these things but it is only when one meets somebody who is able to articulate it that one is able to appreciate fully the difficulties experienced.

Ms Nabagesera mentioned that Germany and Sweden made positive moves in respect of this. Could she give us a brief outline of what those moves are and their impact? My impression after discussing the matter here is that we want to do many things but there is a negative attached to every one of them. One is treading on eggshells in respect of how we can handle this individually or collectively. Can she tell us why she complimented Sweden and Germany on what they are doing?

I thank Ms Nabagesera for her presentation. I listened very carefully to what she said and she answered every possible question, so I will not ask her another one. I echo what my colleague said earlier. Having listened to everything, I am as perplexed and depressed as can be because I still do not know what is driving this - the why, where and what. Usually, there is an explanation for hate campaigns. It may be inexplicable but there is an explanation. It might be rooted in politics or economics. That does not seem to be the case here. There are opportunities in Uganda with the discovery of oil, and the economy should bring people up to middle income standards. It does not seem to have anything to do with politics as the President is popular and keeps getting re-elected. Yet Ms Nabagesera says it is an uniting force. I do not understand this urge to unite. What is driving this fear that people feel they must unite in this way?

What is really depressing is that Ms Nabagesera comes here as part of a campaign, yet it is being recommended that we tread so softly and raise this issue in such a subtle and oblique way as to make it almost meaningless. She spoke about the church and I agree that this is a way of doing it. It certainly behoves the church not only to speak out against the Bill but to speak out against the church in Uganda. It is depressing to listen to all of this and then be told to be very careful in what we say when clearly the urge we all have is to say something very strongly.

I invite Ms Nabagesera to make her final comments.

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

Every situation calls for a different strategy and action. We have seen that in the past. We told our allies and governments to condemn publicly the Bill in Uganda and to have protests around the world, and then realised that it was causing a backlash for us at home. It caused more attacks. Many people lost their jobs because people thought they were being bought by the West and that the West was imposing this issue on them. People believe we are being bought to be homosexuals and to promote homosexuality. We realised that the more it is out in the public arena, the greater the backlash. When governments say they are cutting aid because of corruption, people think it is just a disguise and that they are cutting aid because of homosexuals, and then people start attacking us. A large brick was thrown through the window of a colleague of mine at the time Uganda refunded aid to Ireland. A neighbour had lost a child in hospital because there was no medication. All the anger was directed at my colleague who is a homosexual. They said there was no medicine because of us and that was why the aid was withdrawn.

Quiet diplomacy is working well because we are telling our allies to lobby governments quietly in order that people do not attack us. Every single situation and problem in Uganda is regarded as being caused by homosexuals. Following the bombings in Uganda at the time of the World Cup final, there was a big headline in the media that "homo-terrorists" did it. It is causing a considerable backlash, which is why we are saying that action should be taken quietly. Legislators should not feel they are being told what to do in public. That is what happened with the Speaker of Parliament when she was confronted openly by the Canadian Member of Parliament. She promised to give Ugandans the Bill as a Christmas present because she wanted to show that she is in control and has the power. We prefer quiet diplomacy and one-on-one engagements.

In respect of the issue of suicide, due to this harassment, discrimination and everything going on in the community, people are getting fed up with their lives. They are telling students to name suspected homosexuals. The name of one young girl appeared on everyone's list in a school. They assembled the entire school, called her parents and caned her in front of everyone. She felt humiliated, went back to the dormitory, got a bottle of pills and killed herself. It was all over the radio. Everyone was calling in to say that it was good that they had got rid of a homosexual. People were jubilant because this thing had happened. No government official condemned it and the school and parents were never held accountable. So suicide is present.

Kenyans came to Uganda because they saw that there was an active and vibrant movement there but when they arrived, the suffering was heaped on them. A recent case involved an activist from Kenya who died in Uganda. He decided to come to Uganda because he thought the movement was strong. He committed suicide. We had to transport his body because his parents refused to come for him. They said it was shameful. There is much that is creating fear in Uganda because it is the powerful who have the audience to promote their agenda to. They are telling people it is against our culture.

This is supposed to be against our religion and a part of western culture. People are fearful because they are being told that homosexuals will bring about the destruction of the country, like the Bible story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and they will do whatever it takes to protect themselves.

South Africa is not playing a leading role in the continent. Three months after the legislation was introduced, South Africa appointed a homophobic ambassador to Uganda. This individual had been taken to court in South Africa for making homophobic statements to the media. We tried to lobby the South African Government to persuade it that it should not send a homophobic person to a country that is trying to prosecute homosexuals but it refused to listen even though our allies in South Africa protested and tried to tell their Government that Uganda is in a difficult situation. The Coalition of African Lesbians tried to apply for observer status in the African Commission on Human and People's Rights but the application was refused on the basis that it was not a human rights issue. We asked the South African Government for help on the grounds that our organisation was registered with it and, as such, was legitimate, but we have not received any assistance.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

On the question of what members can do, we face the same struggle as an activist and campaigning organisation. Much of our work involves mobilising people to effect change. There will be times when it is important to make public statements, but this is not one of them. This is a time when careful considered diplomacy is required because people need to influence and support a different kind of decision making by political leaders in Uganda. There are indications that such an approach is beginning to work. It is a matter for diplomats and parliamentarians to work out how they can engage with their counterparts in those countries, but Ireland has a particular story to tell as a post-colonial State that has gone through a 30 year process of major change followed by limited change and then rapid change over the past ten years. It may be useful to point out in informal conversations with African parliamentarians that the world did not come to an end for Ireland despite all the predictions about the impact of the changes we underwent in recent years. The world did not even come to an end last Monday morning.

There are opportunities for ongoing engagement and dialogue. For example, the human rights commission in Uganda, which has not been especially helpful, shifted its position significantly after engaging with human rights commissions from other countries and building its own capacity. Targeted support for LGBT activist organisations in Uganda is also important. The only way that the voice of this community can emerge is if it has the resources to tell its stories by publishing booklets and organising campaigns that allow it be visible in a positive and healthy way. This takes tremendous courage on the part of Ms Nabagesera and her colleagues, and we need to think about how to support them.

We must also understand what is happening in Uganda in the context of a broader human rights crisis. Sadly, this is not unique to Uganda. We see moves to enact discriminatory laws across Africa and the same issues have arisen in Russia and parts of the Balkan states. We must challenge these developments. Even in the context of the successful negotiation of the arms trade treaty, there was opposition to mentions of gender because it was recognised that it also involved sexual orientation and gender identity. The association of Islamic states, the Holy See and others opposed advances in protections under human rights law on the basis of gender, particularly in the area of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is something that we must be watchful for as a State. I suggest that members may be able to do something as parliamentarians by helping to strengthen international human rights provision in general to ensure sexual orientation and gender identity are recognised as grounds on which discrimination should not be permitted. These are tangible initiatives we can take to make a dramatic impact in the longer term.

It is not often that we have 11 members of the committee, and two non-members, asking questions. We take a great interest in this area and, as I noted earlier, we will be visiting Uganda later this year. We will certainly meet members of the LGBT group and will bring careful and considered diplomacy to bear on the issue. We will also attempt to meet the human rights commission and parliamentarians. Regardless of where we travel in Africa it is important to meet parliamentarians because they offer a very different perspective from that of governmental officials. How many more countries will Ms Nabagesera visit during her tour of Europe?

Ms Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera

I am travelling to Iceland on Saturday followed by which I will go to Austria, the UN in Geneva and Italy.

I wish her well in her travels. She has displayed great courage and has made a good case on the injustice in Uganda. We will protect her human rights and will do our best to keep the issue on the agenda when we visit Uganda. I thank her for a very useful discussion. I also thank Mr. O'Gorman and Ms Seely for facilitating this meeting.

Barr
Roinn