Human Rights Gone Awry: A Case of Uganda

 

  Is Homosexuality a human Right or Human Wrong?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out the basic rights and freedoms of all men, women and children.

Uganda’s human rights record were examined by the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group in January 2022, in a meeting that was live on UN Web TV  and over 30 Pro-Sodomy recommendations given to Uganda to boost its human rights situation, and gladly enough the Government of Uganda rejected all the problematic Recommendations except 125.178 Increase investment in the health system and infrastructure and ensure improvement in the equitable distribution and availability of sexual and reproductive health and childcare services (Fiji)

Regional and International Instruments, What do they say?

There is no regional or international human Rights instrument that obliges or binds signatory states to advance homosexuality. 

Uganda is not signatory to any regional or international instruments that obliges it to advance Homosexuality

Moreover, the CCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, One of the core human rights instruments, clarifies that The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized(Article 23(2)).            

 An attempt was made in December 2021, to adopt pro-sodomy language, when the UN General Assembly was adopting a resolution “Strengthening the role of the United Nations in the promotion of democratization and enhancing periodic and genuine elections” and Uganda made  reservations on the homosexuality related provisions.

Over time, the international community has developed and agreed upon certain basic principles which are now the cornerstone of understanding, interpreting and promoting human rights internationally, regionally and at national levels.

The principles are:

(a) Human rights are universal and inalienable

All human beings everywhere in the world are entitled to human rights by virtue of being human. Human rights are not specific to, or the preserve of, the people or a group of people. They are universal because every human being everywhere in the world is born with and entitled to the same rights. Human rights cannot be given up or taken away. They are inalienable.

(b) Human rights are indivisible

Whether the human rights are of a civil, cultural, economic, political or social nature, they all have equal status as rights since they are all inherent in the dignity of every human being. One right cannot be denied or restricted at the expense of another right since they are all equal.

(c) Human rights are inter-dependent and inter-related

The realisation, fulfilment or enjoyment of one human right often depends, wholly or in part, upon the realisation, fulfilment or enjoyment of other rights.

 (d) Equality and non-discrimination

All human beings are equal and entitled to their human rights without discrimination of any kind, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, ethnicity, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, disability, property, birth.

(e) Participation and inclusion

Every person, including children, and all peoples are entitled to active, free and meaningful participation in, contribution to, and enjoyment of civil, economic, social, cultural and political development in which human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realised.

(f) Accountability and rule of law

States and other duty bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights. For this purpose, they have to comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in human rights instruments. Where they fail to do so, aggrieved rights-holders are entitled to institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law.

Calls and Threats by western countries on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2023, violate the very human Rights Principles they agreed on.

As a concerned Ugandan, East African and African at Large, please take keen interest on the impending threats (That are aimed at legalizing Homosexuality among other vices):

1. The Human Rights Defenders Protection Bill, 2020 (Parliament of Uganda)
2. The EAC SRH Bill 2021 (The East African Legislative Assembly)
3. The EU-ACP Trade Treaty (ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, OACPS Parliamentary Assembly, ACP-EU Council of Ministers, OACPS Council of Ministers, ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors, OACPS Summit)

A Human Rights Approach to Defeat the Homosexual Agenda

Focus on Fundamental Freedoms

Our strongest positions and arguments are those rooted in the defense of our fundamental freedoms: speech, worship, association and conscience. These are not infallible arguments, because anti-family judges and other decision-makers are often so hostile to pro-family views that they are willing to override their own generally staunch support for these freedoms. However, these are the best arguments we have in the current cultural climate. And, frankly, if we ultimately lose these freedoms, the only options left to us will be capitulation or punishment.

what does it mean to focus on fundamental freedoms? It means couching our arguments in the same civil rights language that our opponents have used so effectively for decades. We become the advocates of freedom of speech, they become the advocates of censorship. We become the victims of discrimination, they become the discriminators.

Protect the Victims and the Vulnerable

If the homosexual agenda is ever defeated anywhere, it will likely be through the work and witness of two groups of its victims: recovered homosexuals and those who have been subjected to “gay” indoctrination as public-school children. This sort of social backlash has been seen once before in America: against the drug culture. Much of the country was persuaded in the 1960s to view mind-altering substances as relatively harmless, and the result was an explosion of drug use, and then an avalanche of social problems. What eventually turned the tide against the drug culture? It was the work and witness of former drug addicts. These victims of the drug culture were immune to all of the clever rhetoric and philosophies that had duped the nation and were zealous to protect others from being harmed as they had been. They knew the truth by their own experience, and the word of their testimony was far more powerful than the lies of the adversaries.

The pro-family movement would be well served to learn from this example and devote a substantial portion of its time and resources both to advancing and growing the ex-“gay” movement and to teaching the pro-family perspective to young people.

A pro-family organization called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) has provided exemplary leadership in utilizing this approach. Their primary goal and ministry emphasis in recent years has been ending discrimination against ex-“gays.” PFOX uses all of the civil rights rhetoric and reasoning that the “gay” movement has employed over the past several decades, but to protect a group of people whom the “gays“ insist cannot exist: former homosexuals. The very existence of ex-“gays” demolishes the “gay” doctrine that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable  and gives real hope to all of the many homosexuals who secretly wish to be rid of their deviation. The PFOX pursuit of equal rights for ex-”gays” in the face of intense opposition and hostility by so-called “civil rights” activists and leaders, exposes the hypocrisy of these pro-“gay” bigots to the watching public.

Importantly, while exposing the truth might not be enough to change things in the short term, it has a powerful influence on both the victims of the “gay” agenda and on all of the fair-minded witnesses now watching in uncomfortable silence. As the number of former homosexuals and former public school “brainwashees” grows, there will come a time when the scale tips against the pro-“gay” bullies, and a culture-changing backlash will ensue.

Source: Redeeming The Rainbow

The Moral Revolution

How did we arrive here?

Modern society often criticizes conservative Christians’ alleged obsession with sexual ethics. However, secular and progressive elites are increasingly the ones forcing the issue, insisting conservatives embrace their worldview and the full spectrum of LGBT policy positions or face social ostracizing, public shaming, or worse.

The “sexual revolution” of the 1960s did not emerge in a vacuum. It resulted from our culture’s shifting views of right and wrong—a moral revolution. Thus, before addressing today’s pressing issues related to sexuality, it is helpful to take a step back and consider how we arrived at where we are today. What key cultural changes created the necessary conditions for the moral revolution and new sexual ethics to take hold? There are at least four cultural developments that paved the way for the moral revolution.

𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭, the rise of urbanization offered new opportunities for anonymity. In 1800, 7% of the world’s population lived in cities. Today, 55% of the world’s population lives in dense population centers. By 2050, it is projected that this number will rise to 68%. One of the social effects of the rise of dense population centers is the erosion of community-based accountability that often exists in rural and less populated areas. In other words, the rise of cities helped remove a societal check against premarital and extramarital liaisons by lowering the chance of discovery and exposure.

𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝, advances in contraceptive technology—such as “the Pill”—separated sex from potential pregnancy in the minds of many people. As Albert Mohler notes, “Once the Pill arrived, with all its promises of reproductive control, the biological check on sexual immorality that had shaped human existence from Adam and Eve forward was removed almost instantaneously.” Whereas before the potential consequence of conceiving a child served as a natural deterrent from premarital or extramarital sex, the Pill allowed for seemingly consequence-free sexual activity.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝, laws that restricted certain sexual behaviors and conduct were replaced or overturned. E.g in USA For example, access to birth control expanded dramatically following two Supreme Court cases, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court overturned a state law that prevented married women from accessing birth control. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended contraceptive access to unmarried couples. Today, legal precedent has established a broad view of individual liberty regarding personal and intimate decisions. Recent evidence for this includes the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015 to legalize same-sex marriage. Significantly, the majority in this case based their decision on a very expansive view of liberty, arguing the Constitution promises liberty to the extent that people may “define and express their identity.” The culture and mainstream legal philosophy have propagated a new autonomous being who alone may shape their identity and sexual behavior.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, a fourth development contributing to the moral revolution is Christianity’s loss of cultural influence. According to Pew Research, in 2019, 65% of American adults described themselves as Christian—down 12% points since 2009. In the same time period, the percentage of Americans who identify with no religion has risen to 26%, up from 17% in 2009. The rise in religious “nones” is most pronounced among the younger generations.10 These changes in America’s religious demographics mean that fewer people understand or hold Christian convictions, including those relating to sexual morality.

These four factors have contributed to a cultural, political, and legal environment hostile to Christian beliefs on the nature of marriage and human sexuality. Additional trends—such as cohabitation, absentee fathers, no-fault divorce, pornography, and abortion—have also contributed to the weakening of the family and society’s moral malaise.

 Source:  Biblical Principles For Human Sexuality