ANC BLOCKS MOTION CONDEMNING UGANDA ANTI-GAY BILL
The DA says that the ANC blocked its motion in Parliament on Tuesday to condemn the Anti-Homosexuality Bill signed into law by Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni on Monday.
According to Sandy Kalyan, DA Deputy Chief Whip, ANC MPs heckled her when she raised the issue in the House, “illustrating their brazen insensitivity if not support for this shocking measure.”
She said that the ANC in Parliament did not seek to propose any amendments to the motion but rejected it “in its entirety.”
“Our motion would have ensured that South Africa continues with the human rights-based foreign policy established by President Nelson Mandela and that we re-gain our moral standing in the international arena,” said Kalyan.
She also condemned the “shameful failure by President Zuma’s administration to act on this matter.”
The development came as the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) issued a weak statement that fell short of condemning the Ugandan law or a similar recently enacted Nigerian bill; continuing the government’s policy of “silent diplomacy” on LGBT issues.
DIRCO said that “South Africa takes note of the recent developments regarding the situation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual, Transsexual and Intersex persons (LGBTI) worldwide.”
It further stated: “The South African Government will, through existing diplomatic channels, be seeking clarification on these developments from many capitals around the world.
“South Africa views the respect for the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights and fundamental freedoms as a critical pillar of our domestic and foreign policies; hence they are enshrined in our Constitution.
“South Africa believes that no persons should be subjected to discrimination or violence on any ground, including on the basis of sexual orientation,” said DIRCO.
Referring to the statement, Kalyan accused the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, of failing “to act decisively on this issue.”
She stated: “We must indeed ask why it is that South Africa always resorts to silent diplomacy when it instead should be providing leadership on the continent. With our proud history of fighting injustice, and with one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, our government should have been first to publicly object to the barbaric laws of a state right on our doorstep.”
Kalyan added that, “The South African government, and the African Union, which is being chaired by, Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, must be urged to act to ensure that Uganda’s suppression of human rights does not go without censure.”
The ANC’s failure to condemn the anti-gay law in Parliament and DIRCO’s unimpressive statement on the matter is unlikely to silence critics who have slammed the government for not loudly commending the growing wave of anti-gay sentiment and laws on the continent.
In its recent World Report 2014, Human Rights Watch praised South Africa for introducing a precedent-setting 2011 resolution at the UN Human Rights Council on combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people, but noted that the country “has not played a decisive leadership role on this issue at the UN since then.”
- Facebook Messenger
- Total1.3K
It is not a surprise, given that the Zuma government has maintained Jon Qwelane, notorious for his homophobic views, as ambassador to Uganda. It has become very clear that the ANC has no respect for the GLBTI community, and do not care about our equality and dignity, let alone the oppression happening elsewhere in Africa. Even before Zuma got into power with the assistance of Julius Malema, he insulted gay men, and it would seem that his apology was nothing but shallow lip service. It means we have to be vigilant in protecting our Constitutional rights, and work so much harder to deal with the extensive and violent homophobia still prevalent across South Africa.
Why should Africans like what Europeans like…? The nerve of Boers amazes me, when they vilify President Jacob Zuma for practising perfectly natural, consensual polygamy, at they same time
the extoll unnatural homosexuality..
It is not surprising in that the ANC pays lip service to the constitution and only acts when it serves the purposes of the ANC and their inner cabal. So good luck getting the ANC to do anything that it feels doesn’t ingratiate or enrich its own. And criticising or condemning another African country is not seen as good form in the ANC. The ANC are the biggest bunch of hypocrites imaginable.
I’m not too clever for this.
But , SA should stop any collaboration with Uganda , until they change their politics and respect gay people.
South Africa should multiply its trade with Uganda, and be among the very first customers of Ugandan crude oil in 2016. We are all Africans and should celebrate the courage of the Ugandan people. Those who are making demands that Uganda be ostracised should realise that they no longer run anything in Africa
Well, our government has clearly shown how important they feel gay lives are.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Anti-Gay laws in Uganda. The world is upset because of these laws, but who give the world the right to tell Ugandian government how to run their country? I call on all countries to mind your own business and let the government of Uganda run their own country. We need more countries who have guts to speak out on homosexual issues, and who will pass laws to curb this sick practise called homosexuality. I salute the government of Uganda for passing stricter laws and trying to rid their country of the curse called homosexuality. To hell with countries who threaten Uganda with sanctions, Africa don’t need your hand outs.
As for the DA and ANC both parties should shut up, this country is cursed because of homosexual laws they approved.
Rev OP Bougardt – your bigotry and ignorance is not welcome here. Keep your hatred to yourself.
Mamba is an African Muntu name. Do not use our African names for your forums if you do not welcome African opinions and morals.
Mr Bougardt..so what you’re saying is if white or coloured people in any other country are being discriminated against, we should mind our business aslong as it doesn’t affect us or if it aint happening to us? And what exactly is sick about homosexuality?
David and Johnathan were more than just friends in the Bible. There are two other example’s.
1 Samuel 18:1
“…Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself.” (NIV)
“…the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (KJV)
Most translations use the term “soul” rather than “spirit” to describe the bond. They speak of an “immediate bond of love”, their souls being “in unison,” their souls being “knit” etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that “soul”, in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
bullet 1 Samuel 18:2
“From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house.” (NIV)
David left his parent’s home and moved to Saul’s where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
bullet 1 Samuel 18:3-4
“And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.” (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
bullet 1 Samuel 18:20-21
“Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. ‘I will give her to him’, he thought, ‘so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him’. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law” (NIV)
In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:
“Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain.” (KJV)
Saul’s belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David’s first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul’s son-in-law through “one of the twain.” “Twain” means “two”, so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul’s two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase “the one of” does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:
“Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain.”
In modern English, this might be written: “Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children” That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan’s homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.
bullet 1 Samuel 20:41
“After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together – but David wept the most.” (NIV)
Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
bullet “…and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded.” (KJV)
bullet “…and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself.” (Amplified Bible)
bullet “and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more.” (Living Bible)
bullet “They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself.” (Modern Language)
bullet “They kissed each other and wept aloud together.” (New American Bible)
bullet “Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most.” (New Century Version)
bullet “Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David’s grief was even greater than Jonathan’s.” (Revised English Bible)
bullet “…and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself.” (Revised Standard Version)
The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large. The word which means “became large” in this passage is “gadal” in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret “gadal” in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.
bullet 2 Samuel 1:26
“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”
In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David’s only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
Thanks Stefan. I have been talikng about thsi very posint for years but Bougat and his cronies, as I said dont use the Bible as reference just their own bigotry
We are guided by our African morals and value, not by foreign religions or views
Bougat, You are going to hell!! One day God will say to you ” I kow you not”
I challenge you as to where the Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin. You cant because it doesnt. You see the very Sodomites of the Bible are your ilk. As it says in Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.” No mention of homosexuality here.But then why would you use the Bible as a reference ?
thank you so much for your comments, Rev Bougardt; once again you demonstrate the evil mindedness, the sick, the unchristian-like thinking that we have come to expect from so called religious people. when the end comes and IF you’re proven right in your religious beliefs – you can bet your bottom dollar that you’re well and truly booked a seat in hell…
It amazes me how you always frequent this website Bougardt? Is it the sexy shirtless guys that are occasssionally shown that do it for you? You are a disgrace to the Christian Church. Stop judging others – let God do that! You seem to always have something to chirp about – you are worse than Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church!!!!
Rev OP I take it that you’ve never set foot in a school before,never studied in a vsrsity before I can also say you were raised under crucial living circumstances,I’m guessing that you are not financialy well or fit,so you think if gay people are dealt with,your situation will change LOL. Your view on GAY people shows that your mentality is that of a toddler”you don’t know shit yet”. Now take a Seat and Shut the fuck up”
REV OP SHOULD GO LIVE IN UGANDA , AN YOU MIND TO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A HIPOCRITAL BIGGOT ROT IN HELL
Surprise Surprise!!! The ANC show once again they hate The LBGTI if ur gay or u support us but vote ANC ur no better than the homophobes trying to do us down. Why should I empower ppl who clearly regret making sure I Have rights to begin with
Mambaonline, I’m not sure what your issue is. Why have you not yet blocked “Rev” OP Bougardt from your website? Or at the very least, why have you not removed his comments?
I am extremely upset with you. I will no longer be visiting this website until you release a statement telling us that the “Rev’s” comments will no longer be shown.
Hi J, thanks for the comment. The dear Rev is, we understand, under investigation for his hate speech comments. One of the reasons we are allowing his statements is that they may be useful evidence in this regard.
We should not take the issue of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual, Transsexual and Intersex persons (LGBTI) lightly or jokingly if we believe in God because He is a God of wrath to those who are unrepentant!