Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill Signed.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/uganda-antigay-bill-signed-by-president-museveni-despite-international-outcry-9149808.html

/// “We Africans never seek to impose our view on others. If only they could let us alone,” he said, talking of Western pressure not to sign the bill. ///

/// “We have been disappointed for a long time by the conduct of the West. There is now an attempt at social imperialism.” ///

No matter how repulsive certain countries laws seem to us, does it give us the right to intervene in an attempt to change their ways, at the risk of being criticised for attempting 'social imperialism' as in this case?.

[jeffa]

"No matter how repulsive certain countries laws seem to us, does it give us the right to intervene in an attempt to change their ways"

Germany in the 1930s, anyone...?

[sp1814]

^^^^

What jeffa said.

[jim360]

Godwin's law strikes at post #1... wow!!

Still, it's an important point. A country shouldn't be able to mistreat its citizens with impunity, and historically ignoring such abuses just lets it carry on unabated and, even, get worse and worse.

[youngmafbog]

It's always a difficult one this, and pointing to Germany in the 30's is not always the answer (As yet no one is being murdered for being homosexual).

It appears that the bill is popular with the majority, so in one way democracy.

[youngmafbog]

So why do we deal with countries that have sharia law then jim?

Or is it ok for muslim countries to have culture and beliefs but not christian ones?

[jim360]

I suppose the shortest answer to that is that what we do, and what I think we should do, don't always match up. Probably because, as ever in international politics, money comes before morality. Oh well. Still doesn't make it right.

[youngmafbog]

Very true jim.

[sp1814]

youngmafbog

I don't think that's true.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/27/ugandan-gay-rights-activist-murdered

[sandyRoe]

Gay Ugandans fleeing prosecution will have solid grounds to seek asylum here. That, in itself, might be considered by some to be cause enough for us to intervene.

[sp1814]

divebuddy

Big difference between the UK and Germany was that the British government never considered the death penalty for gay people, whereas Uganda did. And so did the Germans (who actually went ahead with it...).

[LazyGun]

Well, they rather magnanimously dropped the death penalty that was in the original legislation in favour of life imprisonment for "aggravated homosexuality" - which is nice of them, I suppose.

I think several Western countries have threatened to withdraw their aid programmes from Uganda, but the calculation within Uganda has been that such countries will not cut aid, since Ugandan military forces are engaged in various peacekeeping duties and initiatives against al-queada, al-shebab etc.

[sp1814]

divebuddy

Actually - my point centres on the point made in the OP:

"No matter how repulsive certain countries laws seem to us, does it give us the right to intervene in an attempt to change their ways".

I sat 'yes' to that, and compare the growing unease Western governments felt during the 30s.

International pressure against humanitarian abuse is a good thing. Diplomacy, engagement - whatever, I support that.

[sp1814]

LazyGun

Yes - it was international pressure that resulted in the removal of the death penalty in this Bill.

Can I turn the question around for a moment...does anyone think we should, as a nation say nothing, and if so - should we have accepted the decision to include the death penalty?

[mikey4444]

A regressive law, passed in an backward country, by uneducated people.

[joggerjayne]

It's difficult when you have sets of values that are different.

We think repression of sexual freedom is unacceptable. So do we interfere?

Communist Russia thought that personal ownership of property, and depriving the needy of access to your assets was unacceptable? What if they had tried to interfere?

We think we should be free to choose our sexual partners.

Afghanistan thinks they should be free to differentiate between the status os men and women.

Some groups of people find it utterly repugnant to kill and eat animals. What if they decided to force us to be vegetarian?

I suppose way I'm saying is ... Are "right" and "wrong" absolute values? If so, is it that we are right, and everybody else is wrong? Or are they subjective values?