Connect with us

News

Uganda anti-gay law challenged in court

Yoweri Museveni signed statute last month

Published

on

Uganda, gay news, Washington Blade

Uganda, gay news, Washington Blade

Ugandan human rights advocates on Tuesday petitioned the Ugandan Constitutional Court to block an anti-gay law the country’s president signed last month. (Photo courtesy of Ellen Sturtz)

A coalition of Ugandan human rights organizations and activists on Tuesday challenged a law that imposes a life sentence upon anyone found guilty of repeated same-sex sexual acts.

Ugandan LGBT rights advocates Frank Mugisha, Julian Pepe Onziema and Jacqueline Kasha Nabagesera are among those who signed onto the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law’s challenge of the so-called Anti-Homosexuality Bill that President Yoweri Museveni signed into law on Feb. 24.

They argue in their petition to the Ugandan Constitutional Court that the statute violates the right to equality and privacy outlined in the country’s constitution. The advocates said the anti-gay law also discriminates against people with HIV and disabilities and imposes a “disproportionate punishment for the offense (of homosexuality) in contravention of the right to equality and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”

The activists also contend Ugandan parliamentarians approved the measure late last year without the necessary quorum.

“The spirit of the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, by promoting and encouraging homophobia, amounts to institutionalized promotion of a culture of hatred and constitutes a contravention of the right to dignity,” reads the petition. “The Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, by encouraging homophobia and stigmatization, is in contravention of the duty of the government to respect, protect and promote the rights and freedoms of persons likely to be affected by the act.”

The activists’ petition asks the court to block enforcement of the law and prevent Ugandan media outlets and websites from publishing the names and pictures of those who are open about their sexual orientation or suspected of being gay.

Jeffrey Smith of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, which honored Mugisha in 2012 and whose president, Kerry Kennedy, discussed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill with Museveni in January, welcomed the petition to the Ugandan Constitutional Court.

“The Anti-Homosexuality Law clearly violates a host of constitutionally protected rights in Uganda, not to mention international human rights standards pertaining to nondiscrimination, the right to privacy, and freedom of expression,” Smith told the Blade on Tuesday. “These rights belong to every Ugandan citizen, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and the government has a duty to not only protect these rights, but to both promote and advance them as well. Today’s constitutional challenge is therefore a significant step forward in the struggle for the respect of basic human rights for all Ugandans.”

The Obama administration announced after Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill into law that it has begun reviewing its relationship with Uganda. U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who met with Museveni in January during a trip to the East African country with other members of Congress, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay are among those who also criticized the measure.

“I certainly disagree with the controversial legislation that Uganda may enact in the coming days,” Inhofe told the Washington Blade before Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Ugandan LGBT rights advocates and their supporters maintain U.S. evangelicals exploited homophobic attitudes in the East African country and encouraged lawmakers to approve the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. A federal judge in Massachusetts last August ruled a lawsuit the Center for Constitutional Rights filed against Scott Lively on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a Ugandan LGBT advocacy group of which Mugisha is executive director, can proceed.

Lively described the law as “overly harsh on its face,” but “typical of African criminal law across the country” to the Blade during a press conference last month at the National Press Club in downtown Washington.

“Poor countries with limited criminal justice systems tend to rely on the harshness of the letter of the law to be a deterrent to criminals,” said Lively. “In practice, the sentencing is usually pretty lenient. Kenya, for example, has the death penalty for burglary, but burglars are definitely not being executed there.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth

Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear

Published

on

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach will host a BLUF leather social on Friday, April 10 at 5 p.m. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel

Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.

A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.). 

Continue Reading

Puerto Rico

The ‘X’ returns to court

1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.

That has now changed.

Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.

The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.

Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.

The issue lies in how the law is applied.

Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.

Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.

The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.

The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.

This case does not exist in isolation.

It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.

Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.

From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.

The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.

Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.

That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.

The debate is no longer theoretical.

It is now before the courts.

Continue Reading

Popular