Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 June 2023 | Story Siyanda Magayana | Photo Supplied
Sivuyisiwe Magayana
Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State

 


Opinion article by Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State

 

The anti-homosexuality legislation and what is means

The Ugandan president has enacted a law that makes it even more illegal for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI+) people to be who they identify as. The Anti-Homosexuality Act, among other things, increases the already-criminalised life sentence for consensual same-sex between consenting adults and adds the death penalty for what is known as “aggravated homosexuality”. Additionally, it criminalises activities that supposedly support homosexuality and homosexuals, and carries a potential 20-year prison term. The act also explicitly states that it aims “to protect the traditional family” in Uganda, a traditional African nation, which criminalises and forbids same-sex couples, parents, and other individuals from starting families and having children. This conveys the notion that African LGBTQ+ persons, specifically in Uganda, have no place in the families, communities, and other parts of society to which they belong. It also merely challenges LGBTQ+ Africans’ African identities as it erases their existence in the country altogether. Therefore, as activists, decision-makers, researchers, and residents of all parts of Africa, we should think about what this means for LGBT people in our communities. We should think about the impact of this law on LGBTQ+ people’s feelings of agency, right to life, right to make their own decisions, and sense of belonging.

The dangers of equating homosexual “acts” to sexual abuse

The anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda mentions “... protecting children and youth who are made vulnerable to sexual abuse through homosexuality and related acts”. A statement such as this one is factually incorrect and is based on a misconception, implying that homosexuality and/or homosexual people are largely the perpetrators of sexual abuse and violence because of their acts. This viewpoint is flawed and misleading because sexual abuse can occur in any context, regardless of sexual orientation. For instance, some studies have revealed that many sexual offenders in our societies appear to identify as heterosexual.1 One other research study found that no offenders were classified as homosexual and that more than three-quarters (78%) of offenders were solely heterosexual in their relationships.2 Similarly, other studies argue that a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who may be identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual,3 while another recent analysis finds that there is no evidence to suggest that individuals with same-sex attraction are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual persons.4

Therefore, equating and pinning of homosexuality to sexual abuse is a deeply problematic and false narrative that can have severe consequences for LGBTQ+ individuals. It is important to recognise that being homosexual or engaging in same-sex relationships does not in itself make individuals more likely to be perpetrators or victims of sexual abuse. This view perpetuates harmful stereotypes and misconceptions about sexual orientation, which can further fuel discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals in our communities. It also contributes to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of LGBTQ+ individuals, creating an environment where LGBTQ+ individuals are at higher risk of experiencing violence, discrimination, and social exclusion. By falsely portraying homosexuality as a form of abuse, these narratives further entrench homophobia and reinforce negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community in the African continent.

Anti-homosexuality legislation and similar legislation in other countries often use the language of protecting children and combating sexual abuse to justify their discriminatory policies. By linking homosexuality to sexual abuse, proponents of such legislations aim to demonise and criminalise same-sex relationships, portraying them as inherently harmful or predatory. However, it is important to understand that homosexuality is not synonymous with sexual abuse. Sexual orientation is a natural and fundamental aspect of human diversity, and being gay, lesbian, or bisexual or other does not imply any wrongdoing or harm. Consensual same-sex relationships are no different from consensual opposite-sex relationships in terms of the rights and dignity they deserve.

The impact of this legislation on LGBTQ+ individuals in and beyond Uganda

The impact of this legislation on LGBTQ+ individuals in African communities, not just in Uganda, is significant. The legislation fuels existing prejudices and stigmatisation against LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to increased discrimination, violence, and harassment. For instance, many LGBTQ+ individuals are already faced with heightened risks to their safety and well-being, including corrective rape, physical attacks, social ostracism, and even the threat of mob violence in both our rural and urban areas.

Such law has broader implications that go far beyond the borders and communities of Uganda. This law will set a precedent for other African countries that were already hostile towards LGBTQ+ rights, reinforcing a negative environment for LGBTQ+ individuals across the continent. Anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments and laws are prevalent in various African nations, and therefore, Uganda’s law to criminalise homosexuality contributes to a regional climate of homophobia and discrimination. More than anything, the law further silences and erases the voices and existence of LGBTQ+ bodies in African communities and increases the justification of and vulnerability to corrective rape and killings. Many will be displaced, killed, excluded, and erased from our communities.


 

1 Groth, A. Nicholas and H. Jean Birnbaum. (1978). “Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 7(3):175-181.

2 Groth, A. Nicholas and H. Jean Birnbaum. (1978). “Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 7(3):175-181.

3 Carole Jenny, Thomas A. Roesler, and Kimberly L. Poyer. 1994. “Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?,” Pediatrics 94 (1): 41–44

4 Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim. 2013. The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health 58, pp. 469–483.

 


 

News Archive

Lessons of The Spear
2012-08-14

 Discussing weighty issues at the UFS were from left: Prof. Jonathan Jansen; Vice-Chancellor and Rector; Nic Dawes, Editor-in-Chief, Mail & Guardian; Max du Preez: Investigative journalist and political columnist; Ferial Haffajee: Editor, City Press; and Justice Malala: Political commentator and newspaper columnist.
Photo: Johan Roux
14 August 2012

What were South Africans left with after The Spear? More importantly, what did we learn from The Spear?

These were the issues discussed at a seminar, Beyond the Spear, on the controversial Brett Murray painting at the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) on Monday 13 August 2012.

The university hosted this seminar, Beyond the Spear, in conjunction with acclaimed journalists, to look deeper into the lessons that South Africans learnt from this painting and the reaction from the public and politicians following soon after it went on display at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg.

The four panellists, Mr Justice Malala (political analyst, journalist and host of the news show, The Justice Factor), Mr Nic Dawes (editor in chief of Mail & Guardian), Mr Max du Preez (investigative journalist and political columnist) and Ms Ferial Haffajee (editor of City Press), all presented their views and experiences on the public’s perceptions of this artwork.

In his opening remarks, Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector, said the purpose of the seminar was to help us make sense of what happened. Prof. Jansen also chaired this seminar.

“This being South Africa, there will be more ‘Spears’. More public crises will unfold that divide the nation and that will stir the emotions. We need to understand what happened so that we are better prepared to deal with the coming ‘Spears’.”

Issues on leadership, South Africa’s hurtful past and the freedom of expression were some of the topics raised by the panellists.

“This has taught us that South Africans – especially the older generation – still need to vent their anger… White South Africa must be patient and allow black citizens to shout at them,” said Mr Du Preez. He warned that this anger should serve a constructive purpose. In reaction to a question if Brett Murray did not disrespect Pres. Jacob Zuma’s dignity with his controversial painting, he said that this painting was “…rude and disrespectful.”

“It was meant to be. It was not honouring him.” He said that politicians will do anything, including messing with the country’s stability, to further their own interests. “From now on we need to be far more alert, far more cynical about our politicians.”

Mr Dawes shared his experience and said that the debates around The Spear were very painful considering where the nation has come from. He said the painting opened up painful pasts and difficult spaces. “It is up to the media to open up these difficult spaces.” He said the painting also brought up questions of how South Africans deal and live with pain. “South Africa must live with its past. The debate should now be how to preserve space for the country’s ghosts and how its citizens could get the resilience to deal with it.”

Ms Haffajee, who was caught in the crossfire between freedom of expression and human dignity and who refused to remove a picture of the painting from the City Press website, said that the media was viciously played by politicians.

“This had shown that achieving freedom took many lives, but it took very little to kill it.” She said The Spear is art that it is part of a rich cultural heritage of protest art.

Mr Malala said with the debates around The Spear painting, something died in South Africa. “The debate was taken away from us. We let politicians get to us.”

After the panellists delivered their presentations, Prof. Jansen led a discussion session between the audience and the panellists.
 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept