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

Kovsies reign FNB Superbowl
2007-05-10

The FNB Super Bowl took place from 26 – 30 April in Potchefstroom.
The Kovsies reigned the tournament in their respective categories.
It was an absolute mega Intervarsity. The following tournaments took place in which Kovsies was represented.
 
Senior rugby tournament
The Shimlas won their first game against TUT 33-0
In the Semi-final Shimlas lost against Pukke 17-8.
The Shimlas played for third and fourth place against Tukkies and won the game 41-19. Which secured them the third place in the tournament.
 
The following teams participated in the tournament
Pukke, UJ, Shimlas, Tukkies, Maties, NMMU, TUT, UCT
 
SA Students team
The following Shimlas were selected for the SA student games:
Steph Roberts (prop)
Drikus Strydom (hooker)
Philip Steyn (lock)
Marlin Ruiters (Scrumhalf)
Marcel du Toit (flyhalf)
 
Pharmaton Junior Rugby Tournament
The Kovsies u/21 & u/19 teams won their respective tournaments. It is a wonderful accomplishment for the University. The following teams took part in the tournament: Kovsies, Pukke, Tukkies and UJ.
 
u/21 results
Won Pukke 12-11
Won UJ 22-18
Won Tukkies 47-16
 
u/19 results
Won UJ 9-8
Won Pukke 25-13
Won Tukkies 25-16
 
Hostel Rugby Tournament
Reitz and Armentum represented Kovsies. These two teams played against each other in the final which Reitz won 47-0. To have both our hostel teams in the final is an outstanding accomplishment for Kovsies.
The following Universities took park: Kovsies, Pukke, Tukkies and UJ
 
Reitz results
Won Sonop (UJ): 27-7
Won Patria (Pukke): 11-10
Bastion (Tukkies): withdraw
Won Armentum in the final: 47-0
 
Armentum results
Won Overs (Pukke): 15-7
Won Afslaan: 49-12
Won Boekenhout: 43-0
Lost against Reitz in the final: 47-0
 
Hostel Soccer
Veritas represented Kovsies and won Kiaat from Tukkies in the final with 3-1 after a penalty shoot-out.
 
Hostel Netball
Vergeet-my-nie and Emily Hobhouse represented Kovsies. Vergeet-my-nie lost in the final against Wanda from Pukke17-14.
 
Hostel Cricket
Vishuis lost in the final against Villagers from Pukke with 5 wickets.
 
Hostel Hockey
Wag-‘n-Bietjie and Vergeet-my-nie represented Kovsies. Unfortunetly none of them went through to the finals.
 
 We won most of the games against the strongest Universities in the country is an outstanding accomplishment for Kovsies.
 
Compiled by
Ansu Colditz
Rugby Manager

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