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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

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