Uganda announces ‘Kill the Gays’ law imposing death penalty on homosexuals

Uganda has announced plans to impose the death penalty on homosexuals.

The bill, colloquially known as “Kill the Gays” in Uganda, was nullified five years ago on a technicality, but the government said on Thursday it plans to resurrect it within weeks.

The government said the legislation would curb a rise in “unnatural sex” in the east African nation.

“Homosexuality is not natural to Ugandans, but there has been a massive recruitment by gay people in schools, and especially among the youth, where they are promoting the falsehood that people are born like that,” the country’s ethics and integrity minister, Simon Lokodo, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“Our current penal law is limited. It only criminalises the act. We want it made clear that anyone who is even involved in promotion and recruitment has to be criminalised. Those that do grave acts will be given the death sentence.”


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/uganda-death-penalty-kill-the-gays-homosexuals-lgbt-a9151411.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1570748370

This on top of recent similar attempts in other tinpot dictatorships such as Brunei, Nepal and others in the last couple of years, where the proposed legislation was overturned at a higher level 'at the eleventh hour'...

These kind of draconian laws are only the thin edge of the wedge --  starting with one minority group, and then systematically outlawing others along the way, whether that be "communists", Christians/Jews/Muslims (as the case may be..), union leaders, pacifists, feminists, "fascists", humanists, environmental groups;  even the poor and disabled..

Just like when the Nazis began their holocaust efforts in the 1930s with the Jews, and then moved on through the communists, Catholics, unionists, Poles, socialists, and onwards.

'Wolfie wrote:

This on top of recent similar attempts in other tinpot dictatorships such as Brunei, Nepal and others in the last couple of years, where the proposed legislation was overturned at a higher level 'at the eleventh hour'...

These kind of draconian laws are only the thin edge of the wedge --  starting with one minority group, and then systematically outlawing others along the way, whether that be "communists", Christians/Jews/Muslims (as the case may be..), union leaders, pacifists, feminists, "fascists", humanists, environmental groups;  even the poor and disabled..

Just like when the Nazis began their holocaust efforts in the 1930s with the Jews, and then moved on through the communists, Catholics, unionists, Poles, socialists, and onwards.

+1

Jesus Christ! How fucking diabolical. These people are just ignorant pieces of shit. Yeah really.

eddie wrote:Jesus Christ! How fucking diabolical. These people are just ignorant pieces of shit. Yeah really.

I remember when the American left-wing (and gay) pundit Rachel Maddow first brought this to my attention five years ago, and she was so happy when it was overturned.

Remember that documentary we were going to check out on Netflix, called "The Family" or somesuch? Maddow did some investigating that revealed a link between those influential right-wing American politicians and the kill-the-gays bill:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34783946/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/uganda-be-kidding-me/

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Jesus Christ! How fucking diabolical. These people are just ignorant pieces of shit. Yeah really.

I remember when the American left-wing (and gay) pundit Rachel Maddow first brought this to my attention five years ago, and she was so happy when it was overturned.

Remember that documentary we were going to check out on Netflix, called "The Family" or somesuch? Maddow did some investigating that revealed a link between those influential right-wing American politicians and the kill-the-gays bill:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34783946/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/uganda-be-kidding-me/

Sounds like a slippery slope.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Jesus Christ! How fucking diabolical. These people are just ignorant pieces of shit. Yeah really.

I remember when the American left-wing (and gay) pundit Rachel Maddow first brought this to my attention five years ago, and she was so happy when it was overturned.

Remember that documentary we were going to check out on Netflix, called "The Family" or somesuch? Maddow did some investigating that revealed a link between those influential right-wing American politicians and the kill-the-gays bill:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34783946/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/uganda-be-kidding-me/

Sounds like a slippery slope.

Sounds like you need to look up that term. But here, I'll help you out.

In order for an argument to be of the slippery slope variety, you have to be able to say, "If we do this, pretty soon we'll decide it's okay to do that."

This doesn't fit.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sounds like a slippery slope.

Sounds like you need to look up that term. But here, I'll help you out.

In order for an argument to be of the slippery slope variety, you have to be able to say, "If we do this, pretty soon we'll decide it's okay to do that."

This doesn't fit.

"We didn’t want to go too public at first."

Sounds like they wanted to take incremental steps to get where they wanted to be.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sounds like a slippery slope.

Sounds like you need to look up that term. But here, I'll help you out.

In order for an argument to be of the slippery slope variety, you have to be able to say, "If we do this, pretty soon we'll decide it's okay to do that."

This doesn't fit.

"We didn’t want to go too public at first."

Sounds like they wanted to take incremental steps to get where they wanted to be.

That's not really a slippery slope either, though. That's more like the boiling lobster - similar, but with an agenda.

The slippery slope fallacy is the worry that a proposed course of action will start a chain of events that will lead to societal decay.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

"We didn’t want to go too public at first."

Sounds like they wanted to take incremental steps to get where they wanted to be.

That's not really a slippery slope either, though. That's more like the boiling lobster - similar, but with an agenda.

The slippery slope fallacy is the worry that a proposed course of action will start a chain of events that will lead to societal decay.

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Just like I said.

Ben Reilly wrote:Just like I said.

Sorta.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Just like I said.

Sorta.  

Nope.

Incremental change following an agenda is the boiled lobster effect.

Slippery slope is all about unintended consequences.

The planning is what makes them different.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sorta.  

Nope.

Incremental change following an agenda is the boiled lobster effect.

Slippery slope is all about unintended consequences.

The planning is what makes them different.

So, something like the domino effect isn't really a slippery slope, because there is some sort of planning behind it?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sorta.  

Nope.

Incremental change following an agenda is the boiled lobster effect.

Slippery slope is all about unintended consequences.

The planning is what makes them different.

So, something like the domino effect isn't really a slippery slope, because there is some sort of planning behind it?  

It is not, in my opinion. You don't slip on purpose.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So, something like the domino effect isn't really a slippery slope, because there is some sort of planning behind it?  

It is not, in my opinion. You don't slip on purpose.

Fair enough.