How My View on Gay Marriage Changed By DAVID BLANKENHORN

Published: June 22, 2012 IN my 2007 book, “The Future of Marriage,” and in my 2010 courttestimony concerning Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, I took a stand against gay marriage. But as a marriage advocate, the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do. I’d like to explain why. I opposed gay marriage believing that children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn’t just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right. Marriage is how society recognizes and protects this right. Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children. At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift. No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined. I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it. But there are more good things under heaven than these beliefs. For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness. Another good thing is comity. Surely we must live together with some degree of mutual acceptance, even if doing so involves compromise. Sticking to one’s position no matter what can be a virtue. But bending the knee a bit, in the name of comity, is not always the same as weakness. As I look at what our society needs most today, I have no stomach for what we often too glibly call “culture wars.” Especially on this issue, I’m more interested in conciliation than in further fighting. A third good thing is respect for an emerging consensus. The population as a whole remains deeply divided, but most of our national elites, as well as most younger Americans, favor gay marriage. This emerging consensus may be wrong on the merits. But surely it matters. I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing. I had also hoped that debating gay marriage might help to lead heterosexual America to a broader and more positive recommitment to marriage as an institution. But it hasn’t happened. With each passing year, we see higher and higher levels of unwed childbearing, nonmarital cohabitation and family fragmentation among heterosexuals. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the reconceptualization of marriage as a private ordering that is so central to the idea of gay marriage. But either way, if fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage over all, I think we’d have seen some signs of it by now. So my intention is to try something new. Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same. For example, once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that marrying before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace? Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation? Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents? Will this strategy work? I don’t know. But I hope to find out. David Blankenhorn is the founder of the Institute for American Values.

New LGBTI clinic faces fierce government criticism

KAMPALA, 11 July 2012 (PlusNews) - Gay rights activists have opened Uganda's first clinic for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people in the capital, Kampala, where it will provide testing, counselling and treatment for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. "We need our own clinic because we have had health service providers, and in some cases other clients at the health centre, attack us either because they suspect us to be gay or know that we are gay," said Pepe Julian Onziema, programme director and acting advocacy officer at Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), a local rights group. "The main idea of the clinic is to provide voluntary counselling and testing, HIV/AIDS treatment and care, and promote general wellness." "We don't feel safe. Some practitioners gossip about you when you are right there, increasing stigma. When I was about 16, I went to test for HIV and I was asked to bring my partner so we could be tested and counselled together. I brought someone of my sex and we were sent out and not catered for," Onziema said. "At this clinic, we want to protect our community from such humiliation, and stress and promote health and wellness." A recent AIDS Indicator Survey puts Uganda's HIV prevalence at 7.3 percent, but according to the Crane Survey, a 2008/09 study of high-risk groups in Uganda, HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) was 13.7 percent. Despite the high level of HIV among MSM, the government has not included the group in its national strategy to fight HIV because homosexual activity is illegal in Uganda. A bill before parliament seeks even more stringent punishments for people engaging in homosexual acts and those perceived to be "promoting" homosexuality. The clinic was opened on 19 May 2012 by Bishop Christopher Senyonjo - one of the country's few religious leaders willing to speak for gay rights - and is managed by a local gay rights lobby group, Ice Breakers Uganda (IBU). "The clinic is being run by professional health workers. It will offer better avenues in health seeking behaviours among the LGBTI community," said Denis Wamala, an IBU official. "The clinic will offer free care, support and treatment services to LGBTI in Uganda... here they can easily open up because they are free." Government criticism Richard Nduhura, Uganda's Minister for Health (General Duties), told IRIN/PlusNews the clinic was unnecessary because despite the government's anti-gay stance, "We don't discriminate and marginalize when it comes to offering health services. When people come for treatment at our health facilities, we can't ask for their sexual orientation." The Director General of the Uganda AIDS Commission (UAC), Dr David Apuuli Kihumuro, agreed. "It's nonsense for them [LGBTI] to say that they are always discriminated against in the provision of health services. I have been a doctor for over 40 years... I have never heard where a patient has been asked about his or her sexual orientation," he said. A surgeon at Mulago National Referral Hospital in Kampala, Dr Robert Mawanda, told IRIN/PlusNews: "We swear an oath. It instructs us to treat [patients] without harm and injustice, so we can't discriminate against anybody, based on sexual orientation. We treat all people without asking their orientation." Despite Uganda's commitment to improved HIV prevention, few programmes reached most at-risk populations such as MSM and sex workers, and condoms were not sufficiently targeted to these groups, a Modes of Transmission analysis found in 2009. The Minister for Ethics and Integrity, Samuel Lokodo, has said he intends investigating the clinic for promoting homosexuality. "If we find out that it's [the clinic] related to promoting the culture which doesn't conform to our morals as a country, we shall instantly ban and close it," he told IRIN/PlusNews. We have had health workers, and in some cases other clients at the health centre, attack us because they suspect us to be gay or know that we are gay "These people [LGBTI] are doing their operations under cover - it's not easy to track them. However, we shall not allow any social gathering, association, infrastructure or any activities that exist to promote homosexuality," he said. "If the clinic was for offering social services to the people, that would be good. However, this clinic is meant for giving assurances those who are involved in it [homosexuality]. It's supposed to treat the ruptured backs [anus]. We can't allow this." The fear of attacks by the government and members of the public means the location of the clinic has not been made public, but LGBTI networks are being used to alert the community to its existence. "Our community members know about the clinic and they access it. The media have written about it too... Of course we are afraid. We live in fear daily about the public because it acts ignorantly," said SMUG's Onziema. "The Ugandan Constitution guarantees the right to health, and the right to life, among others. Although the government, through the UAC acknowledged that there is a need to address HIV/AIDS among MSM, it has ignored our plight in addressing the issue, and left us no choice but to fend for ourselves."

Govt is using gay issue to fight NGOs – Ssewanyana

WRITTEN BY PATIENCE AKUMU Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) is one of the NGOs that now face a threat of closure after Ethics and Integrity Minister Rev Simon Lokodo accused them of promoting homosexuality. PATIENCE AKUMU spoke to FHRI executive director, LIVINGSTONE SSEWANYANA, on why NGOs cannot stay away from gay rights. Ssewanyana maps the way forward for ‘blacklisted’ NGOs and explains why he believes this is more than a fight against homosexuality. Are FHRI and other NGOs that Minister Lokodo named promoting homosexuality? We are involved in minority rights issues. We are saying that all minorities, including homosexuals, deserve respect. Uganda has an obligation to preserve the rights of every citizen. The Constitution prohibits discrimination on all grounds — as does the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICPR). Uganda signed the ICPR without any reservations. This means that it must respect all its provisions. Perhaps government is furious because you are recruiting people into homosexuality. We are not recruiting. We do not actively encourage people to become homosexuals. But how can you promote a right to what is already illegal under the Penal Code Act? The Penal code needs a lot of reform. It is our duty [as civil society] to campaign for reform. We are involved in other reforms, like the campaign to restore [presidential] term limits. The law generally needs to be reformed to promote non-discrimination. The Constitution prohibits same-sex relationships, yet at the same time says that there shall not be discrimination based on colour, race, sex, religion or other factors. Such contradiction requires reform. The Constitution contains other contradictions. For example, it provides for the death penalty under Article 22, and then prohibits torture and inhuman degrading treatment under Article 44. We work to reform several areas of the law. But for now, the law upholds the death penalty and prohibits homosexuality. Shouldn’t you respect that? We acknowledge that that is the law, but we are also saying that this law is in conflict with the Constitution. We are saying minorities deserve respect and must be defended. This is different from encouraging people from getting involved in same-sex relationships. Our duty is to defend all rights. If NGOs are so confident that homosexuals have rights, why haven’t they approached the Constitutional Court to iron out the contradictions and declare criminalising homosexuality unconstitutional? We cannot do everything at the same time. Currently, we are challenging the death penalty, the offence of terrorism and pushing for electoral reforms. We have to take one step at a time. Or perhaps you too realise that Uganda is not ready to embrace homosexuals. Is that why there is so much activism, but no NGO has taken this big step? Right now, most NGOs are focusing on the Anti-Homosexuality bill and seeing that it is not passed. If it is passed, then definitely the only solution will be to go to the Constitutional Court. We cannot challenge a law unless it is passed. Why don’t you, in the meantime, challenge S.145 of the Penal Code for criminalising homosexuality? The Penal Code is currently before the Law Reform Commission. They are studying it to see which aspect needs to be reviewed. We think the Penal Code is not a good area for petition right now. One would think the two High Court decisions upholding the rights of homosexual people would give NGOs more confidence. Are you afraid of Minister Lokodo? The courts, like us, have looked at it through the perspective of the right not to be discriminated against — not through the homosexuality perspective. The issue of homosexuality was not directly brought before court. NGOs should go ahead and defend rights in spite of political threats. We are ready to challenge [threats] before Parliament, before the citizens and, if need be, before the Constitutional Court. The Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, has stated that homosexuals will never be accepted in Uganda. With the Anti-Homosexuality bill set to be debated in the House she heads, are you really not fighting a losing battle? Kadaga, like any other person, is entitled to her views. The Anti-Homosexuality bill needs to come before the House and be debated, and all views and opinions heard. The difficult part would be for her to decide whether she wants to promote discrimination. She has to uphold the Constitution and the ICCPR. These have non-discrimination clauses. It will do well to remember that Uganda signed the ICCPR without reservations. Is there a legitimate reason for government to deregister NGOs? Surely, these arguments must hold some water. I do not think there is a legitimate reason for government to deregister NGOs. The larger issue is whether Ugandans are entitled to freedom of expression, association and assembly. It’s about whether whoever wants to participate in governance issues must be registered. This issue of registration is contested. This is a broader democratic governance issue. Are you saying this is a general attack on NGOs? Of course, of course! I do not think it is fair for government to say that because NGOs are involved in advocating for minority rights, they should be closed. NGOs must not be partisan, but they must, by all means, be political — there is nothing in this country that is non-political. If you want better food, better water, if you are fighting disease; all this is political. Besides, NGOs comprise individual citizens of Uganda. They have a right to monitor how their country is governed. What place does the people’s culture and religion have in the fight for the rights of minorities? Culture, religion, morality, values; this is the turning point of the current debate on human rights [not just homosexuals’ rights]. Societies have different value systems and religion has an important role to play. Christianity, for example, does not promote persecution. I don’t know of any religion that does. African culture promotes tolerance and is welcoming. It is a question of individual attitudes. People have argued that the African child cannot learn unless she or he is caned. Is this true? The Bible says, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, but the government has outlawed corporal punishment in schools. Culture and religion preach that a woman has no value, but is this true? We have to interpret culture and religion positively. Besides, the Constitution provides that any culture or religion that contradicts it is void. At the 1993 Vienna conference on human rights, states embraced the universality of rights. Anyone interpreting rights in the cultural relativist view with the intention of undermining them will not carry the day. Would you still defend the rights of gay people if your own child was gay? You know, we faced the same question when campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty. Would I feel differently if it was my own relative murdered? In this struggle for human rights, we should be guided by reason rather than emotion. If the question of emotion is not left out of the debate, then the entire human rights question will be defeated. Again, we are not campaigning for homosexuality, but for minority rights. We are not advocating for people to get killed, or for women to become belligerent when we defend their rights; we are only defending human dignity and human rights because the Constitution says so. Won’t NGOs cower under so much pressure? NGOs should do the right thing. If they are fighting for rights, then they must defend rights. We must educate people on the issue [homosexuality]. We should realise that some people are short, others tall, and others fat . . . Any government worth its value will respect the rights of all citizens. The Ugandan government should get its priorities right. Ugandans want better service delivery, better quality life; we need a better economy. Pitted against these, homosexuality is a non-issue. But government is assessing non-issues and using them to deny people their rights. We should now focus on term limits, because their absence is causing political instability. pakumu@observer.ug

LGBTI Rights in Uganda: A Call for Global Solidarity

It is no secret that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Ugandans are discriminated against, threatened with violence, and intimidated by their own government. Too often, though, it is ignored that this is a human rights issue.
Last week my country's Minister of Ethics and Integrity, Fr. Simon Lokodo, said he we would ban 38 organizations because they "promoted homosexuality" and "undermined Ugandan culture." To ban these NGOs would be to deny Ugandans the right to association, which sadly, we've been denied for years. For years, LGBTI and other civil society groups have faced challenges in registering as official organizations because we work on sexual rights.
Lokodo also ordered a raid on a gay rights workshop in Kampala last week -- the second this year. Police officers clad in riot gear surrounded the location and detained 15 participants for questioning. Ironically, our rights to free speech and association were being trampled on while we were training participants on how to document human rights violations. Lokodo justified his actions by invoking the country's sodomy laws. Not only is this ridiculous, but it does not establish a legal basis to deny our human rights. If organizing against laws that violate Uganda's international human rights obligations is illegal as Fr. Lokodo seems to think, I'd like to ask him to comment on the legality of Dr. King's actions to end segregation in America or Bishop Tutu's efforts to end apartheid in South Africa.
It was reported on Wednesday that notes from one of our meetings have been leaked to the government. The notes include strategies on how to promote our human rights and lobby against the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. It is our right to assemble and our right to freely speak about nonviolent ways to protect ourselves against people in our government, like Lokodo, intent on erasing us from society.
But Lokodo spun our efforts to organize and protect our rights as a strategy to promote homosexuality and recruit children. "This is not going to stop. We will support the [Anti-Homosexuality] bill," he threatened. "There is now sufficient evidence to move against these evil people. We'll punish them with a deterrent punishment." It seems Lokodo will use anything to justify his actions, except Uganda law and international human rights standards.
Responding to Lokodo's actions, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights and SMUG released a statement from four Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The statement calls for the protection of the human rights and recognition of the inherent dignity of LGBTI people around the world. The Nobel Laureates' words are powerful, and the reaction to the statement was inspiring. Within a few days of posting the statement, it was translated into four different languages and reached three continents. If more human rights leaders came forward, perhaps the whole world could hear this message of tolerance and respect.
As these esteemed human rights defenders have supported human rights for LGBTI people in Uganda and worldwide, I hope the support of other leaders will have the same impact. If religious leaders defended our human dignity, how could anyone threaten us with violence? If civic leaders defended our constitutional rights, how could government-sponsored discrimination prevail? If enough citizens spoke up, how long could the government refuse to listen?
Frank Mugisha is the Executive Director of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and the 2011 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award Laureate.

Uganda to de-register “gay” supporting organisations and others

June 19, 2012 By Angelo Izama in The Ugandan Reader
Fr. Simon Lokodo, the boisterous catholic priest who serves as the Minister for Ethics and Integrity yesterday told me, Charles Mwanguhya and Bernard Tabaire that he had finalised arrangements to de-register some 38 NGO’s in Uganda. ” They will be de-registered for supporting homosexuality under the guise of fighting for human rights” he said.
The Minister was a guest of the Hot Seat on 933 KFM in what was a rather disturbing show yesterday. He had come to explain why his ministry was focussing on breaking up “gay promotion” meetings. Amongst other things he when I asked him why he was not as outspoken about the perils of child trafficking, child sex abuse or even the plight of men in Uganda’s prison system where non-consensual sex and congestion is pushing up HIV numbers he retorted that he embraced prostitution because it was a lesser evil. I also asked him what he thought of the idea of a military police mooted by the head of the Uganda Police Force since it would mean the force would be soldiers in uniform? His response off air was that the government was being provoked.
There is something of moral flux in Uganda these days. Political leaders have drawn the battle lines over the “involvement” of the Church in politics even as religious leaders seek to impose not just political solutions ( they want a restoration of constitutional term limits etc) but recently suggested lawmakers revisit Uganda’s controversial “anti-gay” legislation. This even as news reports are filled daily with what are likely systemic cases of violence, criminal behavior that those with an eye for these things including Fr. Lokodo may to review as a national conversation about common values.
Still the Minister had a unique angle on that too. He said mushrooming evangelical churches would also be “de-registered”. Unlike traditional churches he said they only entertained. False prophesy maybe.
Ugandan NGO’s are facing a tough stretch. The Internal Affairs Minister who Lokodo said had worked with him on the list of NGO’s whose operating license would be withdrawn has been battling with UK’s Oxfam and the Uganda Land Alliance following the publication by the two of a report on alleged land grabbing. The full list of 38 NGO’s likely includes two organisations I know well, the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment and the Uganda Human Rights Network [HURINET]. Lokodo confirmed HURINET was on the list. ”Oxfam will survive for now” he said but added that Uganda Land Alliance was on its way out.
News reports will likely carry these stories in the next couple of days but it appears that the ante is up on NGO’s. I did several interviews over the last weeks about the situation. What appears clear is that the community of NGO’s has no common response. Perhaps until the rhetoric turns into action and licenses are torn up like yesterday’s newspapers.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon says gay activists are his 'inspiration'

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hails 'brave' gay activists, says anti-gay abuse is a human rights violation and insists countries have a legal and moral duty to deal with it, whatever their culture
29 June 2012 | By Demitri Levantis
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has described LGBT activists as ‘brave’, ‘committed’ and an ‘inspiration’ to him.
The comments from the UN leader were read out by assistant secretary general for human rights, Ivan Šimonović, at a screening of gay documentary Call Me Kuchu at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival in New York last night (28 June).
The film covers the struggles faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement in Uganda. It also focuses on the murder of veteran campaigner David Kato.
In the speech Ban Ki-moon said the film showed how gay activists were harassed, threatened and attacked.
'They are treated with a callous cruelty that no human being should have to endure. Yet despite all this, they conduct themselves with calmness, optimism and dignity. It is truly remarkable,' he said.
He stated that violence and discrimination against gay and trans people violates human rights and that countries have a moral and legal duty to do something about it.
Ki-moon continued: 'At the end of last year, the High Commissioner for Human Rights published the first official United Nations report on the problem. In all regions of the world, LGBT people suffer discrimination — at work, at home, at school, in all aspects of daily life. Too often they have trouble in finding housing or obtaining basic healthcare and pension benefits. Too often they are subjected to verbal abuse or singled out for attack, torture and even murder. In 76 countries, having a partner of the same sex is a prosecutable crime. People are arrested, imprisoned, in some cases executed, just because they are in a loving relationship.
'This is an affront to the principles on which the United Nations was founded: equality, freedom, tolerance and the inherent dignity of each individual.'
French activists, including the International Day Against Homophobia founder Louis-Georges Tin, are currently on hunger strike, demading their president, François Holland sponsors a resolution in the UN calling for the decriminalization of gay sex around the world.
However, some countries have hit back at attempts to improve the human rights situation for LGBT people, saying homosexuality goes against their cultural traditions.
But for them, Ki-moon had a clear message: 'No custom or tradition, no cultural values or religious beliefs, can justify depriving a human being of his or her human rights.
'That is why, as UN secretary general, I take every opportunity to push leaders to listen and to act. But I am conscious that the hardest work is done by local activists like those you will see in this film.
'To them I want to say: You are an inspiration to me and to millions of people around the world. I am proud to join in this great human rights cause. However hard and however long it may take, I know that justice will prevail and that all people can enjoy the rights and dignity they deserve.'
Tears of sympathy were shed and a long ovation followed the screening. Directors of Call Me Kuchu, Malika Zouhall-Worrall and Katherine Fairfax Wright attended the festival.
Call Me Kuchu won the Teddy Award for Best Documentary at the Berlin International Film Festival this year.

Uganda: Space for Civil Society Shrinking in Uganda Say National and Global CSOS

Johannesburg, 25 June 2012 — Civil society space in Uganda is rapidly shrinking, warn global network CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation and Uganda-based East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (EHAHRDP). Independent civil society organisations are being openly threatened and placed under excessive scrutiny by senior government officials.

For example, on 18 June, a skills-building workshop for LGBTI human rights defenders organised by EHAHRDP was closed abruptly after police raided the training venue. Workshop participants, and guests and staff in the hotel where the meeting was taking place were effectively held hostage for over three hours while police attempted to identify and detain participants. Two EHAHRDP staff members and two workshop participants were also detained on a police bus. The police advised EHAHRDP to end the training and to deliver a copy of their registration and incorporation documents to the Criminal Investigations Department.

EHAHRDP was further advised to seek approval from police institutions when such gatherings are scheduled in future in order to avoid more disruption. Local journalists arrived before the police and said that they had received a tip-off of the action from the Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity, Hon. Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo.

Coming just four months after the Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity shut down another capacity building workshop organised by LGBTI activists in February and sought to inspect training materials being used, the interruption of EHAHRDP's workshop highlights a trend of violations of freedom of association and assembly in Uganda. Four of the activists involved in the February events - Jacqueline Kasha Nabagesera, Frank Mugisha, Pepe Julian Onziema and Geoffrey Ogwaro - have filed a suit against the minister and the Attorney General on the grounds that the closure violated their freedom of assembly, as guaranteed under the Ugandan constitution. The case is scheduled to be heard at the High Court on 25 June.

On 1 June, Uganda's Minister for Internal Affairs called for increased regulation and supervision of NGOs in response to a civil society report detailing cases of land grabbing in Uganda. He accused the authors of the report - Uganda Land Alliance and Oxfam - of "peddling lies" and urged NGOs to share their reports with the government before releasing them to the public.

In March, the Governor of the Bank of Uganda wrote to all commercial banks to provide information about the financial transactions of an environmental group, the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment, which hosted a gathering of over 300 local councillors to discuss governance issues under their National Local Government Councillors Association.

Civil society members are increasingly being accused of being agents of the political opposition or foreign powers out to "destabilise" the government. President Museveni posed a rhetorical question in parliament in February while speaking on Uganda's energy policy: "Who is civil society? These are some individuals in the employ of foreign NGOs." This is rhetoric often employed by governments seeking to restrict their domestic civil society.

"The situation in Uganda is rapidly deteriorating as civil society members are being intimidated in an attempt to stop them airing their views," says Hassan Shire, Executive Director of EHAHRDP. "Respect for freedom of expression, association and assembly are all essential foundations of a democratic and rights-respecting society."

The Ugandan Parliament is currently considering the Public Order Management Bill 2011, which would place a number of restrictions on the freedom of assembly, including the requirement to inform the police seven days in advance of holding public meetings; prohibitions on the use of public address systems without prior police permission; and the prevention of demonstrations near important official buildings. The bill also gives the police broad powers to control public assemblies, empowering them to 'direct' the conduct of public meetings and interfere with demonstrations on vaguely defined grounds. Further, violations of the proposed law carry a disproportionately high penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Current laws governing NGOs in Uganda create a highly restrictive regime, allowing unwarranted interference into NGO activities. NGOs are subjected to excessive bureaucratic control through mandatory registration, which is subject to broad executive discretion.

Additionally, government officials are granted wide-ranging powers to limit the scope of NGO activities. For example, NGOs are required to give seven days' advance notice in writing to local authorities if they intend to make direct contact with people in their area of operation.

"The Ugandan government is showing scant regard for its international obligations," says Netsanet Belay, Policy and Research Director at CIVICUS. "Democratic governments and multilateral institutions, including the UN and the African Union, have a responsibility to highlight this reality to the Ugandan authorities."

CIVICUS and EHAHRDP urge the Ugandan government to cease immediately its campaign of intimidation against civil society and respect the right of civil society actors to freely express, associate and assemble, in line with the country's obligations under the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Uganda is a party. They further call on international institutions that engage with the Ugandan government to encourage the government to respect its international commitments fully.