Kuchu Times Media Group with support from Urgent Action Fund-Africa conducted a qualitative research on the policies Uganda has in place regarding Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights and how these policies affect LBQT persons in Uganda. As the world gears towards the International Day of Action for Women’s Health on May 28th, it is important […]
May 2024
The Church of Uganda, which is a member of the Anglican Communion, was established in 1887 by missionaries of the Church Missionary Society from England. It became an autonomous province alongside Rwanda and Burundi in 1961, and a province on its own in 1980 with its own governing structure. Its congregants, called Anglicans, make up about 32% of Uganda’s population, second to Catholics, at 39%.
The rift between the Church of Uganda and the Canterbury Cathedral over sexuality isn’t new or unique to Uganda. Since the consecration of a gay bishop in the United States in 2003, there have been disagreements between Canterbury and other churches within the Anglican Communion over doctrine, says Chris Tuhirirwe, a senior lecturer of religious studies at Makerere University.
I could go on and on about the ridiculous nature of the Parliament’s position on these sanctions but the people most at risk, LGBT Ugandans happen to be the proverbial grass on which these giant elephants are fighting. While the Speaker and her cronies blame the somehow all-powerful homosexuals and “bum shafters” for every single problem in their lives (they will soon be blamed for the traffic on Kampala’s roads or the speaker having a bad hair day), LGBT Ugandans are still being harassed, doxxed, murdered, arrested and evicted because of the bad law they orchestrated.
Despite hopes for reform, the recent revisit of the Anti-Homosexuality Act did little to alleviate the plight of journalists and LGBTQ+ activists. The only revisions that were made in this regard were to allow for academic related publication of LGBTQ-themed work, the fundamental clause equating reporting with promotion remained intact. This subtle yet significant omission reaffirms the state’s commitment to censorship when it comes to LGBTQ reporting, perpetuating a culture of silence and invisibility.