On 14 October 2009, with alleged financial and legal support from The Family, a powerful Christian evangelical political organisation in the US, Bahati submitted a private members’ bill called the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (“Kill the Gays bill”) in the Ugandan Parliament. The Bill, if passed, would see repeat homosexual offenders put to death; people executed for having sex with people of their own gender.

Under the Bill you would also face prison for simply failing to report knowledge of a person who is gay.

Put simply, Bahati’s Bill will enshrine and mandate state homophobia.

Bahati has justified the Bill by with outlandish claims that millions of dollars are being used in Uganda to recruit children into somehow being gay. He insists that people are coming from abroad to invest in Uganda to recruit children into homosexuality.

The truth is that Bahati and his fellow supporters of the Kill the Gays Bill are redirecting onto LGBT people the anger and frustration of Uganda’s economic and social problems, and successfully whipping up violent homophobic hysteria.

This hysteria led quickly to terrible and murderous consequences.

In April 2009, a Ugandan newspaper printed the names of suspected homosexuals, and another printed tips on how to identify gays. In late 2010, another published a story featuring a list of the nation’s 100 “top” gays and lesbians with their photos and addresses. Next to the list was a yellow strip with the words “hang them”. One of the photos was that of leading Ugandan LGBT activist David Kato.

Two months later at the beginning of 2011, and qualifying Bahati for Dick of the Year, David Kato was found beaten to death, battered about the head with a hammer. As if not shocking enough, such is the institutionalised homophobia resulting from Bahati’s actions that the Ugandan police refused to acknowledge the hate crime and handled the case as a simple robbery.

As for the Kill the Gays Bill now, the Ugandan parliament adjourned in May 2011 without voting on the bill. Bahati stated that he intended to re-introduce the bill in the new parliament. Far from throwing out the bill as any decent parliament should, Bahati made sure that in October 2011 the Kill the Gays Bill debate was re-opened.

So, in memory of the courageous campaigner David Kato and the countless other LGBT people persecuted or murdered, David Bahati MP is my Dick of the Year.’

In recent years state authorities in Russia have repeatedly tried to prevent LGBT people from campaigning publicly for their rights. This has been most evident in relation to demonstrations. Since 2005 almost every attempt to hold a Pride March, or similar, has been banned. Three such cases were the subject of a 2010 judgment by the European Court of Human Rights which severely criticised the Russian authorities. Despite that, the bans continue.

Now a bill has been introduced into the legislature of one of the Russian regions, St Petersburg, that would prohibit “public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality, and transgenderness among minors”. If enacted, it will almost certainly intensify suppression of freedom of expression, moving from the current situation where individual events are banned on a case-by-case basis, to a blanket ban on events, media coverage and the dissemination of information generally. It is part of a trend: similar laws have already been introduced in two other Russian regions. And there is talk among politicians of this being repeated in the Moscow region, and perhaps even at federal level. Even if this does not happen, the developments in St Petersburg are particularly serious for the LGBT movement in Russia – the main umbrella organisation for the LGBT movement, and some of its most active member organisations, are located there.

It is noteworthy that the Bill was introduced into the St Petersburg legislature by Putin’s party, United Russia. It is widely reckoned that the timing of this initiative was  determined by the general election on December 4, and that it is a cynical attempt to curry favour among homophobic and transphobic voters. This is borne out by the speed with which it is being processed – it was first tabled in committee on 11 November and received its first reading only three working days later, on 16 November.

There are concerns that the St Petersburg bill could have wider consequences in the region. Politicians and religious leaders in much of Eastern Europe regularly call for “propaganda for homosexuality” to be banned. Bills to this effect have been introduced in the Lithuanian and Ukraine parliaments, and we could see more if St Petersburg goes through.

What are the chances of preventing the legislation being adopted? Not great. There is significant international pressure. But the Russian authorities seem to take a particular pleasure in flouting international human rights standards and ignoring pressure from democratic states. US diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks advise that Russia has become a virtual “mafia state”. It seems unlikely the present government will take much notice of anybody unless oil prices fall dramatically or the Russian people wake up.

Nigel Warner is a long term activist for LGBT rights, working particularly in the international field.

The vast majority of the defendants will be on legal aid, given that the Legal Services Commission has been underfunded for the last decade this massive influx of cases will put even more pressure on a system already on the brink of collapse. With such large numbers of defendants, the duty solicitor system has been overrun. Many defendants have received only a phonecall from a duty solicitor. Lawyers have expressed concern over the waiting time to see a duty solicitor potentially leading to detainees opting not to be represented in order to go home sooner.

Another area of concern is around the pressure on the CPS to deal with these defendants as quickly as possible leading to rushed decisions to charge, rather than bail pending investigation. This leads on to questions around evidence gathering and disclosure. Given that these cases are being dealt with so quickly, and the thousands of hours of CCTV footage, hundreds of witness reports and other evidence sources the police need to go through the reliability of the evidence has come into question. Much of the evidence will have come from police who were on the scene, however given the situation the police will not have been able to make proper detailed notes of the incidents until much later. As has been seen in the past with the Ian Tomlinson case, this can lead to discrepancies in police accounts. With courts operating around the clock to process defendants and the pressure on the CPS to charge as quickly as possible, the ability of solicitors to properly advise defendants could be hampered. Due to the speed at which cases are being sent to court, evidential disclosure from the CPS prior to court appearance may not have been sufficient in some cases to allow defence solicitors to properly advise their clients.

The disregarding of sentencing guidelines by magistrates raises concern that solicitors will bring cases to appeal, further prolonging these cases and potentially leading to cases being overturned or sentences reduced. This also raises questions of human rights. Courts are charged with delivering justice, proportionate sentences for crimes. If they are allowed to throw this out of the window based on public perception of a crime this is dangerously close to “mob justice”. That councils are evicting entire families because of the acts of a single member amounts to collective punishment, historically the preserve of an occupying army. During armed conflict, collective punishment is considered a war crime and is a direct breech of the Fourth Geneva Convention governing the protection of civilians in times of war.

“No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

- Article 33, Fourth Geneva Convention.

Whilst we aren’t living in a military occupation in the UK one would hope that the same applies to citizens in times of peace. Precedent argues that it could also amount to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

- Article 8, ECHR

I have never really bought the “we’re living in a police-state” line touted by many radical leftists but with international conventions and domestic law so readily thrown aside to placate Daily Mail readers and new and potentially more dangerous powers for police on the horizon, I find myself wondering what lies ahead for the UK.

If the ongoing fight for LGBT rights has taught us anything it is that no matter what the opinion of society at large is about certain sexual practices they should still be legal between consenting adults. To say that an activity is not something you would wish to partake in yourself should be illegal when it does not affect anyone beyond those taking part is simply bigotry.

As far as I can tell there are two arguments those who support the current incest laws use to back up their position. The first is that it makes it easier to convict people in the case of non-consensual abuse. This argument clearly makes no sense. Non-consensual sexual abuse is already illegal. If there are problems obtaining convictions then there is a serious problem, but it will not be remedied by making something else unrelated illegal. It would be like making jay-walking illegal in order to make murder prosecutions easier.

But it becomes worse than illogical when someone who has not committed an abuse is prosecuted and ends up in prison – it becomes unjust. Failure and laziness on the part of prosecutors and legislators to properly address a problem has lead essentially innocent people being jailed.

The second argument against incest is that any resulting offspring from such a union would have a higher chance of having a disability. This line of argument has a name: eugenics.

The idea that a particular person or couple should be banned from breading on the basis of the lightly genetic health of their offspring has been around for a long time. It is, however, widely recognized as an abhorrent restriction of a person’s freedom and human rights. If we invoke this as an argument for the continued ban of incest then surely we must extend it to other individuals and couples who have similar or higher chances of producing disabled children. I for one find that suggestion horrific.

Our prisons are full. We are spending an inordinate amount of money on them while simultaneously cutting vital public services. Why are we still locking people up for who they want to have sex with?

I particularly enjoy the parade because many years ago, back when I was still developing a political consciousness, I happened across the parade in Belfast one year. I probably would have just walked by and not thought too much of it, but there was a gigantic truck billboard at the head of the route with biblical quotes and a very unsubtle depiction of a ‘traditional’ family unit with a big green tick, and a picture of two (very well dressed) men about to kiss adorned with a large red X. Fundamentalist Christians gathered holding biblical quotes on placards, condemning the parade as a promiscuous, obscene celebration of sodomy.

Appalled, I joined the parade and have marched almost every year since. Their bigotry led me, a heterosexual, to become militantly pro-LGBT.

That year, 2005, the parade had 3,000 attendees. Belfast Pride 2011 had a turnout of 30,000 marchers and onlookers along the parade route.

You might interpret that as a sign that things are moving on – that we are becoming more accepting as a society. And on the face of it, there’s probably some small truth in that. But there’s also truth in the fact that Northern Ireland is still the worst region in the UK by some distance to be gay.

The Pride parade is still picketed by Christian groups ever year. My place of work, Queen’s Students’ Union, received complaints about the flying of the rainbow flag from the building, and a hysterical opinion piece about the Union’s ‘Anti-Christian bias’ in the student newspaper (included for balance / humour, you decide). The biggest party in the country, the DUP, has never taken part in a public debate about LGBT issues, and indeed actively avoids them, feebly claiming that among 8 MPs, 4 peers, 38 MLAs, 175 local councillors and countless staff, a representative could not be found to attend a debate – in the middle of a parliamentary recess. Homophobic hate crime is vastly underreported. And, worst of all, Seventy percent of teenage suicides here are by LGBT people. Are these all linked? Absolutely.

Why? People often conclude (probably with some degree of accuracy) that sectarian hate easily lends itself to other kinds of hate – homophobia, racism, islamophobia. And we’ve got that in buckets, definitely. It seems logical that if you’re going to be narrow-minded enough to hate someone for their religious and cultural upbringing, then you’re probably going to create similar predispositions towards those of a differing sexuality.

The deadly interlinking of right-wing politics and fundamentalist Christianity doesn’t help much either. The former DUP leader, Ian Paisley, famously campaigned in the 1980s under the banner ‘Save Ulster From Sodomy’ – the DUP’s attitude hasn’t changed much since then. Indeed they seem pathologically obsessed with homosexuality. MLA Paul Berry was forced out of the DUP when it emerged he visited a gay masseur. Iris Robinson’s comments a few years back about ‘curing’ gay people and homosexuality being akin to child abuse caused a national stir. Jim Wells, tipped to take over as Health Minister in two years, believes that those who participate in gay pride are ‘repugnant.’ And that’s just the highlights. There are many who believe that two loudly anti-LGBT MLAs may be hiding behind super injunctions about their sexuality – but for now, that’s largely baseless.

The foul tongue of ‘deviants,’ ‘perverts,’ ‘sodomites,’ – things I still hear people say regularly. Some try to equate homosexuality with paedophilia, tying in their sectarian hate of the Catholic church. Protesters attempt to use the Parades Commission, the public body set up to regulate Orange marches, republican parades, etc, to limit the actions of a celebration of the right to love whoever you want. Ultra-right-wing zealots self-appoint themselves as representatives of the opinions of all Christians in the province, despite the presence of progressive Christian groups – including those many Christians who marched at the Pride parade last week.

Just refresh in your mind yet again that this isn’t an issue just for gay people. This is an issue for everyone – it’s about the fact that homophobic abuse is still acceptable, that LGBT people suffer due to societal pressures, that the biggest political party in the country holds the gay community in literal contempt. The press didn’t even ask Peter Robinson for his view on Wells’ comments. Why? We accept it – almost expect it – off the DUP. We’re not shocked by it anymore. Because even if the vast majority disagree, many of us view attitudes like this to be harmless – the same way tabloid journalism is sometimes viewed. But in reality, there is much harm in these attitudes.

This isn’t a sterile political position that people just have differing opinions on. These are people’s lives. Don’t let anyone tell you this is about anything less than fighting for the fundamental basic freedom of being able to live a life without being hated for who you are attracted to. Not enough straight people here loudly champion our gay community. We must oppose this kind of bigotry at every turn – we must all become militantly and loudly pro-LGBT, rather than passively pro-LGBT.

And if you’re from other parts of the UK – well, I hope you take heart from the fact you’re a little ahead of us.

Read Amnesty’s statement here.

Bailed-out Royal Bank of Scotland have, along with financiers Merrill Lynch, led a deal worth nearly a billion pounds for controversial company Tullow Oil. The finance is closely linked to a project which is said to risk exacerbating violence on the border between The Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda.

Edinburgh students getting RBS campaign postcards signed on the Royal Mile last weekend

According to news agency Reuters, Tullow Chief Executive Aidan Heavey said the cash raised by RBS and Meryll Lynch would allow Tullow to bring their Ugandan fields to production.These oil fields on the country’s border with the Democratic Republic of Congo are a cause of substantial controversy because of their role in ongoing violence in the region, alleged suppression of those attempting to monitor the situation, and allegations that the Ugandan people will not see sufficient proceeds from the deal.

This is not the first time since the 2008 bail-out that RBS have assisted Tullow in finding credit during their involvement in Uganda. In March 2009, the bank provided roughly $100 million for the company. A few months later, Irish newspaper The Independent reported that: “a near riot broke out on June 17 after journalists and Civil Society Organisations were barred from entering the Tullow Oil drilling area.” They go on to say:

“Heavey (Tullow’s Chief Executive), for example, dismissed claims of a “political risk” looming over the oil sector in Uganda. But just a week before, on Friday June 12, the Wall Street Journal had run a headline: “Uganda-DRC: Tensions mount over Lake Albert resources, oil and gold deposits in a border town breed confusion”.

The story claimed tensions were mounting between Uganda and DRC because the DRC government had put up a checkpoint at Goli, a major commercial town in its territory of Mahagi, Ituri.

The story quoted Betty Adima, the Resident District Commissioner (RDC) of Nebbi district in Uganda (which is adjacent to Congo’s Ituri region) fuming: “I believe this is just aggression. It is provocation. That is the simplest way I can put it.”

The story re-awakened similar tension in August 2007 when a British engineer exploring for Heritage Oil on the Ugandan side of Lake Albert was killed in armed clashes between Uganda and DRC armies. The two countries almost went to war.”

Oil companies in the region seem to have done more than providing an incentive for violence. According to Uganda’s paper The Daily Monitor

“The United Nations Mission in Congo (Monuc) reported later that year (2007) that Tullow’s partner in the license, Heritage Oil, owned by former mercenary fighter Tony Buckingham, had donated speed boats to the FARDC (Congolese national army) in March and had also been responsible for the delivery of 30 Land Rover jeeps to Bunia, which were then distributed to local commanders across the region.”

The border area between Uganda and The Democratic Republic of Congo has long been struck by a war partly fueled by resources including oil. This war is estimated to have killed millions of people.

The deal has also led to considerable controversy in Uganda. Oil industry expert Mika Minio-Paluello from PLATFORM leaked http://blog.platformlondon.org/content/platform-leaks-ugandas-oil-contracts-not-such-rosy-deal-after-all the contents of the secret deal that had been done with the Ugandan government late last year. He argues that:

“While the contracts will deliver vast profits to Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil, the contracts will prevent the Ugandan people from receiving their due benefits. The terms of the contracts and the lack of openness are placing Uganda on a track set for the “resource curse”.

His colleague at PLATFORM, the Uganda based Taimour Lay goes further, arguing in The Guardian last month that:

“The ingredients for the so-called “resource curse” are all in place: contract secrecy, government corruption, commercial disinformation campaigns, with environmental protections ignored, and a simmering border dispute with the Democratic Republic of the Congo frozen rather than resolved.”

Ian Leggett, People & Planet director, said:

“Using taxpayers money to fund this this company’s involvement in Uganda is highly irresponsible. Resources, including oil, have long been a contributor to the violence in this region. drilling for oil on Lake Albert – right on the border between these countries – was always likely to cause substantial problems. RBS cannot be allowed to continue to misuse public money in this way.”

People & Planet – along with the World Development Movement and PLATFORM- yesterday launched a [second judicial review](/navid9372) over the Treasury’s failure to stop RBS using public money to fund projects which are exacerbating human rights abuses and damaging the environment.