A Positive American Influence - Uganda's Draconian Anti-Gay Bill: Inspired by the U.S.
Gaylord Merryweather
stories
Updated: Dec. 9, 2009 6:45 p.m.
The late-November afternoon sun bore down on the park in downtown
Kampala, and all along the benches, Ugandan office workers took their
siestas. There could have been no less likely setting for criminal
conspiracies to topple an East African state. Still, the doctor's voice
dropped a notch when an office worker in a brown suit settled in close
by. The medic shifted a battered fedora over his eyes. "I am the gay
doctor," the physician whispered to me, making sure nobody around heard.
He talked about the gay and lesbian couples who go to his office to
avoid ridicule in public hospitals. "They know they can trust me, and
trust is a big issue," he said. "There is the stigma of being gay, but
also the stigma of being [HIV] positive. They are such hidden
communities. Nobody wants to deal with their problems."
In a matter of weeks, the Ugandan doctor's admission to TIME could land
him in jail and his patients on death row. An anti-homosexuality bill
now before Uganda's Parliament would include some of the harshest
anti-gay regulations in the world. If the bill becomes law, the doctor,
who asked that his name not be published, could be prosecuted for
"aiding and abetting homosexuality." In one version of the bill, his
sexually active HIV-positive patients could be found guilty of
practicing acts of "aggravated homosexuality," a capital crime,
according to the bill.
Thanks to a clause in the would-be law that punishes "failure to
disclose the offense," anybody who heard the doctor's conversation could
be locked up for failing to turn him in to the police. Even a reporter
scribbling the doctor's words could be found to have "promoted
homosexuality," an act punishable by five to seven years in prison. And
were any of the Ugandans in the park to sleep with someone of the same
sex in another country, the law would mandate their extradition to
Uganda for prosecution. Only terrorists and traitors are currently
subject to extraterritorial jurisdiction under Ugandan law. Even
murderers don't face that kind of judicial reach.
(Update: Reports out of Kampala late Wednesday indicate that the death
penalty may be dropped from the final version of the bill, which may
come to a vote as early as two weeks from now.)
"You may think that this bill targets only homosexual individuals," said
Sylvia Tamale, dean of law at Uganda's Makerere University, speaking at
a public dialogue on the bill in November. "If passed into law, it will
stifle the space of civil society. The bill also undermines the role of
the media to report freely. We are all potential victims of this bill."
The bill has an American genesis of sorts, inspired to a large extent by
the visits of U.S. evangelicals who are involved with a movement that
promotes Christianity's role in getting homosexuals to become "ex-gays"
through prayer and faith. Ugandan supporters of the bill appear to be
particularly impressed by the ideas of Scott Lively, a California
conservative preacher who has written a book, The Pink Swastika, about
what he calls the links between Nazism and a gay agenda for world
domination, which, by itself, would have raised the anti-colonial
sensitivities of Ugandan society. Says the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, an
Episcopalian priest from Zambia who authored a recent report on anti-gay
politics in Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya: "The U.S. culture wars have been
exported to Africa."
One of the bill's loudest supporters is a charismatic pastor, Martin
Ssempa, who heads a Ugandan campus AIDS eradication organization that is
funded in part by the U.S. and who was associated with the global
outreach of Southern California's Saddleback Church, run by Rick Warren,
author of best-selling book The Purpose Driven Life. Ssempa has a
penchant for burning condoms. In 2007, he organized a rally against
homosexuality to protest "homosexual agents and activists" who were
"infiltrating Uganda." Asked how the anti-homosexuality bill might
affect the fight against HIV and AIDS, Ssempa seemed bemused. "I don't
see what this bill has to do with HIV," he told TIME. Warren, who has
called Uganda a "purpose-driven nation," cut ties with Ssempa in October
as controversy over the bill grew.
Despite Ssempa's beliefs, experts say the law would impede efforts to
stem the spread of HIV and AIDS, especially among the category of "men
who have sex with men" � the terminology often used because of the
stigma around being openly gay or bisexual. Many homosexuals marry or
date women and identify themselves as heterosexual even though they are
sleeping with men. That community is disproportionately affected by the
disease in sub-Saharan Africa, in part because of a long-standing
unwillingness on the continent to acknowledge homosexuality. Indeed, the
situation is one of double jeopardy, combining the pariah status of
homosexuals in a deeply conservative culture with the stigma of AIDS,
which until recently was perceived as a heterosexual disease in Africa,
even by gay men. The "gay doctor," who has worked in AIDS wards, said he
was stunned when he was told in 2000 that a gay friend may have
contracted AIDS. "Most people think they can't get HIV through anal
sex," says Grace, who leads a campus group for lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender youth at Makerere University and did not want to give
her full name.
To make matters worse, Uganda's ostrich-like denials on homosexuality
seem to be tolerated by international donors such as Washington and the
U.N. Even in 2009 � a year when the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, gave $285 million for HIV and AIDS
programs in Uganda � just one program targeting "men who have sex with
men" has been allowed to register with the government, a prerequisite
for access to international funding. The program, the Most at Risk
Populations Network, received just $5,000. "We used to print educational
materials, but it was very expensive," Peter Yiga, of the Gay and
Lesbian Alliance of Uganda, tells TIME. "We are lacking funding because
we can't register. As an LGBT organization, it is very tricky to
register in Uganda without getting arrested."
In 2004, UNAIDS' coordinator in Uganda, Ruben del Prado, was prematurely
transferred to India after he quietly held meetings with LGBT groups
about the possibility of prevention work among the community. The
Ugandan government accused him of holding secret meetings with groups
"that promote homosexuality." Since then, Western aid officials have
been decidedly silent on the topic of homosexuality and HIV. Officials
at UNAIDS, for example, say their organization has adopted a formal
policy not to comment on the proposed law. A UNAIDS official in Uganda,
who declined to be identified, says the group believes "quiet diplomacy"
is the best approach.
The U.S. embassy in Kampala has said it opposes the bill, as have other
American officials. Even Scott Lively recently declared that the bill's
proposed prescriptions go too far. Rick Warren, however, seems to be
avoiding tackling the subject directly. Although he cut ties with
Ssempa, the popular preacher released a statement to Newsweek saying,
"It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or
interfere in the political process of other nations." That position irks
the Rev. Kaoma, who is an Anglican pastor with the Archdiocese of
Boston. Warren, he says, has immense influence among Uganda's political
�lite, counting many parliamentarians, including the country's First
Lady Janet Museveni (who is reportedly close to Ssempa), among his
friends. "He eats with them, he knows what goes on, they respect him,"
said Kaoma in a conference call. At the very least, Warren could get his
purpose-driven nation to reflect on the purpose of this severe piece of
legislation.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
You really believe that the death penalty is just for something that does NO
HARM TO ANYONE?
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Beam Me Up Scotty
> You are one sick fucker.
> You really believe that the death penalty is just for something that does NO
> HARM TO ANYONE?
Do you think spreading the Gay lifestyle is worth getting people killed
over?
We had the death Penalty/or life w/o parole for "DRUG king pins" didn't
we.... who does that hurt and is it worth killing people over?
Just like gay sex is your choice, so are drugs you take.
Steve Knight
I find it hard to relate to that sort of stupidity. I'm straight
and I have gay friends. I like them. They are perfectly honest and so
am I. We even tell each other dirty jokes. They are human. I am human.
I like blue they like green. Except, I'm not going to kill them
because they like green.
Stop seeking out a need to hate. It degrades life.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
dracc...@gmail.com
You really think that being Gay and People pushing drugs is a choice?
Now at admit there are those who's genes do that makes them more
likely to be addicted that is where the two things end. Deciding to
sell drugs, personally I think all drugs should be legal, regulated
and taxed, but that is another matter, and being Gay are two different
things entirely. As you think that Gays are out there recruiting
others to be Gay. Are they on the street corner going man you look
like you could be a good gay? Come on get a brain and a life.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> On 12/14/2009 7:09 PM, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> You are one sick fucker.
>> You really believe that the death penalty is just for something that does NO
>> HARM TO ANYONE?
>
>
> Do you think spreading the Gay lifestyle is worth getting people killed
> over?
>
> We had the death Penalty/or life w/o parole for "DRUG king pins" didn't
> we.... who does that hurt and is it worth killing people over?
"We" haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. But then, we live in
civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
parlaiment.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Teresita
> "We" haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. But then, we live in
> civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
> campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
> parlaiment.
Now the only capital punishment you have is onerous taxes.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Beam Me Up Scotty
> And verily, didst Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@talk-n-dog.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> On 12/14/2009 7:09 PM, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> You are one sick fucker.
>>> You really believe that the death penalty is just for something that does NO
>>> HARM TO ANYONE?
>>
>>
>> Do you think spreading the Gay lifestyle is worth getting people killed
>> over?
>>
>> We had the death Penalty/or life w/o parole for "DRUG king pins" didn't
>> we.... who does that hurt and is it worth killing people over?
>
> "We" haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. But then, we live in
Tell that to Timothy McVeigh.
> civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
> campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
> parlaiment.
We kill people. "We" also kill babies in the womb.
Maybe the Left should quit throwing people under the bus by telling them
that being GAY is their right.... you are getting them killed for
sexual preference.
You blame the right and all the while you are feeding the other side of
the issue. Why don't you tell people that Pedophilia is OK and then
when they get jailed or fried for it, you can blame those that catch them.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>
> Tell that to Timothy McVeigh.
Who?
>> civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
>> campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
>> parlaiment.
>
> We kill people.
You might. WE haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. As I said WE live in
a civilised country... Unlike YOU.
> "We" also kill babies in the womb.
They're not babies, they are called foetuses because they are not formed
enough to be classed as babies yet.
> Maybe the Left should quit throwing people under the bus by telling them
> that being GAY is their right.... you are getting them killed for
> sexual preference.
Who's getting killed for their sexual preference?
> You blame the right and all the while you are feeding the other side of
> the issue. Why don't you tell people that Pedophilia is OK and then
> when they get jailed or fried for it, you can blame those that catch them.
There IS nothing wrong with PEDO philia, what harm does having a foot fetish
do?
PAEDOPHILIA on the other hand is NOT alright for one very simple fact. None
of the victims are of age of consent so each and every one of them is a
victim of rape. You do understand the age of consent don't you?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
Beam Me Up Scotty
> And verily, didst Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@talk-n-dog.com> hastily babble thusly:
>>> "We" haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. But then, we live in
>>
>> Tell that to Timothy McVeigh.
>
> Who?
>
>>> civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
>>> campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
>>> parlaiment.
>>
>> We kill people.
>
> You might. WE haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. As I said WE live in
> a civilised country... Unlike YOU.
>
>> "We" also kill babies in the womb.
>
> They're not babies, they are called foetuses because they are not formed
> enough to be classed as babies yet.
If that eases your conscience for killing babies then you stick to
calling them what ever you want.... You are no less a murderer.
human life is "human life" no matter how young or old it is.
Just be proud and call it what it is, if you want to kill Babies in the
womb then go for it. Renaming babies and the process to sound generic
makes you sound like "you think" what you are doing needs to be hidden
or apologized for.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> a civilised country... Unlike YOU.
>>
>>> "We" also kill babies in the womb.
>>
>> They're not babies, they are called foetuses because they are not formed
>> enough to be classed as babies yet.
>
> If that eases your conscience for killing babies then you stick to
> calling them what ever you want.... You are no less a murderer.
What concience? Do you think I'm a doctor, or something?
Do you think I go around ramming sticks up pregnant women's private parts?
> human life is "human life" no matter how young or old it is.
Bullshit, it's not a human life until its brain if fully formed in the womb,
until then it's just a conglomeration of cells.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
Ric Locke
> And verily, didst Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@talk-n-dog.com> hastily babble thusly:
>>> "We" haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. But then, we live in
>>
>> Tell that to Timothy McVeigh.
>
> Who?
>
>>> civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
>>> campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
>>> parlaiment.
>>
>> We kill people.
>
> You might. WE haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. As I said WE live in
> a civilised country... Unlike YOU.
His point is: that's a lie, and you're a liar. We still have a death
penalty in this country, and you and your friends are major proponents
and defenders of it -- it's just that it's only when it's decreed and
carried out by some loonwaffle against cops or productive citizens, or
by a young woman against her unborn child, that you agree that it's
appropriate. Free Mumia!
>
>> "We" also kill babies in the womb.
>
> They're not babies, they are called foetuses because they are not formed
> enough to be classed as babies yet.
We've heard the new "spin". You needn't repeat it. Just another example
of Progressive murderousness.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> His point is: that's a lie, and you're a liar. We still have a death
> penalty in this country, and you and your friends are major proponents
> and defenders of it
How is that a lie? YOU still have the death penalty, I said that.
How the hell is britain a "proponent and defender" of such a barbaric
"justice" system when we haven't had a death penalty in 50 years?
> it's just that it's only when it's decreed and
> carried out by some loonwaffle against cops or productive citizens, or
> by a young woman against her unborn child, that you agree that it's
> appropriate. Free Mumia!
It's the woman's choice. Abortion isn't a "death penalty" because at the
point of abortion it isn't considered a human life yet.
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
dracc...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:47:29 +0000, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >>> "We" haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. But then, we live in
>
> >> Tell that to Timothy McVeigh.
>
> > Who?
>
> >>> civilised country. Oh, the right wing nutty newspapers occasionally launch a
> >>> campaign to reintroduce it, but it gets squashed every time when it goes to
> >>> parlaiment.
>
> >> We kill people.
>
> > You might. WE haven't had a death penalty for 50 years. As I said WE live in
> > a civilised country... Unlike YOU.
>
> His point is: that's a lie, and you're a liar. We still have a death
> penalty in this country, and you and your friends are major proponents
> and defenders of it -- it's just that it's only when it's decreed and
> carried out by some loonwaffle against cops or productive citizens, or
> by a young woman against her unborn child, that you agree that it's
> appropriate. Free Mumia!
>
Really now it is always funny when I hear one you right-wing nutters
talk about pro-life. Yet it is the same people who are Pro-Death
Penalty and Pro-Killing of Doctors, Woman and Clinic Workers. Now
Myself I am anti-death penalty but not for the reasons you might
think. I think if you put murders and rapists to death you are
actually letting them off easy. They should instead be made to watch
the videos of the birthdays and anniversaries of those they murdered
then every night get punched dead in the face right before someone
shoves a large pineapple up their ass. There is also the economic
reasons it costs far more to put someone to death than to house them
in prison for the rest of their lives.
>
> >> "We" also kill babies in the womb.
>
> > They're not babies, they are called foetuses because they are not formed
> > enough to be classed as babies yet.
>
> We've heard the new "spin". You needn't repeat it. Just another example
> of Progressive murderousness.
>
Can they survive outside of the womb without help or at all? The point
here is that they have to reach a point of viability. Abortion was
practiced throughout history by midwives and wise woman, it was only
later that people like you started interfering.
Ric Locke
> And verily, didst Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> His point is: that's a lie, and you're a liar. We still have a death
>> penalty in this country, and you and your friends are major proponents
>> and defenders of it
>
> How is that a lie? YOU still have the death penalty, I said that.
> How the hell is britain a "proponent and defender" of such a barbaric
> "justice" system when we haven't had a death penalty in 50 years?
No, my comment stands, though I didn't realize you were a Brit, which
makes some of the terminology a bit skewed.
You have a death penalty; you just grant the power of accusation,
conviction, and execution to individuals, then ratify their actions by
insisting that they be "treated humanely" regardless of how they treated
the people they considered not fit to live. Then you stick your nose in
the air and declare yourself "civilized", when in fact you're just too
delicately fastidious to discharge your responsibilities.
One of the greatest innovations of Western civilization was and remains
the transfer of the right and responsibility for retribution to the
State instead of having everybody responsible for their own. It evens
things out -- the poor have some chance of getting redress for acts
against them, and the wealthy can't go overboard hitting back -- and it
makes things more orderly and predictable, which facilitates the
creation of wealth. If the State abdicates that responsibility, which is
what's happening with both you and us, individuals who have been wronged
have no avenue to get redress unless they revert to the older system.
>
>> it's just that it's only when it's decreed and
>> carried out by some loonwaffle against cops or productive citizens, or
>> by a young woman against her unborn child, that you agree that it's
>> appropriate. Free Mumia!
>
> It's the woman's choice. Abortion isn't a "death penalty" because at the
> point of abortion it isn't considered a human life yet.
Don't get out much, do you?
Regards,
Ric
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:13:56 +0000, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> And verily, didst Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>>> His point is: that's a lie, and you're a liar. We still have a death
>>> penalty in this country, and you and your friends are major proponents
>>> and defenders of it
>>
>> How is that a lie? YOU still have the death penalty, I said that.
>> How the hell is britain a "proponent and defender" of such a barbaric
>> "justice" system when we haven't had a death penalty in 50 years?
>
> No, my comment stands, though I didn't realize you were a Brit
That's what .co.uk means. minus several million in observation.
, which
> makes some of the terminology a bit skewed.
>
> You have a death penalty; you just grant the power of accusation,
> conviction, and execution to individuals, then ratify their actions by
> insisting that they be "treated humanely" regardless of how they treated
> the people they considered not fit to live. Then you stick your nose in
> the air and declare yourself "civilized", when in fact you're just too
> delicately fastidious to discharge your responsibilities.
Who be "treated humanely"? You're not making an ounce of sense.
Ric Locke
> And verily, didst Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:13:56 +0000, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> And verily, didst Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>>>> His point is: that's a lie, and you're a liar. We still have a death
>>>> penalty in this country, and you and your friends are major proponents
>>>> and defenders of it
>>>
>>> How is that a lie? YOU still have the death penalty, I said that.
>>> How the hell is britain a "proponent and defender" of such a barbaric
>>> "justice" system when we haven't had a death penalty in 50 years?
>>
>> No, my comment stands, though I didn't realize you were a Brit
>
> That's what .co.uk means. minus several million in observation.
>
> , which
>> makes some of the terminology a bit skewed.
>>
>> You have a death penalty; you just grant the power of accusation,
>> conviction, and execution to individuals, then ratify their actions by
>> insisting that they be "treated humanely" regardless of how they treated
>> the people they considered not fit to live. Then you stick your nose in
>> the air and declare yourself "civilized", when in fact you're just too
>> delicately fastidious to discharge your responsibilities.
>
> Who be "treated humanely"? You're not making an ounce of sense.
I'm making plenty of sense -- somebody who sneers "minus several million
in observation" is surely able to untangle a few pronoun referents.
You just find the observation correct but that it reflects badly on you,
so you pretend blank failure to understand. Goes really badly with
"we're sooooooooo intelligent!" but a typical Prog tactic nevertheless.
Regards,
Ric
spi...@freenet.co.uk
I note you haven't answered my question.
Who be treated humanely?
Are you talking about foetuses, again? They're not aware, they're not
considered human life and their brains haven't even formed yet.
You'll be saying the morning after pill is murder next.
And yet you advocate the execution of criminals.
And even people who have done no harm if you agree with the psychopath who
started this thread.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Ric Locke
I love making Proggs' knees jerk. It's just so cute when they hit their
chins and make their teeth click together.
You do realize that you conceded my main point by going after the
"abortion" red herring, don't you? Of course you do. That's why you're
trying to cover it up by going to the reductio ad absurdum.
Consider the common, or garden, axe murderer or bludgeoner. Such an
individual has accused his victims of severe offenses, judged them
guilty, prescribed the death penalty, and executed it, all without an
reference to "humaneness" or "kindness" and generally with outright
rejection of the very notion that they might be appropriate. What
happens? Here or in Britain the progression is well known, stylized as a
Kabuki play.
First come the excuses. The poor fellow acted in a moment of passion,
excited by [fill in "cause of oppression" here]; he was perfectly
justified if a bit intemperate. He is deeply sorry for overreacting, and
the soul-hurt he feels is surely punishment enough. --Here is direct and
unqualified support for the death penalty, as decreed and carried out by
the nago in question.
If he is somehow convicted, the strategy forks. On the one hand, he must
not be executed; it is "inhumane". (Left entirely unmentioned, in fact
unmentionable, is whether or not he acted "humanely".) Instead he must
be provided comfortable quarters, indoors out of the weather and with
running water, winter heat, electric light, TV, Internet access, and all
the other comcomitants of "civilized" life -- for the minimum period
possible, because shutting him away from his loved ones is just so
cruel. On the other fork, protests against the horrid injustice of
locking him away must be organized. Nice people don't do that! In both
cases, the death penalty with concomitant torture is heartily endorsed
by refusing to acknowledge it and insisting that the judge, jury, and
most especially the executioner be treated kindly and with "civilized"
generosity.
The victim? Forgotten. His family and loved ones, who are shut away from
his love and support not just for the three-to-five of a "life" sentence
but forever, are not even forgotten; they were never considered in the
first place. Oh, the "wingnuts" may try to make a cause celebre out of
it, but they "just want to be cruel" and can be safely ignored.
Meanwhile, of course, the family and loved ones of the murderer get
psychological and material support -- it is required, in order to show
"compassion" for the loss of his companionship and support while the
poor fellow is so unfairly locked away from them.
So you are a full-throated, if implicit, supporter of the death penalty;
you're just too limp-wristed to do it yourself, and too nose-high
self-contratulatory for your own "civilization" and "compassion" to
allow others to do it for you. In the process you not just betray the
victim of crime, you become complicit in the crime itself, and at the
same time discard with contempt one of the pillars of the culture that
enabled you to become so self-righteous in the first place.
When your Progressive plans come to fruition and are revealed not to
work -- which they won't; never have, never will -- your true colors
will shine through. The Theory is absolutely and perfectly sound; in
fact, the only reason to regret atheism is that it precludes use of the
word "divine". Never mind, "logical" or "rational" will do as a
substitute, especially since the people formulating and carrying out the
Plan based on the Theory are so incredibly intelligent as to be Proggs
in the first place. The Theory is perfect, the Plan is Perfect -- why
does it not produce wonderful results? The answer is clear and obvious:
Opposition. The ungrateful, uncompassionate bastards who argued against
it in the first place are not just naysayers, they are actively
sabotaging the effort! Wreckers, all, who can and must be eliminated
before the Plan can come to fruition! So the call goes out for the Ray
Fischers of the world, and as the mass graves get bigger and the piles
of skulls higher, your full-throated approbation will be heard by all.
It's the way it works, the way it's always worked, and the way it will
always work.
Regards,
Ric
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> "abortion" red herring, don't you? Of course you do. That's why you're
> trying to cover it up by going to the reductio ad absurdum.
Well who else is executed (in your deluded little mind) then?
NO ONE.
> Consider the common, or garden, axe murderer or bludgeoner. Such an
> individual has accused his victims of severe offenses, judged them
> guilty, prescribed the death penalty, and executed it, all without an
> reference to "humaneness" or "kindness" and generally with outright
> rejection of the very notion that they might be appropriate.
So what? They're not working on behalf of the justice system are they?
Let's see where you take this stupid argument next...
> What
> happens? Here or in Britain the progression is well known, stylized as a
> Kabuki play.
>
> First come the excuses. The poor fellow acted in a moment of passion,
> excited by [fill in "cause of oppression" here]; he was perfectly
> justified if a bit intemperate. He is deeply sorry for overreacting, and
> the soul-hurt he feels is surely punishment enough. --Here is direct and
> unqualified support for the death penalty, as decreed and carried out by
> the nago in question.
>
> If he is somehow convicted, the strategy forks. On the one hand, he must
> not be executed; it is "inhumane". (Left entirely unmentioned, in fact
> unmentionable, is whether or not he acted "humanely".) Instead he must
> be provided comfortable quarters, indoors out of the weather and with
> running water, winter heat, electric light, TV, Internet access, and all
> the other comcomitants of "civilized" life -- for the minimum period
> possible, because shutting him away from his loved ones is just so
> cruel.
you genuinely think prison is a holiday camp?
You are an idiot.
And what, after 10 years, happens if new evidence comes to light that proves
his innocence?
Hmmm?
In an enlightened civilisation he can at least be released and given a hefty
compensation package. What're you going to do to the corpse?
Dig it up, resurrect it and say sorry?
> So you are a full-throated, if implicit, supporter of the death penalty;
What on earth... Ah right, EVERYONE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY! OF COURSE!
In your deluded little world, no-one could possibly oppose it.
Look moron, I grew up in a nation in which there has never BEEN a death
penalty in my lifetime. What on earth possesses you to think I would WANT
one?
My god I don't think I've ever heard of anything so IDIOTIC in ... ooo...
At least 5 minutes.
> you're just too limp-wristed to do it yourself, and too nose-high
> self-contratulatory for your own "civilization" and "compassion" to
> allow others to do it for you. In the process you not just betray the
> victim of crime, you become complicit in the crime itself, and at the
> same time discard with contempt one of the pillars of the culture that
> enabled you to become so self-righteous in the first place.
I take that back, I really should've held back until you'd finished the
paragraph...
THAT is the stupidest thing.
So, everyone in the UK is complicit in every murder that has ever been
committed since the 1960s when the death penalty was abolished eh?
> When your Progressive plans come to fruition and are revealed not to
> work -
Progressive plans? What on earth are you on about now?
WE don't need to abolish the death penalty, we've done fine without it for
50 years, remember.
<snip the rest, I fear if I read anymore of your drivvel, my brain will
implode>
Ric Locke
> And verily, didst Ric Locke <warric...@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> You do realize that you conceded my main point by going after the
>> "abortion" red herring, don't you? Of course you do. That's why you're
>> trying to cover it up by going to the reductio ad absurdum.
>
> Well who else is executed (in your deluded little mind) then?
> NO ONE.
>
>> Consider the common, or garden, axe murderer or bludgeoner. Such an
>> individual has accused his victims of severe offenses, judged them
>> guilty, prescribed the death penalty, and executed it, all without an
>> reference to "humaneness" or "kindness" and generally with outright
>> rejection of the very notion that they might be appropriate.
>
> So what? They're not working on behalf of the justice system are they?
> Let's see where you take this stupid argument next...
I love arguing with Proggs; it's so easy to tell how it's going.
No Progressive since the movement started has ever admitted losing an
argument -- they can't, because it would contradict their
self-assessment as "the smart people". The way a Progg throws in the
towel is as here: restate the argument in Progg terms, claim it was his
position all along, and start flinging poo. The correct answer is
"Thanks, I'm glad you agree."
>
>> What
>> happens? Here or in Britain the progression is well known, stylized as a
>> Kabuki play.
>>
>> First come the excuses. The poor fellow acted in a moment of passion,
>> excited by [fill in "cause of oppression" here]; he was perfectly
>> justified if a bit intemperate. He is deeply sorry for overreacting, and
>> the soul-hurt he feels is surely punishment enough. --Here is direct and
>> unqualified support for the death penalty, as decreed and carried out by
>> the nago in question.
>>
>> If he is somehow convicted, the strategy forks. On the one hand, he must
>> not be executed; it is "inhumane". (Left entirely unmentioned, in fact
>> unmentionable, is whether or not he acted "humanely".) Instead he must
>> be provided comfortable quarters, indoors out of the weather and with
>> running water, winter heat, electric light, TV, Internet access, and all
>> the other comcomitants of "civilized" life -- for the minimum period
>> possible, because shutting him away from his loved ones is just so
>> cruel.
>
> you genuinely think prison is a holiday camp?
> You are an idiot.
> And what, after 10 years, happens if new evidence comes to light that proves
> his innocence?
>
> Hmmm?
Well, what do you know -- an actual *argument*. It's one I can accept,
though I don't necessarily agree it always takes precedence.
Q: Why didn't he say that already?
A: Because it's reasonable and pragmatic, and therefore provides no
scope for the sanctimonious moral posturing that's so much a part of his
self-image.
[snip poo-flinging]
Thanks.
Regards,
Ric
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> argument -- they can't, because it would contradict their
> self-assessment as "the smart people". The way a Progg throws in the
> towel is as here: restate the argument in Progg terms, claim it was his
> position all along, and start flinging poo. The correct answer is
> "Thanks, I'm glad you agree."
I have no idea what a so called "progressive" even *IS* or represents.
Face it, I'm from a different fuckin country. Different views too difficult
for you to accept? Can't handle the fact that not everyone in the world is
american?
Progressive to me is one who advocates progress, evolution, advancement of
the human race. The opposite of progressive would be REgressive...
Is that what you are? Cos if so, why don't you dump your computer here and
now and go and live in a cave. That is your ultimate goal isn't it?
>> you genuinely think prison is a holiday camp?
>> You are an idiot.
>> And what, after 10 years, happens if new evidence comes to light that proves
>> his innocence?
>>
>> Hmmm?
>
> Well, what do you know -- an actual *argument*. It's one I can accept,
> though I don't necessarily agree it always takes precedence.
>
> Q: Why didn't he say that already?
> A: Because it's reasonable and pragmatic, and therefore provides no
> scope for the sanctimonious moral posturing that's so much a part of his
> self-image.
No, because prior to this you've been waving your hands about in an insane
fashion avoiding the topic of the death penalty and going on and on and on
about irrelevant and utterly unconnected things like abortion.
Dionisio
> We kill people. "We" also kill babies in the womb.
>
> Maybe the Left should quit throwing people under the bus by telling them
> that being GAY is their right.... you are getting them killed for
> sexual preference.
Ahem. People are dying because God mandated it via the whole "mortal" thing.
Killers die. Morons die. Christians die. Everybody dies.
"Thank God!"
Now if only stupidity would die...
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
I never set out to be weird. It was always the other people who called me weird.
--Frank Zappa
(Brought to you by SigChanger.)