Recently, the Commissioner General of Prisons Dr. Johnson Byabashaija was widely quoted in the print media as having informed a certain meeting that the Uganda Prison Service would soon allow prisoners to exercise their conjugal rights. This is not the first time prison authorities are making this pronouncement. And I am sure it is not going to be the last. It is always easier said than done. It has now become sort of an accepted norm for government officials to announce grandiose proposals which sound good to the targeted audience yet they don't mean what they say.
Conjugal rights for prisoners is one of the highest levels of enjoyment of rights that is uncommon in both developed and developing countries alike. Although human rights activists would want these rights to be recognized in all countries, in most cases it is simply not possible because of the issues involved to provide these rights.
Countries which currently allow conjugal rights include: France, Canada, Denmark, and Saudi Arabia. Regulated conjugal visits are allowed in USA, Brazil, Mexico City and Russia.
Of all the states that allow these freedoms, Saudi Arabia tops the list in providing the best amenities and systems needed for this right to be fully enjoyed because it was among the first countries in the world to allow this practice.
In fact Saudi laws go an extra mile of allowing inmates to have the right to get married while in prison, including those on death row. No country in Africa, including liberal South Africa can afford the luxury of allowing sexual rights in prison.
In the USA, inmates have to meet certain requirements to qualify for this privilege. Inmates on death row are not permitted visits in US. Even then conjugal visits also known as "extended family visits are currently respected and upheld in only six out of fifty states of USA. These are: California, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, and Washington.
Conjugal rights have been rightly neglected because they are not easy to be guaranteed and implemented. To put the debate in context, human rights activists are not against prisons department allowing prisoners to have sex as a right.
Sex after all is a right to every human being. What we don't understand is how some prison official makes the announcement without substantiating it and makes the public and the inmates to wait for such a promise to be implemented in vain.
I have personally visited Luzira prison many times to check on the living conditions of inmates. I have attended many workshops in various places where prison representatives have had to present one complaint- lack of resources to make prisoner's rights a reality.
So how can the same people promise to provide what they know is out of their means. Sex in prison is a dream in Uganda today.
I agree that the prisons department is one of the least funded by government. The basic things that should ordinarily be provided to inmates are always lacking.
So, if thee basic necessities can not be provided how would they guarantee that prisoners would have sex in a dignified way worthy of a human being, not in a beastly manner.
For instance, prisons authorities are supposed to put up structures for that particular purpose with private rooms where essential commodities such as condoms, soap, toilet paper beddings etc, are supposed to be supplied.
Is Luzira Prison capable of doing this? Countries that are implementing conjugal rights in prisons affirm that it is a difficult issue to enforce. Even in its enforcement many more rights are violated therein either conditionally or because of other attendant factors.
It is important to note that sex is purely a private matter between individuals. There is no way therefore the prison authorities would determine when and how an inmate would want to have sex.
Some of the questions that keep lingering in my mind include: How many hours each prisoner would be allowed with their partners? How about people with multiple partners? What of inmates who may want to have sex with fellow inmates? How would they treat prisoners who may need to have sex but don't have partners? Wouldn't they end up raping other inmates because of the many imaginations that would run through their minds as fellow in mates go in designated places to have sex? All these questions need clear answers before one can think about introducing sexual rights in prisons.
Incarceration means that people who are serving sentences have to have some of their rights restrained until such a time when they can regain their freedom after a stipulated time by courts of law.
Most important among these rights may include rights such as freedom from movement, limited right to privacy, limited right to contact with outside world among others.
There are however other rights which are supposed to be upheld at all times even when someone is in prison.
Rights such as the right to food, the right to shelter, the right to appear before a competent courts etc, fall under this category.
I am aware that prison conditions in Uganda have greatly improved given what it was in the eighties and nineties, but it has not yet reached a level where prisoners can be accorded the right to sex because it is impracticable.
It is a right that can wait given the fact that there are currently more pressing needs that need urgent attention to make lives of prisoners worthy living, even though they are in prison.
Providing conjugal rights to prisoners in Uganda is like taking an emaciated, skeletal refugee from Durfur in South Sudan on space adventure to the Moon and planet Mars. It may not make much sense to such a refugee. Neither would it to the rest of mankind.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Museveni, Mwenda wrong on high prices
Recently, I was privileged to have been chosen to be part of the team of four people that were tasked to carry out a study on behalf of Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and International Human Rights Internship Programme (IHRIP). The focus of the study was to establish how the budget at the national, district and lower government levels impact on the delivery of National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) for small holder farmers to produce food which would translate into the realisation of the right to food for majority of Ugandans.
Our study findings are to be used in compiling a manual on "How Budget Analysis can Strengthen Right to Food Advocacy". This project is to be implemented in four countries namely; Philippines, Guatemala, Brazil and Uganda.
The study has been able to expose the inadequacies exhibited by NAADS programme since it was launched almost a decade ago. At its inception NAADS was supposed to be the redeemer of poor farmers by helping them to form groups, get training in modern agriculture practices and acquire knowledge in modern farming.
The whole programme was in general terms supposed to increase food production for the country such that farmers would have enough food for subsistence while the surplus would be sold off to markets domestically and regionally.
Stakeholders do not agree on the benefits of NAADS to Ugandans so far. Those who have benefited from it think that it has delivered while those who are not in any way linked to it think otherwise.
District NAADS Coordinators are currently some of the wealthiest officials at the districts where they are based because they control one of the largest budgets at that level.Throughout our interaction with them they laboured to explain to us how the programme has brought prosperity to farmers compared to the situation before NAADS advent. President Yoweri Museveni was fast to act in suspending NAADS funding after a public outcry about its failures. It had all along been public knowledge that a lot of money had been sunk into the programme but the greatest chunk of it had been used to organise workshops and farmer sensitization seminars while the rest had been swindled.
It is difficult to deny that NAADS has had a positive impact. But it is disgraceful for its officials to showcase its minute achievements vis-à-vis the resources that have so far been spent on the programme.
Cases were cited of coordinators who would buy local goats and pigs only to claim that they bought improved breed at exorbitant prices.Some were out rightly rejected by farmers, especially those who were enlightened enough, but others were taken up by unsophisticated farmers only to realize later that they had been classically duped.
We could not authoritatively ascertain, neither could we independently verify the information taunted by NAADS Coordinators that there is a direct link between the current high food production in most districts and the intervention by NAADS in providing such an enabling atmosphere.
What is undeniable is that food is currently enough in most rural areas we visited despite its high price in most urban areas.
This brings us to another fundamental question about the purposes of NAADS. The current scenario of high food prices in the city cannot in any way be blamed on scarcity of food in rural areas. The economics of food have, for the first time in many years defied the laws of demand and supply.
Whereas one would ordinarily have expected moderate prices because supply is high, the reverse is happening. Possibly we may see a new trend where the prices will go down when supply is at its lowest, although I highly doubt this is likely to happen.
The other issue that we may need to ponder about is that President Yoweri Museveni's assertion that high prices for farm produce implies high incomes for farmers. This kind of reasoning had previously been espoused by veteran journalist Andrew Mwenda while discussing scarcity of food around the world three weeks ago.
Museveni and Mwenda couldn't have been more wrong. The price of food can never determine the welfare of the peasants because the people who are the major buyers of this food are the elites who will seek to recoup what they have paid in form of high prices on food by hiking the prices of the services they offer and the manufactured goods they sell which the peasants cant do without.
Therefore, whereas a farmer may on the face of it get a high price by selling his Matooke, he pays more by paying for maternal services at a local clinic because the person treating them will have increased their price to be able to buy Matooke.
In fact, the farmer is better off earning less by selling his Matooke at a low price than earning more and paying more at the clinic. Another view may be that the standard of living of the farmer in the above mentioned scenario is almost constant, if not worse off because of the spiral effect the increase in the price of food is likely to generate hence leading to increase in most commodity prices across the board.
These issues put us in a dilemma on what the way forward could be in trying to improve food production and incomes for people who produce it. If we use the elimination method, we can begin by proposing that the hitherto method employed by NAADS of organizing too many training workshops is not among the solutions. Neither is it a solution to completely do away with NAADS.
The solution lies in the fact that government must strictly monitor its programmes and should always urgently respond to people's needs because a stitch in time saves nine.
Had the president listened to the people earlier, less money would have been stolen, and possibly more food would have been produced by farmers and prices would have been a little bit cheaper than they are now.
As things stand currently, neither the farmers in rural areas nor the elites in town are benefiting from the high prices of goods and services.
Our study findings are to be used in compiling a manual on "How Budget Analysis can Strengthen Right to Food Advocacy". This project is to be implemented in four countries namely; Philippines, Guatemala, Brazil and Uganda.
The study has been able to expose the inadequacies exhibited by NAADS programme since it was launched almost a decade ago. At its inception NAADS was supposed to be the redeemer of poor farmers by helping them to form groups, get training in modern agriculture practices and acquire knowledge in modern farming.
The whole programme was in general terms supposed to increase food production for the country such that farmers would have enough food for subsistence while the surplus would be sold off to markets domestically and regionally.
Stakeholders do not agree on the benefits of NAADS to Ugandans so far. Those who have benefited from it think that it has delivered while those who are not in any way linked to it think otherwise.
District NAADS Coordinators are currently some of the wealthiest officials at the districts where they are based because they control one of the largest budgets at that level.Throughout our interaction with them they laboured to explain to us how the programme has brought prosperity to farmers compared to the situation before NAADS advent. President Yoweri Museveni was fast to act in suspending NAADS funding after a public outcry about its failures. It had all along been public knowledge that a lot of money had been sunk into the programme but the greatest chunk of it had been used to organise workshops and farmer sensitization seminars while the rest had been swindled.
It is difficult to deny that NAADS has had a positive impact. But it is disgraceful for its officials to showcase its minute achievements vis-à-vis the resources that have so far been spent on the programme.
Cases were cited of coordinators who would buy local goats and pigs only to claim that they bought improved breed at exorbitant prices.Some were out rightly rejected by farmers, especially those who were enlightened enough, but others were taken up by unsophisticated farmers only to realize later that they had been classically duped.
We could not authoritatively ascertain, neither could we independently verify the information taunted by NAADS Coordinators that there is a direct link between the current high food production in most districts and the intervention by NAADS in providing such an enabling atmosphere.
What is undeniable is that food is currently enough in most rural areas we visited despite its high price in most urban areas.
This brings us to another fundamental question about the purposes of NAADS. The current scenario of high food prices in the city cannot in any way be blamed on scarcity of food in rural areas. The economics of food have, for the first time in many years defied the laws of demand and supply.
Whereas one would ordinarily have expected moderate prices because supply is high, the reverse is happening. Possibly we may see a new trend where the prices will go down when supply is at its lowest, although I highly doubt this is likely to happen.
The other issue that we may need to ponder about is that President Yoweri Museveni's assertion that high prices for farm produce implies high incomes for farmers. This kind of reasoning had previously been espoused by veteran journalist Andrew Mwenda while discussing scarcity of food around the world three weeks ago.
Museveni and Mwenda couldn't have been more wrong. The price of food can never determine the welfare of the peasants because the people who are the major buyers of this food are the elites who will seek to recoup what they have paid in form of high prices on food by hiking the prices of the services they offer and the manufactured goods they sell which the peasants cant do without.
Therefore, whereas a farmer may on the face of it get a high price by selling his Matooke, he pays more by paying for maternal services at a local clinic because the person treating them will have increased their price to be able to buy Matooke.
In fact, the farmer is better off earning less by selling his Matooke at a low price than earning more and paying more at the clinic. Another view may be that the standard of living of the farmer in the above mentioned scenario is almost constant, if not worse off because of the spiral effect the increase in the price of food is likely to generate hence leading to increase in most commodity prices across the board.
These issues put us in a dilemma on what the way forward could be in trying to improve food production and incomes for people who produce it. If we use the elimination method, we can begin by proposing that the hitherto method employed by NAADS of organizing too many training workshops is not among the solutions. Neither is it a solution to completely do away with NAADS.
The solution lies in the fact that government must strictly monitor its programmes and should always urgently respond to people's needs because a stitch in time saves nine.
Had the president listened to the people earlier, less money would have been stolen, and possibly more food would have been produced by farmers and prices would have been a little bit cheaper than they are now.
As things stand currently, neither the farmers in rural areas nor the elites in town are benefiting from the high prices of goods and services.
MEDIA FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK; IN WHOSE INTEREST?
By Mutabazi Sam Stewart
Of late, there has been heightened unease about the trend of events of continuous limitation and curtailment of fundamental freedoms of Ugandans in relation to the right to assemble (association) and freedom of speech. The media both government controlled and private, has acted together to fight for space to air their views without intimidation and harassment from government with limited successes. Many analysts are wondering why government is acting this way at this point in time. Considering the hostile press government has suffered in the past years, today’s coverage, I would say is not as bad or as worse as it can get. Government needs to be assured that bad press won’t get better by muzzling the media.
Today, we shall deal with freedom of the press and hopefully we shall discuss freedom of association next week. The two are interlinked. Freedom of the media cannot be affected without affecting freedom of association and the two freedoms together form the greatest component of democracy in the true sense of it.
If state control of the media was the solution to covering up government excesses, the Zimbabwean regime would be enjoying the best publicity every government would envy. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe thought that he would limit the level of negative coverage by introducing unacceptable press curbs for local journalists. He later alone banned international media from reporting within his country. The result was the exact opposite of what he intended to achieve. If the NRM wants to do it the Mugabe way, let it go ahead with this clamp down on media and freedom of assembly. Soon it will realize that the war against the media can never be worn by any government either in the short or long run. No matter the strength of a government, it must never underestimate the power of the media. Suppressing the media is like drowning a balloon under the sea. It will always come back to the surface.
The future stability of any regime can never be guaranteed under any circumstances. The media can only be intimidated once in a while. It can never be fully bottled up all the time. Intermittent hiccups and disruptions in the relations between the state and media will always occur and overzealous governments will always try to overstep their imaginations and political hallucinations but this can only be temporal, not permanent because it is not sustainable. Soon or later the regime realizes that it can’t catch up with the power of the media which may lead to the collapse of the regime due to reasons clandestinely orchestrated by benevolent media campaigns that are hard to censor.
The media in every country is like a herd of dogs which forebodingly guard the master’s house. An intruder who comes face to face with the first dog prays that it may not bark or make noise to attract the attention of other dogs because. Likewise, an attack on local media will almost automatically invite the wrath of international media fraternity, the consequences of which cannot be good for the country as well as for the sitting regime.
If government can be this concerned during these times when the media has been exercising some form of self censorship, what will happen when both local and foreign media decide to work together to put their foot down to report what they perceive to be accurate news!. May be government will at that time not only imprison journalists, it may engage a higher gear of public execution, Idi Amin style.
It would seem commonsense that any government would do anything within its power to portray itself as a protector of people’s rights no matter how it is provoked by the opposition and other forces bent on discrediting it. Cool headedness would, to any accomplished politician make more sense in forestalling and dissenting view that contradicts the government line of thinking.
I cannot have better words to advise government or indeed those close to public administration in any regime than declaring that the surest way to a fast lane of unpopularity, maladministration and an almost guaranteed way to secure regime collapse is for the sitting administration to inadvertently, with no clear reason, seek to control or hinder the flow of information, be it by muzzling the media or administering unnecessary control on media freedom and public debate. The consequences of such a policy are the same irrespective of which country it is applied and by which regime.
A free press can of course be good or bad, but most certainly without freedom the press will never be anything but bad. The 35th president of USA John F Kennedy once said “There is a terrific disadvantage in not having an abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily. Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didn’t write it, and even though we disapprove, there isn’t any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press”. Kennedy was only stating the obvious. Every government recognizes the importance of the media because even a bad press is better than no press at all. What puzzles most of us is why a government like President Yoweri Museveni’s that claims to have brought unfettered freedom to Ugandans would chose to become hostile to the media at this point in time. Don’t forget to join me next week as we look at freedom of association.
Of late, there has been heightened unease about the trend of events of continuous limitation and curtailment of fundamental freedoms of Ugandans in relation to the right to assemble (association) and freedom of speech. The media both government controlled and private, has acted together to fight for space to air their views without intimidation and harassment from government with limited successes. Many analysts are wondering why government is acting this way at this point in time. Considering the hostile press government has suffered in the past years, today’s coverage, I would say is not as bad or as worse as it can get. Government needs to be assured that bad press won’t get better by muzzling the media.
Today, we shall deal with freedom of the press and hopefully we shall discuss freedom of association next week. The two are interlinked. Freedom of the media cannot be affected without affecting freedom of association and the two freedoms together form the greatest component of democracy in the true sense of it.
If state control of the media was the solution to covering up government excesses, the Zimbabwean regime would be enjoying the best publicity every government would envy. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe thought that he would limit the level of negative coverage by introducing unacceptable press curbs for local journalists. He later alone banned international media from reporting within his country. The result was the exact opposite of what he intended to achieve. If the NRM wants to do it the Mugabe way, let it go ahead with this clamp down on media and freedom of assembly. Soon it will realize that the war against the media can never be worn by any government either in the short or long run. No matter the strength of a government, it must never underestimate the power of the media. Suppressing the media is like drowning a balloon under the sea. It will always come back to the surface.
The future stability of any regime can never be guaranteed under any circumstances. The media can only be intimidated once in a while. It can never be fully bottled up all the time. Intermittent hiccups and disruptions in the relations between the state and media will always occur and overzealous governments will always try to overstep their imaginations and political hallucinations but this can only be temporal, not permanent because it is not sustainable. Soon or later the regime realizes that it can’t catch up with the power of the media which may lead to the collapse of the regime due to reasons clandestinely orchestrated by benevolent media campaigns that are hard to censor.
The media in every country is like a herd of dogs which forebodingly guard the master’s house. An intruder who comes face to face with the first dog prays that it may not bark or make noise to attract the attention of other dogs because. Likewise, an attack on local media will almost automatically invite the wrath of international media fraternity, the consequences of which cannot be good for the country as well as for the sitting regime.
If government can be this concerned during these times when the media has been exercising some form of self censorship, what will happen when both local and foreign media decide to work together to put their foot down to report what they perceive to be accurate news!. May be government will at that time not only imprison journalists, it may engage a higher gear of public execution, Idi Amin style.
It would seem commonsense that any government would do anything within its power to portray itself as a protector of people’s rights no matter how it is provoked by the opposition and other forces bent on discrediting it. Cool headedness would, to any accomplished politician make more sense in forestalling and dissenting view that contradicts the government line of thinking.
I cannot have better words to advise government or indeed those close to public administration in any regime than declaring that the surest way to a fast lane of unpopularity, maladministration and an almost guaranteed way to secure regime collapse is for the sitting administration to inadvertently, with no clear reason, seek to control or hinder the flow of information, be it by muzzling the media or administering unnecessary control on media freedom and public debate. The consequences of such a policy are the same irrespective of which country it is applied and by which regime.
A free press can of course be good or bad, but most certainly without freedom the press will never be anything but bad. The 35th president of USA John F Kennedy once said “There is a terrific disadvantage in not having an abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily. Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didn’t write it, and even though we disapprove, there isn’t any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press”. Kennedy was only stating the obvious. Every government recognizes the importance of the media because even a bad press is better than no press at all. What puzzles most of us is why a government like President Yoweri Museveni’s that claims to have brought unfettered freedom to Ugandans would chose to become hostile to the media at this point in time. Don’t forget to join me next week as we look at freedom of association.
THE FOUR GREAT CONTROVERSIES OF OUR TIME
By Mutabazi Sam Stewart
Homosexuality, abortion, prostitution and capital punishment are the most controversial issues that have divided the world view in equal measure with both proponents and opponents believing that they are correct. This column will try to highlight the major issues in the debate about what I have decided to call "the big four controversies". Lets first deal with homosexuality
Homosexuality
Human rights are first and foremost about individual choices. It is not anyone's business to put to task gay people to prove that what they do is actually natural. Many times, when gay people have been cornered to justify their actions, they say they are "born like that". They relate their sexual orientation to a person who uses his or her left hand having no choice about the same. Whether this is true or false is up to gay people to decide. But gay people are not under any obligation to explain to anybody why they do what they do.
Two consenting adult people who decide to use their bodies according to their wishes would have committed no wrong to the public so long as they do it within the confines of their bedrooms or in hidden places. Any government that tries to limit the rights of gay people through prohibitive legislation is only wasting its time and resources. The Law that seeks to prevent homosexuality is as redundant as its framers. This is because any law that is not easy to enforce is as good as non existent.
Problems arise only when gay people may need to popularize and publicize their acts to the wider public. This may constitute a direct danger to the population and need to be checked immediately. Just as it is not allowed for heterosexual people to have sex in public, gay people must keep their romance away from the public eye. Those that are fighting homosexuality are fighting a war they are sure they can not win, at least in the long run.
Prostitution
Prostitution is a manifestation of nothing else but the very nature and character of human beings because they engage in sex for other reasons other than procreation, to be specific, for pleasure, unlike other creatures created by God. To any moralist, prostitution is the last thing they would love to hear about. To them, it signifies the highest form of moral decay. It symbolizes putrefy that boarders on the margins of the Biblical road to total destruction of a society that condones it. But to liberals, prostitution is a sin just like any other.
Morality is defined by different people differently. Morality is debatable but human rights are not. Lest I am misunderstood, I must clarify that there are some minimum benchmarks or requirements that every society must conform to. Otherwise if every one was allowed to act as they wish, the world would run crazy. Besides, the concept and foundation of human rights is based on morals. Morality is such a big topic that it encompasses almost all aspects of human life. Would it be in order for instance any government to make laws that condemn premarital sex because it is morally not right?
How did government determine that prostitution is morally wrong and not premarital sex? Isn't this a clear indication of government allocating itself more powers than it actually has? Won't the same government at a future date declare which rights people would have to enjoy? What is clear though is that for some one to enjoy human rights they must be human beings. It is further assumed that all human beings have morals naturally. If we follow the argument of moralists, it may mean that prostitutes do not have morals and therefore are not human beings, which therefore means that they do not have any human rights.
Readers must understand that Laws do not provide human rights but rather they protect them. Laws only guide people on what they are expected to do in order to live harmoniously with fellow human beings to ensure unity and peaceful coexistence. A law that supposedly gives human rights means that that same law can take away the same rights through the same process that it provided those rights.After all laws are made by man and man is selfish and imperfect. The day human beings begin making laws to grant human rights is the day human rights shall start to become meaningless to humanity.
Capital Punishment
Capital punishment remains on Uganda's law books as a legitimate and legal practice. The last time the state killed people in large numbers was in 1993 when 29 people were hanged to death in Luzira Maximum prison. Currently there are about 300 people on death row in Luzira prison alone.
Impunity in human rights has never been an option of reconciliation. Nether is it tolerated as a means of resolving conflicts or maintaining peace and stability. Society must always punish wrong doers in order to deter them from repeating the same mistakes or committing more crimes. Punishment also helps would-be wrong doers to think twice before they commit crimes because they would be aware that they may suffer grave consequences. Nevertheless when punishment goes beyond the proverbial boundaries, it fails to achieve its purpose. Most scholars argue that the death penalty is actually not a punishment but an act of outright murder by the state. They argue that the objective of a punishment is to reform the culprit to become a better person. Yet the death penalty does not give the accused any chance to reform.
There is no mechanism to protect people who commit crimes unintentionally when capital punishment is in place. The worst scenario happens when wrongly convicted persons are executed only for contrary evidence to be adduced at a later stage when the innocent person is already dead. This forms the strongest base that reinforces the argument against the death penalty.
The other argument advanced by crusaders against the death penalty is that the practice perpetuates illegal killings. If the state can kill, why shouldn't its citizens do the same? In other words, capital punishment makes life of persons too cheap to be taken away by a mere stroke of a pen through a hangman's noose. Life in most developing countries is too contemptible to the extent that no death can shock the government. Instead, in addition to the many causes of death in Africa such as AIDS, Malaria, Hunger and Poverty, the state adds on another cause in the form of the death penalty.
The state determines what constitutes grievous crimes that attract a death sentence and a misdemeanor that requires the convict to only serve a jail term. One of the most dreadful among our laws is the one that relates to treason which is punishable by death. It smacks of intolerance, lack of democracy and is often more linked to monarchism, totalitarianism and dictatorship. People who are charged and later convicted of treason live at the mercy of the ruler who determines whether he should allow them to keep on living or to die.
We are aware of many freedom fighters that were hanged in their course of fighting for the cause of their countries. Those who were lucky not be killed later became important citizens and have helped to shape the destiny of their countries. A case in point is Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Can anyone imagine what Africa would have lost if the Apartheid Regime had decided to apply capital punishment on the person of Nelson Mandela during his jail term? Though the death penalty was on the law books of South Africa and Mandela was qualified to die under the same law, the white minority chose not to apply it. He was later to become one of the greatest pillars of freedom not only in Africa but in the whole world. The question is; how many Mandela's have been put to death by the state and how many more will die before the state realizes the mistake of killing people?
Abortion
The Bible condemns abortion. The Koran abhors it. Religion in general detests it. Moralists loathe it. Traditionalists and conservatives don't want to hear about it. Catholics hate it with a passion. The Anglican Church can't stand it. Christians and Moslems can't touch it. The state despises it. Despite all the opposition and ranting against abortion, it is being carried out in a semi-legal fashion throughout the world.Some countries have legalized it. But many are still resisting the change. Uganda is in the latter category.
As a consequence, many young and old women put their lives at risk trying to carry out abortions in undignified places with unqualified personnel. Recent research by Florence Mirembe et al shows that over 775,000 women in Uganda have unintended pregnancies and of these 297,000 end pregnancies through induced abortions. Government does not have the capacity to monitor every woman who gets pregnant to ensure that they do not abort. Neither does it have the mandate or authority to pry into the private lives of its individual citizens. Individual persons own their bodies and they are at liberty to choose how they want to use them. Any woman therefore who feels, for any reason, they cannot continue carrying a pregnancy, must be left to terminate it at will.
The duty of the government in this whole process instead should be to facilitate "safe removal" of the fetus from the woman who in her better judgment thinks she is not ready to have such babies. Opinions are abound of people who are opposed to abortion arguing that abortion should not be allowed because in having sex, women should be aware they may get pregnant. This is a shallow argument because scientific evidence suggests that human beings, on average and intentionally have sex primarily not for procreation but for pleasure. Therefore if in the course of having sex for pleasure, a woman happens to conceive, there should be no need for such a woman to ask for permission to terminate such an unwanted pregnancy.
It should be made clear to those who are against abortion that a fetus is not a human being and it remains a fetus until it is delivered as a baby. Whereas the law is kept in place, it serves no other purpose other than propagating underhand methods of operation of carrying out abortions, whose consequences are glaringly fatal. In keeping abortion illegal, government is killing its women citizens who can't access better services to remove fetuses they are not ready to have as children because of fear of the repressive law.
The social problems we face today are not as a result of lack of laws to protect human rights, but to the contrary, it is because we have many laws which are in most cases redundant and at worst without any objective and purpose. Today, some governments out of folly, highhandedness and ignorance have extended the boundaries of their mandate and jurisdiction by declaring what in their own understanding, and for their own motives call immoral human behaviour. Irrespective of how long it shall take the world to debate and meditate on the four controversies, I am convinced that, one day homosexuality, prostitution, and abortion shall be made legal and lawful and governments worldwide shall recognize the fact that killing criminals is like pouring water in a bottomless pit. It may take one hundred years or more, but it surely will come.
Homosexuality, abortion, prostitution and capital punishment are the most controversial issues that have divided the world view in equal measure with both proponents and opponents believing that they are correct. This column will try to highlight the major issues in the debate about what I have decided to call "the big four controversies". Lets first deal with homosexuality
Homosexuality
Human rights are first and foremost about individual choices. It is not anyone's business to put to task gay people to prove that what they do is actually natural. Many times, when gay people have been cornered to justify their actions, they say they are "born like that". They relate their sexual orientation to a person who uses his or her left hand having no choice about the same. Whether this is true or false is up to gay people to decide. But gay people are not under any obligation to explain to anybody why they do what they do.
Two consenting adult people who decide to use their bodies according to their wishes would have committed no wrong to the public so long as they do it within the confines of their bedrooms or in hidden places. Any government that tries to limit the rights of gay people through prohibitive legislation is only wasting its time and resources. The Law that seeks to prevent homosexuality is as redundant as its framers. This is because any law that is not easy to enforce is as good as non existent.
Problems arise only when gay people may need to popularize and publicize their acts to the wider public. This may constitute a direct danger to the population and need to be checked immediately. Just as it is not allowed for heterosexual people to have sex in public, gay people must keep their romance away from the public eye. Those that are fighting homosexuality are fighting a war they are sure they can not win, at least in the long run.
Prostitution
Prostitution is a manifestation of nothing else but the very nature and character of human beings because they engage in sex for other reasons other than procreation, to be specific, for pleasure, unlike other creatures created by God. To any moralist, prostitution is the last thing they would love to hear about. To them, it signifies the highest form of moral decay. It symbolizes putrefy that boarders on the margins of the Biblical road to total destruction of a society that condones it. But to liberals, prostitution is a sin just like any other.
Morality is defined by different people differently. Morality is debatable but human rights are not. Lest I am misunderstood, I must clarify that there are some minimum benchmarks or requirements that every society must conform to. Otherwise if every one was allowed to act as they wish, the world would run crazy. Besides, the concept and foundation of human rights is based on morals. Morality is such a big topic that it encompasses almost all aspects of human life. Would it be in order for instance any government to make laws that condemn premarital sex because it is morally not right?
How did government determine that prostitution is morally wrong and not premarital sex? Isn't this a clear indication of government allocating itself more powers than it actually has? Won't the same government at a future date declare which rights people would have to enjoy? What is clear though is that for some one to enjoy human rights they must be human beings. It is further assumed that all human beings have morals naturally. If we follow the argument of moralists, it may mean that prostitutes do not have morals and therefore are not human beings, which therefore means that they do not have any human rights.
Readers must understand that Laws do not provide human rights but rather they protect them. Laws only guide people on what they are expected to do in order to live harmoniously with fellow human beings to ensure unity and peaceful coexistence. A law that supposedly gives human rights means that that same law can take away the same rights through the same process that it provided those rights.After all laws are made by man and man is selfish and imperfect. The day human beings begin making laws to grant human rights is the day human rights shall start to become meaningless to humanity.
Capital Punishment
Capital punishment remains on Uganda's law books as a legitimate and legal practice. The last time the state killed people in large numbers was in 1993 when 29 people were hanged to death in Luzira Maximum prison. Currently there are about 300 people on death row in Luzira prison alone.
Impunity in human rights has never been an option of reconciliation. Nether is it tolerated as a means of resolving conflicts or maintaining peace and stability. Society must always punish wrong doers in order to deter them from repeating the same mistakes or committing more crimes. Punishment also helps would-be wrong doers to think twice before they commit crimes because they would be aware that they may suffer grave consequences. Nevertheless when punishment goes beyond the proverbial boundaries, it fails to achieve its purpose. Most scholars argue that the death penalty is actually not a punishment but an act of outright murder by the state. They argue that the objective of a punishment is to reform the culprit to become a better person. Yet the death penalty does not give the accused any chance to reform.
There is no mechanism to protect people who commit crimes unintentionally when capital punishment is in place. The worst scenario happens when wrongly convicted persons are executed only for contrary evidence to be adduced at a later stage when the innocent person is already dead. This forms the strongest base that reinforces the argument against the death penalty.
The other argument advanced by crusaders against the death penalty is that the practice perpetuates illegal killings. If the state can kill, why shouldn't its citizens do the same? In other words, capital punishment makes life of persons too cheap to be taken away by a mere stroke of a pen through a hangman's noose. Life in most developing countries is too contemptible to the extent that no death can shock the government. Instead, in addition to the many causes of death in Africa such as AIDS, Malaria, Hunger and Poverty, the state adds on another cause in the form of the death penalty.
The state determines what constitutes grievous crimes that attract a death sentence and a misdemeanor that requires the convict to only serve a jail term. One of the most dreadful among our laws is the one that relates to treason which is punishable by death. It smacks of intolerance, lack of democracy and is often more linked to monarchism, totalitarianism and dictatorship. People who are charged and later convicted of treason live at the mercy of the ruler who determines whether he should allow them to keep on living or to die.
We are aware of many freedom fighters that were hanged in their course of fighting for the cause of their countries. Those who were lucky not be killed later became important citizens and have helped to shape the destiny of their countries. A case in point is Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Can anyone imagine what Africa would have lost if the Apartheid Regime had decided to apply capital punishment on the person of Nelson Mandela during his jail term? Though the death penalty was on the law books of South Africa and Mandela was qualified to die under the same law, the white minority chose not to apply it. He was later to become one of the greatest pillars of freedom not only in Africa but in the whole world. The question is; how many Mandela's have been put to death by the state and how many more will die before the state realizes the mistake of killing people?
Abortion
The Bible condemns abortion. The Koran abhors it. Religion in general detests it. Moralists loathe it. Traditionalists and conservatives don't want to hear about it. Catholics hate it with a passion. The Anglican Church can't stand it. Christians and Moslems can't touch it. The state despises it. Despite all the opposition and ranting against abortion, it is being carried out in a semi-legal fashion throughout the world.Some countries have legalized it. But many are still resisting the change. Uganda is in the latter category.
As a consequence, many young and old women put their lives at risk trying to carry out abortions in undignified places with unqualified personnel. Recent research by Florence Mirembe et al shows that over 775,000 women in Uganda have unintended pregnancies and of these 297,000 end pregnancies through induced abortions. Government does not have the capacity to monitor every woman who gets pregnant to ensure that they do not abort. Neither does it have the mandate or authority to pry into the private lives of its individual citizens. Individual persons own their bodies and they are at liberty to choose how they want to use them. Any woman therefore who feels, for any reason, they cannot continue carrying a pregnancy, must be left to terminate it at will.
The duty of the government in this whole process instead should be to facilitate "safe removal" of the fetus from the woman who in her better judgment thinks she is not ready to have such babies. Opinions are abound of people who are opposed to abortion arguing that abortion should not be allowed because in having sex, women should be aware they may get pregnant. This is a shallow argument because scientific evidence suggests that human beings, on average and intentionally have sex primarily not for procreation but for pleasure. Therefore if in the course of having sex for pleasure, a woman happens to conceive, there should be no need for such a woman to ask for permission to terminate such an unwanted pregnancy.
It should be made clear to those who are against abortion that a fetus is not a human being and it remains a fetus until it is delivered as a baby. Whereas the law is kept in place, it serves no other purpose other than propagating underhand methods of operation of carrying out abortions, whose consequences are glaringly fatal. In keeping abortion illegal, government is killing its women citizens who can't access better services to remove fetuses they are not ready to have as children because of fear of the repressive law.
The social problems we face today are not as a result of lack of laws to protect human rights, but to the contrary, it is because we have many laws which are in most cases redundant and at worst without any objective and purpose. Today, some governments out of folly, highhandedness and ignorance have extended the boundaries of their mandate and jurisdiction by declaring what in their own understanding, and for their own motives call immoral human behaviour. Irrespective of how long it shall take the world to debate and meditate on the four controversies, I am convinced that, one day homosexuality, prostitution, and abortion shall be made legal and lawful and governments worldwide shall recognize the fact that killing criminals is like pouring water in a bottomless pit. It may take one hundred years or more, but it surely will come.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERFOMANCE BY EAC COUNTRIES
By Mutabazi Sam Stewart
The opposition in Uganda keeps putting government in the spotlight about the things the State ought to do but is not doing. Most people keep lamenting how Uganda is doing badly in terms providing democracy and improving the lives of its people. President Yoweri Museveni has often rebutted such claims by insisting that Uganda after all is doing even better compared to other nations in Africa. I took trouble to ascertain the truth about how countries in the region are fairing in terms of development basing on available statistics and using personal observations and experiences. I would have loved to cover as many African countries but my limited travel experience would not allow me to get first hand information that I needed to make a fair and balanced judgement in countries which I have never visited. I therefore chose to limit my area of analysis to the East African region, of which I have considerable exposure and acquaintance
I have been to all the capitals of member states of the East African Community i.e. Kampala, Nairobi, Dares salaam, Kigali and Bujumbura. I have been to most of the major towns and a few villages of these countries as well. The economic performance of a country can noticeably be recognised by the vibrancy of its capital, to a lay man who may not be interested in economic indices by IMF/ World Bank and UNDP. Without traveling to the countryside, one can get a sense of whether a country is doing well or otherwise, by the kind of activities going on in the capital city. If the people in the capital are living a miserable life, don’t expect those in the countryside to be doing better. i therefore believe that my analysis of situations in the countries will make a fair assessment
I have tried to analyse, informally the performance of states that make up the East African Community for a period of over ten years. I have discovered that each country has its own peculiar woes and achievements.
With a population of 10 million people, (It is the most densely populated country in Africa given its size) GDP of $8 billion, total revenue collection of $700, external debt at $1.4 Billion and life expectancy at 49, Rwanda has the best functioning public works system and management across East Africa. This is attributed to the policy mixture employed by the government there where, despite privatization and liberalization the state remains the largest investor in public enterprises which it sees as vital components of helping to uplift the struggling private sector. Rwanda is at the same time regarded as the most policed state in the region with a lot of curtailments on freedom of its people.
Burundi is the poorest country among the five countries surveyed going by both conventional statistics and through common man’s judgement. The country has a population of 8 million; its life expectancy is at 51 years. Its GDP, total government revenue and external debt are $6.3 billion, $256 million, and $1.2 billion respectively. The poor performance of the country is attributed to being the furthest from the cost which escalates its transport costs and unending wars and political instability that can’t allow the economy to flourish.
Uganda is arguably one of the most endowed country among the pack of the five that form the regional bloc. With the best climate, an average size and diverse population (30 million), Uganda is supposed to be doing far much better economically. As of now our GDP is at 31.2 billion, our revenue is a mere 2.8 billions and our external debt stands at 1.39 billion dollars after the debt cancellation under the HIPIC initiative. Uganda’s public sector could be regarded as, again, one of the worst in the region given what it was in the sixties and early seventies.
Tanzania has been a mediocre state ever since the days of Mzee Julius Nyerere. Despite being peaceful, the country seems to be stagnant as far as development is concerned. With a total land and sea area covering 945,087 sq km, population of 40 million people, revenue of $3.5 billion, life expectancy of 51 years, Tanzania seems to have slept for so long. Tanzania is a country that gets everything right in terms of governance and pro-people programmes but gets everything wrong on how to get results. It is the safest country in the region with the lowest reported cases of corruption and has the lowest external debt ($600 million). No body can put a finger on who “bewitched” Tanzania
The last country we can talk about is what is known to be the largest economy in East and Central Africa – Kenya. It has one of the busiest ports in Africa, Mombasa and its GDP is at $57 billion. Its public debt stands at $2.5 and its per capita income hovers around 300-350 dollars. The country boasts of a large private sector that has expanded into areas formally thought to be provided by the public or the State. Kenya’s biggest asset is at the same time its greatest weakness. It has one of the most versatile populations not only in East Africa but in Africa as a whole. Its cities and towns are the most insecure and its population can’t take no for an answer from government. Kenya wouldn’t be any different from Uganda if it didn’t have access to the sea. Its public sector, though better than that of Uganda is nothing much to cry for. Its upcountry roads are for instance worse of than those of Uganda.
What one can conclude from such a picture therefore is that President Museveni may be right when he says that all African countries are the same. For instance, although Kampala is the filthiest city of all the five capitals, a visitor who abruptly lands in the centre of any of the other cities would not make so much difference. On the other hand, the opposition is also right in demanding for better things from government. The fact that other countries are doing badly must never be tolerated as a valid reason to remain backward. It only calls for one action - if the current administration can’t pull Uganda to the top its better they ship out and let others try.
The opposition in Uganda keeps putting government in the spotlight about the things the State ought to do but is not doing. Most people keep lamenting how Uganda is doing badly in terms providing democracy and improving the lives of its people. President Yoweri Museveni has often rebutted such claims by insisting that Uganda after all is doing even better compared to other nations in Africa. I took trouble to ascertain the truth about how countries in the region are fairing in terms of development basing on available statistics and using personal observations and experiences. I would have loved to cover as many African countries but my limited travel experience would not allow me to get first hand information that I needed to make a fair and balanced judgement in countries which I have never visited. I therefore chose to limit my area of analysis to the East African region, of which I have considerable exposure and acquaintance
I have been to all the capitals of member states of the East African Community i.e. Kampala, Nairobi, Dares salaam, Kigali and Bujumbura. I have been to most of the major towns and a few villages of these countries as well. The economic performance of a country can noticeably be recognised by the vibrancy of its capital, to a lay man who may not be interested in economic indices by IMF/ World Bank and UNDP. Without traveling to the countryside, one can get a sense of whether a country is doing well or otherwise, by the kind of activities going on in the capital city. If the people in the capital are living a miserable life, don’t expect those in the countryside to be doing better. i therefore believe that my analysis of situations in the countries will make a fair assessment
I have tried to analyse, informally the performance of states that make up the East African Community for a period of over ten years. I have discovered that each country has its own peculiar woes and achievements.
With a population of 10 million people, (It is the most densely populated country in Africa given its size) GDP of $8 billion, total revenue collection of $700, external debt at $1.4 Billion and life expectancy at 49, Rwanda has the best functioning public works system and management across East Africa. This is attributed to the policy mixture employed by the government there where, despite privatization and liberalization the state remains the largest investor in public enterprises which it sees as vital components of helping to uplift the struggling private sector. Rwanda is at the same time regarded as the most policed state in the region with a lot of curtailments on freedom of its people.
Burundi is the poorest country among the five countries surveyed going by both conventional statistics and through common man’s judgement. The country has a population of 8 million; its life expectancy is at 51 years. Its GDP, total government revenue and external debt are $6.3 billion, $256 million, and $1.2 billion respectively. The poor performance of the country is attributed to being the furthest from the cost which escalates its transport costs and unending wars and political instability that can’t allow the economy to flourish.
Uganda is arguably one of the most endowed country among the pack of the five that form the regional bloc. With the best climate, an average size and diverse population (30 million), Uganda is supposed to be doing far much better economically. As of now our GDP is at 31.2 billion, our revenue is a mere 2.8 billions and our external debt stands at 1.39 billion dollars after the debt cancellation under the HIPIC initiative. Uganda’s public sector could be regarded as, again, one of the worst in the region given what it was in the sixties and early seventies.
Tanzania has been a mediocre state ever since the days of Mzee Julius Nyerere. Despite being peaceful, the country seems to be stagnant as far as development is concerned. With a total land and sea area covering 945,087 sq km, population of 40 million people, revenue of $3.5 billion, life expectancy of 51 years, Tanzania seems to have slept for so long. Tanzania is a country that gets everything right in terms of governance and pro-people programmes but gets everything wrong on how to get results. It is the safest country in the region with the lowest reported cases of corruption and has the lowest external debt ($600 million). No body can put a finger on who “bewitched” Tanzania
The last country we can talk about is what is known to be the largest economy in East and Central Africa – Kenya. It has one of the busiest ports in Africa, Mombasa and its GDP is at $57 billion. Its public debt stands at $2.5 and its per capita income hovers around 300-350 dollars. The country boasts of a large private sector that has expanded into areas formally thought to be provided by the public or the State. Kenya’s biggest asset is at the same time its greatest weakness. It has one of the most versatile populations not only in East Africa but in Africa as a whole. Its cities and towns are the most insecure and its population can’t take no for an answer from government. Kenya wouldn’t be any different from Uganda if it didn’t have access to the sea. Its public sector, though better than that of Uganda is nothing much to cry for. Its upcountry roads are for instance worse of than those of Uganda.
What one can conclude from such a picture therefore is that President Museveni may be right when he says that all African countries are the same. For instance, although Kampala is the filthiest city of all the five capitals, a visitor who abruptly lands in the centre of any of the other cities would not make so much difference. On the other hand, the opposition is also right in demanding for better things from government. The fact that other countries are doing badly must never be tolerated as a valid reason to remain backward. It only calls for one action - if the current administration can’t pull Uganda to the top its better they ship out and let others try.
ARE HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONFLICT WITH RELIGION?
By Mutabazi Sam Stewart
Many things have remained unclear in the world since time immemorial. But the most mythical have been issues related to religion and God. All attempts to demystify these issues by the greatest people have recorded minimal successes. The search for true religion keeps the world on tension with each religion claiming supremacy and authenticity over others. The more people question matters of God and religion, the more they get confused and the more they confuse other people. Religion remains the most powerful tool that unites and divides people in equal measure. Religion and faith have been interpreted differently by different people throughout history. Some religions have gone an extra mile to kill in the name of God. Whether this is acceptable depends on the indoctrination one received and the type of faith one confesses.
Philosopher, political economist and revolutionary Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was one among the many great thinkers that sought to understand the mysteries of God and religion. His powerful exposition that “Religion is the opium of the world” that keeps people sedated as they walk the grating journey through life on earth gave one of the most reasonable assurance the world had ever received about religion and humanity. I agree with Karl Marx to the extent that religion has achieved its purpose in as far as keeping people’s hopes high always expecting better lives ahead. Marx’s assertion is logically sound. I think that the world would not surtive even fob a day without religion and God. Take away religign from the world and {ou will have a mad world. If all the people of the world were to realize that God doesn’t exist after all, the kind of lawlessness and hopelessness we would experience would make the best policing systems to crumble at an overwhelming credence of a people that see no reason to live.
I wes tempted to write about this tmpic after reading a story in last week’s issue of The Weekly Observer that quoted a lady, Grace Kashameire, 55, who had been used by Pastor Imelda Namutebi Kel` of Liberty Worship Centre to hoodwijk church goers into balieving that she ha` been cured of AIDS because of Namutebi’s prayers. Although this lady asks for forgiveness, I personally think that what she did is unforgivable and inexcuqable, barbaric and inhuman. I further think that she is not sincere. She is a self seeker who, given chance, would do ajything irrespective of the impact such an actionwould have on the wider public. I am rediably il&ormed that thiS same 7oman had tried to sell dhe story to most top media hkuSes but they had refused to publish it. If I were an ddit/r, Iwouldn’t give her audienca either because she took tha public for ! ride gn an issue that is too delicat` to play with.
Pastor Namutebi and others continue to claim that they Can cure HIV/AIDS in God’s name, other liberal pastors and clergy deny dhis claim although 4hey accept that miracles do h`ppen even in present times asthey did when Jesus waq on eapth. Lay people like us get éonfured As to whom we can believe. Are mhracles porsible today? If so, what typ` of miracles and who can and c`nnot perfgrm them? These a e pertinent questions Raised by most of us but we can’t get ready answers becatse the man himself (G/d) who would provide the answers has chosen to remain mum for over 10 million (or is it a billion years since he put hisfirst creation (Adam) on this planet. Our role is to only keep praying that God may one day come out to explain to the world in no uncertain terms about which religion is right and which isn’t.
In all the foregoing, some people have questioned the relationship that exists between human rights and religion. Why are human rights proclamations very silent as religion keeps eroding the rights of the most vulnerable? Don’t people have a right to be told the truth about which religion to follow? Which one is right and which one is false? The answer is clear. Human rights are in total agreement with God. We believe that God exists and is the sole giver of life. The life that God gives provides the person first and foremost with a soul, and morals. These two are the most distinctive features about the human race that gives man the capacity and intelligence to choose right from wrong.
What is not clear in human rights is which religion is true and which one is false. Human rights however go beyond Godly doctrines. The only difference between human rights and God is that whereas God prefers righteous people to inherit his kingdom, human rights are for all people irrespective of their sins. This forms the strongest points of human rights because on the basis of what we stand for, we believe that the world is better following God’s ways but it is best recognizing the fact that people who don’t know much about God should also be allowed to live a decent life while they are still on earth. The strength of human rights is again its greatest weakness, because it protects people who take others for granted like Grace Kashemeire. Hundreds of people who believed her testimony will never be compensated. The only way for those people to get back at Kashemeire is to decide to refuse to forgive her as per her request as this is well within their rights. She should be treated with the contempt she deserves. In the meantime, may we treat our fellow human beings fairly, because in there, lies true religion, I believe.
Many things have remained unclear in the world since time immemorial. But the most mythical have been issues related to religion and God. All attempts to demystify these issues by the greatest people have recorded minimal successes. The search for true religion keeps the world on tension with each religion claiming supremacy and authenticity over others. The more people question matters of God and religion, the more they get confused and the more they confuse other people. Religion remains the most powerful tool that unites and divides people in equal measure. Religion and faith have been interpreted differently by different people throughout history. Some religions have gone an extra mile to kill in the name of God. Whether this is acceptable depends on the indoctrination one received and the type of faith one confesses.
Philosopher, political economist and revolutionary Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was one among the many great thinkers that sought to understand the mysteries of God and religion. His powerful exposition that “Religion is the opium of the world” that keeps people sedated as they walk the grating journey through life on earth gave one of the most reasonable assurance the world had ever received about religion and humanity. I agree with Karl Marx to the extent that religion has achieved its purpose in as far as keeping people’s hopes high always expecting better lives ahead. Marx’s assertion is logically sound. I think that the world would not surtive even fob a day without religion and God. Take away religign from the world and {ou will have a mad world. If all the people of the world were to realize that God doesn’t exist after all, the kind of lawlessness and hopelessness we would experience would make the best policing systems to crumble at an overwhelming credence of a people that see no reason to live.
I wes tempted to write about this tmpic after reading a story in last week’s issue of The Weekly Observer that quoted a lady, Grace Kashameire, 55, who had been used by Pastor Imelda Namutebi Kel` of Liberty Worship Centre to hoodwijk church goers into balieving that she ha` been cured of AIDS because of Namutebi’s prayers. Although this lady asks for forgiveness, I personally think that what she did is unforgivable and inexcuqable, barbaric and inhuman. I further think that she is not sincere. She is a self seeker who, given chance, would do ajything irrespective of the impact such an actionwould have on the wider public. I am rediably il&ormed that thiS same 7oman had tried to sell dhe story to most top media hkuSes but they had refused to publish it. If I were an ddit/r, Iwouldn’t give her audienca either because she took tha public for ! ride gn an issue that is too delicat` to play with.
Pastor Namutebi and others continue to claim that they Can cure HIV/AIDS in God’s name, other liberal pastors and clergy deny dhis claim although 4hey accept that miracles do h`ppen even in present times asthey did when Jesus waq on eapth. Lay people like us get éonfured As to whom we can believe. Are mhracles porsible today? If so, what typ` of miracles and who can and c`nnot perfgrm them? These a e pertinent questions Raised by most of us but we can’t get ready answers becatse the man himself (G/d) who would provide the answers has chosen to remain mum for over 10 million (or is it a billion years since he put hisfirst creation (Adam) on this planet. Our role is to only keep praying that God may one day come out to explain to the world in no uncertain terms about which religion is right and which isn’t.
In all the foregoing, some people have questioned the relationship that exists between human rights and religion. Why are human rights proclamations very silent as religion keeps eroding the rights of the most vulnerable? Don’t people have a right to be told the truth about which religion to follow? Which one is right and which one is false? The answer is clear. Human rights are in total agreement with God. We believe that God exists and is the sole giver of life. The life that God gives provides the person first and foremost with a soul, and morals. These two are the most distinctive features about the human race that gives man the capacity and intelligence to choose right from wrong.
What is not clear in human rights is which religion is true and which one is false. Human rights however go beyond Godly doctrines. The only difference between human rights and God is that whereas God prefers righteous people to inherit his kingdom, human rights are for all people irrespective of their sins. This forms the strongest points of human rights because on the basis of what we stand for, we believe that the world is better following God’s ways but it is best recognizing the fact that people who don’t know much about God should also be allowed to live a decent life while they are still on earth. The strength of human rights is again its greatest weakness, because it protects people who take others for granted like Grace Kashemeire. Hundreds of people who believed her testimony will never be compensated. The only way for those people to get back at Kashemeire is to decide to refuse to forgive her as per her request as this is well within their rights. She should be treated with the contempt she deserves. In the meantime, may we treat our fellow human beings fairly, because in there, lies true religion, I believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)