As was to be expected, the announcement that President Museveni had assented to the Anti-Pornography Bill, at whose centre is the controversial anti-homosexuality Bill, the uproar from the Western world was quick in coming.
President Barack Obama of the US warned that Uganda risked a review of bilateral relations, warning that the Bill would be a “step backward for all Ugandans and reflect poorly on Uganda’s commitment to protecting the human rights of its people”.
The US-based human rights group, Human Rights Watch, angrily called on the United States to recall its ambassador to Uganda.
President Obama was, of course, being dishonest in claiming the Bill would be a step backward for “all Ugandans”. Opinion polls show consistently that anything from 95 per cent to 97 per cent of Ugandans not only view the anti-gay Bill as not being a step backward but, if anything, a great leap forward in the defence of traditional family values.
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Obama himself said his views on same-sex “marriage” were still evolving. Which makes one wonder why he doesn’t think that Ugandans’ attitude toward gays is also evolving, just that theirs might still be at the earliest, Homo Erectus (no pun intended) stage of evolution.
A comment in response to Uganda’s stand on the anti-gay Bill on the British gay website Pink News on February 19 said: “All countries, companies and anyone with any interests in Uganda must withdraw and let these backward people to themselves.”
A member of the Pink News website, reacting to a statement by the Ugandan minister of Ethics, Fr Simon Lokodo, in which he said Ugandans would rather die poor than accept gay culture, wrote: “He creeps me out the way he looks like a pudgy and sly-faced, black plastic kewpie doll.”
These openly racist comments directed at Fr Lokodo and other Africans shows that far from advancing gay rights in order to help bring in a more humane and tolerant world, homosexuals are just as petty, racist and unpleasant people as the rest of us.
This is what I don’t like about the way the gay agenda is being thrust at Africa. A determined and well-organised minority can wreak havoc on a majority.
It is this frenzy, the will to power, the assertion of a collective ego by the gay rights movement that I find suspect. It is the obsession with pushing the rights of tiny minorities and fringe groups into the mainstream and making the mainstream guilty about not embracing these minority rights.
It is this precise attitude of hysterical activism that led to the rise of the fascist movements in Europe in the 1930s. The Nazi in Germany and Italy’s Brown Shirts fascists started out as extreme nationalist groups, usually scorned and their leaders often in jail.
But they skilfully worked up the sentiments of their disillusioned and frustrated populations until they became part of the mainstream and eventually rose to power.
The gay lobby needs to think seriously about the aggressive way they are going about their campaign. It might bring them disaster in future.
The Black civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s succeeded partly because of the dignified and mostly non-violent way its leaders portrayed it. The current militancy by gay rights activists directed at foreign nation-states will not win them long-term friends.
For the time being, homosexuals and their lobbies have the upper hand. This is their time in the limelight. The majority in the West, Middle East and Africa on whom the gay agenda is being forced, is helpless, passive, fearful of being branded “homophobic”.
Western politicians, news organisations, governments, political leaders, entertainment companies and other sections of society are being bullied or blackmailed into declaring their support for gay rights. They dare not be seen as not supporting them.
However, this aggressive drive by gays and gay rights activists will soon reach its high water mark.
I foresee a demagogue like Adolf Hitler, sensing the silent resentment in society at this agenda. He will seize the moment. He will be courageous or reckless enough to disregard public opinion. It will take an unconventional man at the margins like that to snap the West out of its present state.
He will form a far-right party and make the core of his agenda that of restoring traditional Christian values. At first, he will shock many by daring to challenge the taboo of not speaking out against gays.
He will be denied TV studio time, but like the rapidly-rising Far Right political parties in Europe in the 1930s and today, he will be, like Hitler, a man with nothing to lose. He will be tenacious and persist with his radical agenda of calling for the elimination of homosexuals from society.
Eventually, to the disbelief of many, he will be elected by an enthusiastic majority, tired of being made to feel guilty about feeling there is something wrong with homosexuality.
Then hordes of once-suppressed majorities will descend on gays in their neighbourhoods, work places and villages and they will be jailed or worse. History is full of such backlashes.