Ugandan Ambassador tells EU: Killing of Homosexual Activist by a Male Call-Boy Was Not “Homophobia”. The European Parliament Is “Surprised and Disappointed”

Posted on | June 27, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. |

I have had little time to post on this blog recently, and therefore I am somewhat late in reporting on the scurrilous exchange of letters that took place between the European Parliament and the Ambassador of Uganda to the EU, Mr. Stephen T.K. Katenta-Apuli with regard to the allegedly “homophobic” killing of a homosexual “rights activist” in Uganda last year.

As readers of this blog will recall, the killing of David Kato caused great excitement at the European Parliament, where even the weakest pretext will suffice to prompt a powerful and vociferous lobby of sexually obsessed cultural revolutionaries into larmoyant and aggressive rants about real or imagined “homophobia” in Europe and world-wide. On the initiative of this group, a strong majority of Members (most of which probably hadn’t a clue what the whole clamor was about), the Parliament adopted a Resolution in which it pompously “condemned the violent murder of the Ugandan human rights defender David Kato Kisule” and “called on the Ugandan authorities to carry out an in-depth and impartial investigation into the killing and bring the perpetrators to justice, and to do so in respect of any act of persecution, discrimination and violence against LGBT people and all other minority groups”. According to the enraged drafters of the Resolution, who, from a distance of 6.000 km, were certainly well placed to have ascertained the facts before the local police could do so, the incident had been caused by “homophobic press campaigns”, and by “political and extremist religious leaders, among others, (who) incite violence against LGBT persons, while the authorities tolerate and leave unpunished crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation…”

However, when the Ugandan authorities investigated the case (which probably they would have done even without the gentle exhortations by the European Parliament), it turned out that the murderer of David Kato was not a fanaticized “homophobe”. Instead, he was a male prostitute.

A “crime committed on the basis of sexual orientation”? In a certain sense, yes, given that only homosexuals run the risk of being slain by male prostitutes whom they refuse to pay for their services. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to say that David Kato died while on duty as a “human rights defender”…

This, essentially, is what the Ambassador of Uganda has to say in response to the European Parliament’s rants:


 

Astonishingly, the honourable Members of the European Parliament, even after having been informed of the true facts of the case (which obviously they couldn’t be expected to have done prior to adopting a strong-mouthed resolution) do not see any need for self-criticism or apologies. Instead, MEP Heidi Hautala sent a response letter in which she expressed (in her quality as Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, and, as she claimed, on behalf of the President of the European Parliament) her “surprise and sappointment” (= disappointment?) over the content of the Ambassadors letter:


What is Mrs. Hautala “surprised and (di)sappointed” about? Is she disappointed that her “human rights” hero turned out to be a client of prostitutes? (By the way, what is the opinion of the EP’s gay lobby with regard to the sad phenomenon of male prostitution? Do they have no problem with the fact that young boys are sexually exploited in this way – maybe even by “human rights activists” who receive support from European Institutions???)

Mrs. Hautala shares her "suprise and sappointment"

Or is it that her gay and lesbian fellow MEPs apparently misinformed her and the rest of the Parliament with regard to the true circumstances of Mr. Kato’s death, and made her raise her hand for a Resolution that makes the whole Parliament look like a bunch of pompous and sanctimonious imbeciles?

Neither the one, nor the other. Instead, she lectures the Ugandan Ambassador that “the private life of an individual should not be discussed in connection with a matter belonging to the public sphere”, and that “the view that, due to his conduct, Mr. Kato should share the responsibility for his own murder reflects a categorically unsound and entirely unacceptable way of thinking”.

Ok, we all understand that the European Parliament, having issued its ill-founded Resolution, might have preferred the true circumstances of Mr. Kato’s death to remain unknown, so that nobody in the EU would ever learn of this monumental hiccup. However, was it not the Parliament itself that had requested Uganda to investigate the matter? And was it not the Parliament itself that brought Mr. Kato’s existence, his sexual orientation, and his violent death, to the attention of the European public??? And was it not Mr. Kato himself who, as many LGBT activists do, chose to make his “sexual orientation” a matter of public debate?

What is Mrs. Hautala trying to tell us here? That the matter “belongs to the public sphere” as long as  the false story of Mr. Kato having been murdered by a  homophobic thug is trumpeted by the European Parliament, whereas it has to immediately disappear from there when it turns out that in fact he used the services of a male prostitute and did not even want to pay him? Or does she think that the matter should continue to be discussed on the basis of this wrong narrative, because it squares so beautifully with her narrative of violent homophobic religious fanatics oppressing and murdering poor LGBT victims?

It is certainly true that, under a principle of rule of law, an Ambassador should abstain from predicting the outcome of the murderer’s trial. Yet it seems to me that the Members of the European Parliament’s LGBT Intergroup are rather ill placed to censure him for that, given (1) that they, at a distance  of 6.00 km, pretended to know the “culprits” before the investigation had even begun, and that (2) even now, despite the truth having been established, they simply fail to acknowledge their error.

As a EU citizen, I am not very comfortable with the thought that these people, whose obsession with their sexual proclivities is only matched by their arrogance and lack of manners, seriously pretend to represent us in our relation to third countries. This nonsense is not what they have been elected for.

Your Excellency, I feel ashamed and beg your excuse on their behalf.

(P.S.: Mrs. Hautala has quit her mandate as MEP in order to accept an appointment as a Minister for Development in the Finnish Government. Tant pis pour les Finnois, but at least she cannot anymore claime to speak for Europe.)

(P.P.S: with regard to Mr. Kato’s murderer, I am actually not sure whether he too was homosexual. Not all male prostitutes are. Maybe he, like so many African children, has simply been forced to sell his body for money in order to survive – to Mr. Kato and his likes. It is all the more absurd to treat Mr. Kato solely as a “victim”, when in actual fact he appears to also have been a perpetrator. I find it astonishing that the otherwise very active LGBT lobby in the European Parliament finds no words of condemnation for the sad phenomenon of male prostitution, and instead continues to praise Mr. Kato as a “human rights champion”….)

 

LinkedInShare

About

Turtle Bay and Beyond is a blog covering international law, policy and institutions. Our experts - at the UN, European Institutions, and elsewhere - explore an authentic understanding of international law, sovereignty, and the dignity of the human person. We expose those who would seek to impose a radical social vision that is contrary to these principles.

Search

RSS Feed

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Recent Articles

  • Categories

  • Authors