Last week a court in Uganda issued a decision permanently enjoining a daily Kampala newspaper from printing the names and addresses of persons alleged to be gay or lesbian, and awarded damages to those whose identities the paper had already been published.  On the front page of the paper, above the pictures of the supposed gay Ugandans, the paper printed “Hang Them – They Are After Our Kids.” The story then claims that “most secondary schools and tertiary institutions have been penetrated by gay activists to recruit kids.”  More on the facts of the case here.

The plaintiffs claimed that the story exposed them to possible “violence, ridicule, hatred and mob injustice” in violation of right to dignity, a right to life, and right to privacy all secured by the Ugandan Constitution.  In the decision, which is here, Judge V.F. Musoke Kibuuka agreed that the newspaper had violated the plaintiffs’ rights to life, dignity and privacy, but did so by emphatically insisting that the case was “not about homosexuality.”  Instead the Judge took pains to note that the rights abridged were ones of a general nature: life, dignity and privacy, not gay or homosexual rights.  He noted that homosexuality remains a crime under Ugandan law, but that the law criminalized homosexual acts, not homosexual identity: “The scope of section 145 is narrower than gayism (sic) generally.  One has to commit an act prohibited under section 145 in order to be regarded a criminal.”

Tragically, the opinion undermines the privacy and dignity rights of the plaintiffs in the name of protecting them. The court starts off the opinion by quoting the very privacy-invading, violence-inducing and dignity-denying article that it then goes on to decry – thus further publicizing to a larger international audience the names, addresses and threats contained in the original publication.  A summary of the article would have been more appropriate.

So here’s the bind in a case like this: it makes sense that the judge resists framing the case as a gay rights case when there remain strong social and legal condemnation of homosexuality in Uganda (fueled by media like the one at issue in the case).  Finding a violation of a right, but not specifying the nature of the right as one related to homosexuality, risks condoning, if not reinforcing, homophobia in the society.

On the other hand, there are virtues to a legal victory that does not ground the claim in western-style identity politics.  By resisting framing the case as a “gay rights” case, in favor of a more generalized sense of personal dignity and privacy, the court defers the development of a jurisprudence that seeks to identify a class of lesbian and gay people and then provide them legal protections on the basis of their identity.  Much has been written, by myself and others, on the pitfalls of identity-based civil rights strategies, especially when they are imported to non-western contexts.  Civil rights paradigms that insist that sexual identity and desire are taken up in the same way in all corners of the globe risk a kind of sexual imperialism that ought give us pause.

Rather than seeing the Ugandan court’s refusal to see the case as about the rights of “homosexuals” as an unfortunate dodge or worse a form of homophobia, consider how it might reflect an opportunity for the law to condemn bigoted hatred and violence, while not predicating that condemnation on the assertion of a stable, familiar lesbian or gay identity.  Some might even call this project queer.



  1. New Blog Post: Uganda Gay Privacy Decision: Securing Rights for Sexual Minorities Without Labeling Them Gay http://wp.me/ploC4-Qa

  2. Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.

  3. #Uganda Gay Privacy Decision: Securing Rights for Sexual Minorities Without Labeling Them Gay http://t.co/aTbAFqK

  4. Nice blog here! Also your site a lot up very fast! What host are you using? Can I get your associate hyperlink on your host? I wish my web site loaded up as fast as yours lol.

  5. Howdy! This post couldn’t be written any better!

    Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate!
    He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this post to him.

    Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

    Feel free to visit my blog … videncia

  6. Valuable info. Lucky me I found your web site by accident, and I’m shocked why this accident didn’t happened earlier! I bookmarked it.

  7. i bet that this is one of the best posts on internet, or break the internet.. keep up the good work bro..

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.