Talk:Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023

European Parliament Claim

This line

>On 19 April 2023, the European Parliament passed by a vote of 416 to 62, with 38 abstentions, a resolution concerning LGBT rights which included a formal condemnation of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2023. Most of the votes against were cast by right-wing MEPs from Hungary, Italy, and Poland, and came as a result of the text of the resolution accusing those countries of being anti-LGBT. The provisions condemning Uganda, meanwhile, were nearly universally supported by MEPs from all parties and from all member States.

Is currently unsourced and seems somewhat unbelievable in some of it's allegations, why would a bill on Uganda even mention Italy, Poland and Hungary to begin with? If no source is added I feel the paragraph should be deleted or edited to remove any claims that cannot be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.139.6 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0120_EN.html. It is not hard to find. 203.218.8.65 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Added some sources Revangarde568 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

sfn

@KlayCax please use sfn for references, for consistency. Docentation (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

and @Karma1998, thank you. Docentation (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

and @Log.base. Docentation (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Check sources and wording

In "THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL, 2023" that is available in the sources there is no mention of the death penalty as a punishment of homosexual acts. The highest penalty seems to be a prison sentence of 10 years. I would like this to be checked upon by other people and, if confirmed, the article to be changed to reflect the actual content of the bill, or provide a different source. Furthermore a distinction, as also present in the bill, and at a later point in the article between aggravated homosexuality (it seems to be synonymous with homosexual rape), and other articles of the law should be made. The current article's summary does not distinguish between aggravated homosexuality and the other provisions for the applicability of the death penalty, which doesn't reflect the content of the bill. 130.226.139.28 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

no mention of the death penalty—read § 1.2; the committee moved several amendments to the bill as gazetted.

I would like this to be checked by other people—I already have.

reflect the actual content of the bill—The article already does.

or provide another source—I already have (the committee report).

a distinction…between aggravated homosexuality (it seems to be synonymous with homosexual rape), and other articles of the law should be made—You’ve evidently misread the amendments made by the committee if you have read them. The ‘offence of aggravated homosexuality’ includes but is not limited to homosexual rape. It includes gay sex with persons over the age of seventy-five and gay sex as a ‘serial offender’.

doesn't reflect the contents of the bill—The existing text was not misleading, as is clear on reading the relevant parliamentary papers. I have inserted further detail in the summary. Docentation (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Article title

@Tony1 I have reverted your move of the page; please request a move if you disagree.

I observe that—

1. the vast majority of articles on legislation do not include disambiguation by country, e.g., Illegal Migration Bill, including the exemplars in WP:NCGAL, e.g. European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, Judiciary Act of 1789;

2. the only reason for disambiguation would be if there were another law with the same common name, but there does not appear to be one;

3. per WP:CONCISE the omission of disambiguation by country is preferable ceteris paribus, and given the unambiguity, that would appear to be the case; and

4. your move, as made, violates the third stipulation under ’Legislation’, viz., observance of local official usage—it omits the comma—and so presumably the logical move would have been to ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2023 (Uganda)’ if there were need for disambiguation.

Given 4, if you do request disambiguation by country, please follow WP:NCGAL, although I’d oppose that turn as outlined in 1–3 nevertheless. Docentation (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a serious disservice to readers not to include the country. Tony (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this a move request or merely a comment? Docentation (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Voting on the bill

@KlayCax I’ve inspected Hansard and I don’t think that there was ever actually a division on the bill, so will revert this edit. Rule 128(2) provides that no question shall be put at the first reading of a bill, which seems to have happened. There was no division on the second or third readings on 21 March either. Given there was no division, it seems misleading to refer to a ‘vote’. Two hon members spoke against the bill, yes; they also presented their minority report. That is not the same as voting. Similarly, 389 members were present, according to the Official Report (at p 7623), but there was no recorded division, so we cannot say that 389-2 = 387 voted in favour.

Docentation (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The livestream confirms that the second and third readings were agreed by voice vote. Docentation (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Provisions of bill at third reading

@Revangarde568 what is the basis for the new section? I haven’t seen a consolidated copy yet; are you working from the Hansard? Docentation (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote that part by putting together all the information I could gather from the 21 March 2023 Hansard of the Ugandan Parliament. Revangarde568 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I will post a consolidated copy here if I find one, but otherwise that’s the best we have, I suppose. Docentation (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Veto?

Under Article 91(3) of the Constitution of Uganda, the President may assent to or veto a bill; but the President may also return the bill for reconsideration. It would appear that Museveni has chosen the third course of action, in which case ‘vetoed’ is incorrect. Docentation (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The question of genocide

It would be helpful to actually discuss the question here.

1. I agree that, at present and on the available literature, the inclusion of both the genocide sidebar by @TenorTwelve and the article under the category transgender genocide by @JJARichardson were incorrect. However, the rationale given by @174.65.93.112 is also misconceived.
2. It is true that the act is not genocide within the meaning of the CPPCG, but whether to include the genocide sidebar should not be determined straightforwardly based on that criterion. Crimes against humanity widely alleged but not definitively found by any competent authority to have been genocidal within the meaning of the CPPCG probably should have the genocide sidebar too. It is not for editors to determine whether acts amounted to genocide within the meaning of the CPPCG and to classify articles accordingly.
3. Transgender genocide is also obviously not genocide within the meaning of the CPPCG, because trans people are not a 'national, ethnic, racial or religious group'. Whether or not an act amounts to genocide within the meaning of the CPPCG therefore is not the right question to ask in determining whether to categorise the article under transgender genocide. The more relevant consideration is whether there is widespread use of the term ‘transgender genocide’ in connexion with the act. I am not aware that there is any. I am inclined to think that genocide (cf. 'cultural genocide' etc.) is a case of Familienähnlichkeit, but even if it is not, the common underlying feature is not amounting to genocide within the meaning of the CPPCG.

Docentation (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move of 17 July 2023

@Tony1: we’ve had this discussion before. I asked whether you were actually opening a move request, and you failed to answer the question. Of course, that's your prerogative; but it is both discourteous and against policy to repeat a disputed change without following the relevant procedure. I have therefore reverted your move, and invite you (again) to make a move request. Docentation (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall a discussion, so sorry for that. Do you really think it's not a disservice to readers to remove the unique tag from the title? Almost 200 countries pass acts. And just what is the problem in disambiguating? Tony (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I addressed these points and explained the problem (in my view) in our discussion above, and here. You of course know that you needn’t convince me, only obtain consensus through a move request; and may rightly suspect that were you to do so without a new argument, I’d likely make the same points and maintain my position. Docentation (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)