Let’s me first get this out of the way; Writing a blog post every week is a lot harder than I expected. Now that I have penned that completely mediocre opening, what topic am I giving my 2 cents on this time around? Wait! Do they say ‘penned’ for blogs? Goes to show how I am still wrapping my head around this. Anyhow, a friend of mine asked for my thoughts on the anti-phonography bill which has commonly been referred to as the miniskirt bill. Well here goes; I never knew miniskirts were such a fundamental component to the survival of the female species. I am yet to understand the fuss really. So what if you can’t show some leg? I haven’t heard any reports on how the quality of life of Women in the Middle East is reduced because they choose to cover their knees, but maybe one of my female readers can help explain. Maybe the legs of Ugandan female have a plant component that they need photosynthesis to survive? Or does this stem from the commercially propagated view of the sexy woman. Because as much as you blow the smoke of fundamental rights, when the cards are laid on the table, it really isn’t about that. So, what’s the real issue here? I also think Father Lokodo’s educational qualifications need to be double checked. From the skewed rumblings I have heard exit that mans mouth, I bring into question his ability to comprehend any text. God bless his flock. If you read the anti-pornography bill, the real issue being tackled is indecent exposure and not the mini skirt per say. So the real question should be when it becomes indecent exposure. That’s has a myriad of possibilities depending on the era you grew up in. However, by definition, it is deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of HIS or HER body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behaviour. Here is a really simple way to look at it. It’s called under wear because it’s supposed to be under. If we can see any of it when you sit, bend and go through the motions of your day, it is indecent. And when I think about it further, since the definition includes “his body,” men who sad their pants should also be arrested. It’s only just. Also, if you have to continually pull it down, you are probably showing more than you know is standard and thus indecent exposure. And yes, my examples are about dress chord, but maybe that’s because if I have to tell you that “kimansulo” and pornography is unlawful, you need more help than these 500 or so words can do you. And since we are on the topic of bills anyway, I might as well weigh in on the antigay bill. I love gay people. There was a time, given the right wind velocity and a sniper rifle, I would have probably taken out a couple. But I was young and clue less then. I realised gay people are really good people with a really stupid ideology on sex. That said, I think the bill is needed. Yes, it could do with adjustments but that’s not for me to debate. That is why I vote. However, to everyone preaching fundamental rights and freedoms, here are some thoughts; By virtue of the fact that there was a need to start to refer to heterosexuals as straight, that somewhat goes to show that being gay is being bent. Do the math. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Being gay is either illegal or acceptable. Acceptability means that we agree that same sex relations are natural and thus they deserve to be represented in parliament, can be wedded in church and can adopt children. The more worrying one is the ability to adopt, because there is no better recruitment strategy than that. I know I don’t want a country where children are taught that Adam and Steve is acceptable because it isn't. Also, LGBT rights are just the rope that you see. I can assure you, there is a cow attached at the end of that rope. Soon marijuana smokers will come out as an at risk minority and demand some human rights protection and for drugs to be sold freely. Or some mad scientist will connect criminal acts with a certain genetic sequence and consequently they will demand some right for some special kind of prosecution. How I see it, the antigay law in all its inadequacies is a matter of precedent and not necessarily moral correction. Gay people will continue to be gay, and that honestly is between them and God, all I can do is tell them that that isn’t where God intended it to go. However, this is a stand for what will and will not pass in our community, and for that I am very proud. I am proud to be Ugandan in this time when we decided to stand up for morality and what is right. Yes, I care about roads, healthcare and corruption and the host of problems plaguing this nation. But as I push for those things to be rectified, I will take this victory. It is easier to fix a road, and build a hospital than to fix a generation that has wasted from moral degeneration. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. And that is #howdaudiseesit.
