Legislated homophobia can’t save children

According to a report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) and the Ugandan government in 2017, one in four girls in Uganda experiences some form of sexual violence before the age of 18. This indicates a high prevalence of sexual abuse among girls in Uganda. Additionally, the 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) showed that 22 percent of women aged 15-49 experienced sexual violence at some point in their lifetime.

This is why all opponents to the Bill from within Uganda, myself included, agree in principle with its concerns – the protection of young and vulnerable Ugandans from sexual exploitation and abuse. My only concern is that legislation should extend to all situations of abuse, whether the abuse is opposite-sex or same-sex in nature. But criminalising adult, consensual same-sex intimacy does nothing to address these concerns of child abuse.
In this same breath, in our publication ‘Expanded criminalisation of homosexuality a flawed narrative’, we analysed six commonly cited justifications for maintaining or strengthening the criminalisation of homosexuality and examined them through historical and anthropological evidence across Africa, as well as social data from African states which do not criminalise homosexuality. In each case, the proposed rationale for criminalising homosexuality has been shown to be unsupported by the data.
Whether it claims that homosexuality is intrinsically un-African, that homosexuality is mutable and a mental disorder, that the traditional African family unit is undermined without criminalising homosexuality, that religion requires criminalisation of homosexuality, that the spread of HIV requires criminalisation of homosexuality, or that homosexuality is synonymous with child abuse, the evidence does not support these claims. 
Therefore, the anti-homosexuality Bill will not address any of these issues, either because there is no issue to address or because the Bill is simply targeting the wrong people.

Harmful therapy
Conversion therapy, which is a dangerous root, also known as “reparative therapy” or “sexual orientation change efforts,” refers to any practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The vast majority of reputable medical and mental health organisations have stated that conversion therapy is not only ineffective but also harmful.
Furthermore, conversion therapy is dangerous because it reinforces harmful stereotypes and stigmatises individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The therapy can also lead to a breakdown in family relationships and social isolation, particularly if it is forced upon minors who are not able to consent to the treatment.
In order to address the legitimate and important concerns regarding sexual abuse, child protection and healthcare – concerns which are not addressed by any of the measures contained in the Bill – the following alternatives to the Bill are recommended:
Amend sexual offences laws to make them gender-neutral so both male and female victims of rape and sexual assault are protected equally. The current definition of rape in the Penal Code Act 1950 of Uganda fails to ensure protection for male victims.
While Section 147 deals with ‘indecent assault’ committed against boys under the age of 18, the gendered definition of rape excludes male victims from the protection of the law. Equalising sexual offence laws, by making provisions gender neutral and equalising the sentences for the crimes, would help address the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s concern that current laws are ‘biased against the boy-child’, and would ensure both male and female victims of sexual offences were protected equally.
Replace mandated reporting of homosexuality with a system of mandated reporting of child abuse. A mandated reporting system for homosexuality, as provided for in the Bill, will not protect children from sexual abuse. A stronger and more effective use of limited government resources would be the mandated reporting of suspected child abuse, especially given the centrality of the issue of child protection in current debates surrounding the Bill.
Address risk factors associated with child exploitation and abuse. If Uganda is serious about reducing child abuse then it will need to confront the reality that it is primarily driven by poverty, not by the sexual orientation of perpetrators. Children, both male and female, are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation when their families experience poverty.
Prevent discriminatory access to health services. The expanded criminalisation provided by the Bill is likely to have the unintended and serious consequence of exacerbating HIV incidence in Uganda, by driving high-risk groups further underground.   
A comprehensive child protection Bill can play a vital role in promoting the safety and well-being of children. In addition to outlining the legal safeguards necessary to protect children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, the Bill should also address the need for guidance and social support for both children and their parents.
One key aspect of such support is psychological care for children. Children who have experienced abuse or neglect often require specialised support to help them overcome trauma and regain a sense of safety and security.
In addition, parents and other caregivers need access to social support and guidance to help them provide a safe and nurturing environment for children. This can include parenting classes, support groups, and other resources that help parents develop the skills and knowledge necessary to meet their children’s needs and promote their healthy development.

Dr Frank Mugisha is a human rights and peace advocate.