There is no sense in your post, so I shall not try to invent any.

As to you use of the word "allowed", as in all countries are allowed to treat their citizens as they wish, I have no idea what the precise meaming of allowed is - allowed by whom or what - but  I do know this has nothing to with with whether we should feel free to criticize it.

You really must learn to use words more precisely.

Well I guess I need a mental examination then.  In coming to this conclusion, I note that although I never mentioned your name in the post above ,Beshpin, and, despite the fact that I stated that "together we seem to have created" this Junebug, you seem to have felt that my words were particularly applicable to you.  Having given it some more thought ( and in the light of your response), I think I agree.

One does not have to view Uganada through a Canadian lens. That is you limiting the options.

One can agree with a nation's right to sovereignty and still see that they, governmental leaders or those in power, toss the constitution aside on so called "behalf" of the citizens. 

Uganda is a recent member to the United Nations.(Jan 2009). They were elected a non-permanent  member of the United Nations for a term of two years.

Joining the United Nations hopefully means you know what the UN is. That you know it means facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. It would hopefully mean you read the charter. It means you understand that although you are a sovereign nation, among 192 sovereign nations, you are agreeing to be a global partner. It means you understand, hopefully, that there is a Human Rights Council of the UN. That there are international courts, etc... That there are agreed upon human rights...

That is not ethnocentrism. There are 192 countries, almost every sovereign nation, represented. You cannot call that ethnocentrism.

Again, one does not have to view it through a Canada lens OR a global lens.
 

One may view it through a Ugandan lens. One may know the advancements made in public opinion about Uganda and Ugandans after Idi Amin. One could know the economy after being destroyed during Amin's years, is growing. One may know the advancements and slow in the HIV arena and see them being rolled back. One may see that this is too soon after a civil war. One may say that after accusing the Lord's Resistance Army of atrocities, it is not helpful to Musuveni's government. One may worry it would bring about more strife in an already blood drenched battlefield. One may be concerned that some of the African Union may not aid you in the event of civil war based on Ugandan policy contravening their own.  One many worry about UN sanctions., One may worry that freedom of speech, assembly, dissemination of information... takes away basic human rights of all Ugandans, rights in the Constitution and held as UN human rights.

Every avenue you look at seems to be about imposing upon Ugandans. There is also empowering Ugandans.

You seem to be viewing everything though a Canadian lens and then calling others ethnocentric based upon what you see out of your own lens.

As global citizens, as citizens of United Nation member countries, we do have a say. The same as Uganda would have a say if Canada was to contemplate or impose a law that was a violation of UN human rights.  

You're still sticking with that stupid idea that racism and homophobia are not comparable eh?

Well at least you're consistent in your prejudice and bigotry.

To illustrate how seriously I take this ridiculous, asinine thread, let me just say that the Toronto Maple Leafs beat the Detroit Red Wings 5 to 1 on November 7.  Also, Montreal and Ottawa both lost their games.  Hockey is my religion, race, sex and gender identity.  Will I be executed, or be given a 100 meter head start?  Seriously, Lord Beshpin Almighty, what is your ultimate and perfect answer?  Help us, Obi-wan-kenobe, you're our only hope!  BTW, some colleges and universities offer courses, some free of charge, in all areas of arts and social sciences.  Perhaps your time would be better spent actually learning something.  All together now, "Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream." Or, with apologies to Credence Clearwater Revival, "Trollin', trollin', tollin' on the river."  Does Beshpin listen to the "Trolling Stones"?

You fail to address the reason why Uganda is doing this.  Hatred against sexual minorities is not African in origin. It was imposed by westerners through colonialism, and continues to be imposed to this day by Christian and Islamic political movements like "The Family"  The Family and other western religious groups have put killing of gay people on the agenda in Uganda. 

This is being used as a tool by westerners to control Africa by finding scapegoats to blame Africas problems. (So they will not turn on the west)

The same thing is happening in Iraq.  Where the Americans have found that t Shia and Shite militia are able to stop fighting each other if they instead focus on killing gays. The CBC did another story where they exposed how the US was able to "keep the peace" after leaving certain areas of Irag by getting the militias to focus on queers.  And it is working for now, as the CBC interviewed member sof death squads that hunt and kill gay men, and they claim it is the one thing that the two groups agree upon.

Of course they are ignorant of the history of Islam and Queer folk.  Before colonialism Queers held the highest posts in government and the mosque. The laws against same-sex sex was only applicable to heterosexual males, until the British came and imposed their views on sex and sexual identity.

It seems that elves and dwarves have been at it forever.  Elves, with their haughty and ineffable ways, living forever, having tea ceremonies that last for centuries. Dwarves, being born from solid rock, living in moldy and damp unlit places, and their damnable ROCK music...

It is no wonder they always come to blows.

(never mention the 'forbidden' of the two.  I mean, if an elf touches a dwarf, how wrong is that?  If they penetrate deep into their mines, is that worse than just a reccy?  What if an elf thinks of a dwarf, and so forth)

So we, the ones who have to live with them, how do we...police them?  Do we throw up a shield around them?  Do we send our own armies there?  Do we hire the Trade Federation to put a blockade? Which?

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

FT,

I was just bemused by the notion of any authority killing someone because of their sexual orientation.  I think it is highly absurd to do so, and it made me try to think of what kind of test are they going to do to find out?  It is those kinds of absurdities that I am reminded of whenever I think of Capital Punishment.  Ritual killing, all over again.  We are so past that.  I am SO glad for the Internet, with its more-or-less instantaneous communication of ideas and events.  It gives us, the Ruling Class, more oomph, more agency in the world.  I am imagining, if this law passes, some activism consisting of finding out 'dirt' on the Movers & Shakers of that country, finding out if any of them are 'gay' in any sense and then...bringing that to their attention, so then they'd have to...well, be put in an awkward situation.  Just extending a principle of Jesus that WE ARE ALL ONE SO GET WITH THE LOVIN' :3

Beshpin,

there are two 'realities' of the Global Situation.  One is that each state is Soverign.  But, the other reality is that, since we are becoming a Global Village, "Soverign" does not mean "We can do Anything".  Which we (the Global We) are trying to hammer out at this moment.  To survive, we are figuring out the 'Baseline behaviours' which is Acceptable.  Which will include, what will we do if no one wants to obey those rules?  Which will include some countries, some of the time, giving up something so that countries that are in need can survive/get ahead.  And so forth.

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

"Your analogy that harm is the mitigating factor in this is laughable, consent or no, they have right to label it as illegal action."

More big, vague words being thrown around.  How is harm a 'mitigating circumstance'?  Do you even know what the technical definition of a mitigating circumstance is?  

"Now, expression of religion is becoming less and less acceptable in public, to the point that it may be made illegal.to display any religious symbol in public unless designated as a church/mosque etc"

Another pointlessly broad statement.  I wont bother responding to this one. 

"Your analogy that harm is the mitigating factor in this is laughable, consent or no, they have right to label it as illegal action."

No one is going to march into Uganda and prevent their government from doing this.  I don't understand what this whole 'we're not respecting their sovereignty' nonsense is about.  The government of Uganda is fully capable of pursuing this policy.  We're arguing that they shouldn't because it explicitly contradicts the Universal Declaration, which they're signatories to.  

You've taken sovereignty to such an absolute dimension that if a government initiates a policy of ethnic cleansing, we're not really allowed to criticize them because it's their culture and who are we to impose?  Maybe you think genocide is taking things too far, but if you're willing to draw a line at genocide, why not the senseless murder of sexual minorities?  At what point does this kind of arbitrary state violence become unacceptable to enlightened relativists like yourself?   

We can't criticize the Uganda government for this.  Being consistent, I assume you're morally neutral towards the Sudanese government's ethnic cleansing in Darfur, which has killed over 300,000 people and displaced over 4 million. 

"Would I be revoked my ability to be religious? Would my life be invalidated if I could no longer publicly express myself?"

If you can't go a church, temple or mosque and pray publicly then yes, the practice of your religions is very much being infringed upon.  Most forms of religious persecution go further than this to the point where the followers of targeted religions are sought out regardless of how devoutly they practice. 

"What if they made it illegal to pray? Would my freedom to religion be denied?"

Uhm, yes?  Duh. 

"Even if we use the same argument against political ideals you still have no case against why our country cannot make laws against public expression of political ideals...  "

I can't understand what point you're trying to make.  Banning public expressions of religion is okay because you can still have a religion if you're not practising it publicly?  And this somehow makes persecution of gay people okay?  I don't understand what you're saying. 

I've argued with plenty of people who have bad ideas.  You're one of the few people I've encountered who has no ideas.  I'm trying to figure out a point, an argument in what you're saying, and I'm stumped.  I've hit a wall.  Might as well be arguing in Zulu. 

"I can lie about my sexuality to fit in, but I cannot lie about whether or not I have glasses, or whether or not I am a man. "

What's your point?  Yes, people can lie about their sexuality...at an incredible cost to their integrity?  Are you okay with the pain which goes with hiding one's sexuality?  Why is that your standard?  

Your callousness is breath-taking.  You said that's a part of your personality.  Good - an admission.  Then stop bitching about what a good person you are.  You're willing to consign 10% of the population to the trashcan of human life and this doesn't bother you much.  Your "philosophy" is a blood-sucking abstract. 

Beshpin,

You said, "it is well within their rights as a sovereign state to do what they want with their citizenry". Are you serious? The UN, and the 192 nations in membership, out of what 203 sovereign states making most the world... do not agree with you.

The same applies to your example of Canada and what they might be want to do to their citizenry. The prevailing attitude is not "let them overthrow the government if they don't like it".

It means starting off under false premise. It is an argument from fallacy.

That is irrelevant to me anymore. Because, for myself, I have decided that it is not about debate and logic, it is about rhetoric. It is about you going ad nauseum until nobody cares and you might even go on if nobody is listening.

Asking " When has any nation invaded another to stop them from trampling over the human rights of their own citizens?" and qualifying it that it must be the only factor to fit in your definition is another example of your method of debate or lack of debate. That tries to make invasion or war a simple thing without layers and overlapping layers... It shows your parameters to be ridiculous.

There is simply no talking to you. Why? You refuse to allow it.

Your problem Besh is that you don't engage with others.  I can expect you to say the same thing at the end of a thread as a you said at the very beginning, regardless of what kinds of arguments have come up along the way.  You can tell whether a person is engaging by how they respond to what was brought up.  Growth is a sign of life.  If a thought process doesn't change or grow, it's dead. 

Your 'thought' is a collection of dead abstractions that support each other, but are completely disengaged from reality.  This is why there is such a callous tone to your writing, not because you're being reasonable and objective but because you don't have any connection to feedback from other human beings.  That your views could be damaging or dehumanising comes as a complete shock to you because you don't consider that you're dealing with emotional, flesh-and-blood people, not abstract pawns in an intellectual board game. 

I can tell this from your language, which is intentionally vague and misleading.  You don't have an interest in dialogue becuase in order for dialogue to take place, both parties need to comprehend each other.  When you arbitrarily make up definitions and use words completely out of context, you  make comprehension harder, not easier.  Notice how you still haven't answered my question about what your point is, which I asked you to summarise in a sentence or two?  

I don't know why I even bother responding anymore when you haven't addressed anything I've said.  You simply assert and then re-assert points you've already made, as if that settles everything. 

"My position states that while they may be doing terrible things in Uganda, it is well within their rights as a sovereign state to do what they want with their citizenry, as we believe that we have the same rights here in Canada. If, in Canada, we decided as a whole that we should put incestuous people to death, we would be well within our rights. Unfortunately for the state, there would be no way to find out whether or not any incest was going on unless it was being broadcasted to the public."

First, states aren't allowed to do whatever they want.  Second, if you're going to be consistent, then surely you have no objection to a government deciding that a genocide is in order? 

"So then, we as a country do not have the right to impose our views and our society onto them."

This isn't about what "we as a country" think.  It's about human beings responding to what happens to other human beings.  This point seems to fly past you.  You keep approaching this through the lens of what one state does to another state.  No one here is approaching this from the point of view of the Canadian government telling Uganda what they need to do. 

"That people who don't think with an "open mind about sexuality" should somehow be compelled to accept something they don't agree with."

Yes, and that means keeping an "open mind" towards those who want to see gay people executed.  For you, believing that an entire section of the population ought to be wiped out is a completely respectable opinion that we're supposed to embrace. 

I'm curious, do you think we're being intolerant to neo-Nazis by not respecting their opinions? 

"So now, I have a more fitting question for you: When has any nation invaded another to stop them from trampling over the human rights of their own citizens? It's important to note that this must be the "only" factor as my opinion of warfare is that countries will do what they have to as long as it secures resources. How they justify it to their populace is a whole different story."

No one is talking about invasion.