Well, actually, it is a political cover up

I'll go out on a limb here.

First:  Stephen Conroy has a well deserved reputation for having a big mouth but looking and acting like a goose. (A minor point, but his sartorial inelegance yesterday with a saggy pullover while doing politically sensitive work on national TV didn't help his public image.)  His performance before the Senate committee with Angus Campbell has not been endorsed by any journalist or commentator that I have read, and it is unfortunate that his mode of attack has blunted the message.

But here's the thing:  it appears that while over the top restrictions on disclosure to the Australian public about operations to turn back boats might be called a Government decision, it seems that it is one which is indeed based on the advice of Lt General Campbell.  Here he is quoted in the ABC:

Lt Gen Campbell repeated his decision was based on "dealing with avoiding advantage to people smugglers, manipulation of potential clientele of people smugglers, the safety of our people and the management of regional and bilateral relationships and their sensitivities".

As Conroy suggested, not as clearly as he should have, if a General is basing advice (even partially) on concerns about "management" of the "sensitivities" of a relationship with neighbouring country,  he is taking "politics" into account.   And critics are entitled to point out that he is, via his advice, enabling a government to let concerns about relationships with Indonesia cast an internally politically convenient withholding of information to voters over matters of genuine public interest and concern.

Campbell may want to deny political partisanship - but he can't credibly deny that this is an operation with political aspects both internationally and domestically.  If he is freely admitting that political sensitivities are a matter he takes into account in his advice - why should he be free from questions about his judgement in that area?

Campbell can claim offence as much as he likes:   his dubious judgement is already shown by how he let himself be used jointly at media conferences for as long as he did.  His Army boss, now defending him, should have done something about that earlier than he apparently did.

The Defence leadership is not covering itself with glory in the way it has let itself be politically used by this awful government.  

And Conroy just had to "nuance" his questioning a bit to get the message across.

Update:  a Michael Brissenden commentary illustrates the ridiculous background of secrecy that Conroy was facing, and plenty of people in comments agree with my take, too.  

The General is giving advice that is helping enable a political cover up of a non military operation.

Yet another graph

OK, so I just happen to be stumbling across a lot of charts of interest lately.

Here's one from The Independent, in its article on the Ugandan tabloid which published the names of the (alleged) top 200 homosexuals in that country.  All the better to track them down and beat them up, I suppose.

Anyhow, here's the graphic:

By the way:    I'm not sure if I agree or not, but here is a guy who argues that gay marriage is actually the end result of Christianity's emphasis on equality.    (But, I would note - when you read Karen Armstrong's take on Islam, she emphasises its success as being based on innovative ideas of social justice and equality for its time.   So why does it still treat homosexuality as death worthy, after all these years - and despite its weird little corners such as Afghani's rural fondness for dancing boys?  And yet when you compare Muslim teaching on sex within marriage, and things such as contraception, it takes a more pragmatic and sensible line than Catholics.   Sex and religion and culture and science - it's all very complicated!)  

Catholics not exactly on the same wavelength

Last week, I noted some international polling on attitudes to homosexuality, and made some comment about how Catholic dominated countries generally seemed to have higher rates of acceptance.

I see now that Time reported on a pretty large scale international poll of Catholic attitudes to various sensitive issues earlier this month.  The results are pretty interesting, and on issue after issue, the really outstanding conservative Catholic attitudes are shown in the results from Africa and the Philippines.

On gay marriage (a more specific issue than mere acceptance of gay relationships) look at the results:





Well, there's not going to be any movement on that issue if the Africans have their way!

(And I see that while the Pew poll indicated the Philippines accepted gay relationships, they apparently don't go as far as accepting gay marriage.)

But look at the other issues on which the Pope is trying to hold a firm line.   On contraception, the results are pretty clear that the Church has lost everyone (except, oddly, a lot of Filipinos):

 

I think the figures for those opposed to contraception in the US are also unusually high, but perhaps  the political argument over the contraception mandate in Obama's health plan has heightened feelings against it.

But even on abortion, clearly, Catholics pretty much do not follow the straight-down-the-line teaching by a pretty big margin:

 

Mind you, that question is a pretty broad brush one and allows for some confusion.

In any event, the main point I take from this is that Catholicism has the same issues as the Anglican Church:  it is pretty fractured on some key teachings on matters of sexuality.  

Update:  William Saletan talks about the same polling, and notes that it reveals big age differences on matters such as gay marriage, indicating that the Church's position on sexuality generally is going to face continuing strains.

Mark Steyn, National Review - pay attention

See, Andrew Bolt's brief kerfuffle with Michael Mann shows how sensible people deal with a claim of defamation.

They realise they could well have overstepped the line, and offer an apology, even if grudgingly.  (And how can Bolt complain about that - he ends his post by snidely asking how he can get Mann to apologise for the hockey stick.)

How did National Review respond to Mann after publishing Steyn's column using "fraudulent" to describe Mann's work?  By publicly telling him to "get lost", and having a giddy laugh about how suing would hurt Mann more than it will hurt them:

My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.

He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Not at all a sensible approach.   And for Steyn personally - well, as I noted earlier today, even conservative lawyers can't really fathom why he thinks it a good idea to keep talking about the case and about Mann with derision. 

But then again, Steyn and National Review don't believe scientist's warnings about climate change.   Why should I expect them to have common sense about anything?

A sign of a crook government

If this report of what was said in the Coalition party room meeting this morning is true, it's a bad, bad sign for the way this government perceives itself:

12:00pm: The PM also congratulated Scott Morrison's handling of the immigration portfolio.
We understand that MPs then applauded.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that Labor was treating the death of one asylum seeker (last week) as more important than the more than 1,000 people who have died at sea.
"The hypocrisy on the left on this issue is breathtaking."

Says the women who is asking Cambodia if they will take some asylum seekers.  (Because, you know, Malaysia was just too risky.)

And also:  to think that the government is backslapping itself on a day Newspoll shows it substantially down on Labor.  Reality challenged in more than one way, this government.

Conservatives agree

I assume from its blogroll that Popehat is a conservative legal blog.  And the writer of this post thinks Michael Mann will, and should, lose his defamation case against Mark Steyn.

Yet he still thinks very strongly that Mark Steyn has a Fool for a Client.

He explains in some detail why Steyn's self written counter claim is a joke that will go over like a lead balloon in court.

Good.

Celebrity news briefly noted

Robin Thicke, Paula Patton Announce Separation | TIME.com

Gee.  So perhaps making a video learing over a bunch of topless models prancing around you is not good for your marriage?

(I only note this because I think I read somewhere that one of the blokes who featured in that video said the men in it were all happily married and thought it a bit of a lark to make it as "out there" sexy as they could.)

Show trial time

Tony Abbott ordered cabinet documents to go to royal commission | World news | theguardian.com

Have I complained before about the vindictive, abuse of political power that's inherent in the Abbott government's Royal Commission into the "pink batts" scheme.

This inquiry is a farce.  We know what happened politically - insufficient heed was paid to warnings that better regulation of installers would be wise before a heap of money being made available to anyone who set up an installation business. The circumstances of each individual death were the subject of enquiries already.  Nothing more is to be learnt about them.

There is nothing to be gained from this inquiry.  No government in the next 30 years is going to forget what happened with the pink batts scheme, and it is a disingenuous attempt to cause political pain to Labor, made even more pointless by the fact the main people involved at the time have all left politics.  As with communist countries, though, the urge for renunciation and "show trials" of previous leaders seems to strike Tony Abbott as a good idea.

Of course families of the deceased will welcome it - the desire to ventilate all possible blame for a relative's accidental death is strong and lasts for years and years, especially with parents.   But a wise government does not seek to accommodate this essentially emotional reaction.

In fact, let's face it - Lefties love to call out right wingers as "fascists" and this is normally over the top and silly. But with the Abbott government, with its embrace of militarism as a solution to a civil problem, and its preparedness to hold show trials into previous government leaders, it actually is the closest look to a fascist  government we have ever had.

More on Morrison

Bernard Keane's article on Morrison's awful attempt at spinning death on Manus Island is very good.

Fairfax reports this morning that Morrison is himself to be subject to "an internal review".  The story opens:

Border Protection Minister Scott Morrison has confirmed he knew a week ago his initial statements about a fatal brawl at the immigration detention facility on Manus Island were likely to have been wrong but has refused to say why he waited to correct the record until Saturday night.

Instead he has advised that his own conduct will be subject to an internal review, which will also take in the role of his officers, the private company charged with security at the detention centre, G4S, and Papua New Guinea authorities.

And could it be that Morrison's performance has contributed to bad polling for the Coalition last week?   Or is it that Abbott blaming Labor for every business closure just starting to look too transparent to the public? 

Hilariously, several of the Catallaxy comment crew (mainly women, as it happens) were telling people yesterday that they were sending emails of support to Morrison's office.   Amazing how politics blinds people.

Well deserved attacks

Scott Morrison has always annoyed me, with his smarmy "I know what I'm doing and you don't, and I'll tell you just as little as I care to" approach to the media, along with his co-opting of the military to try to puff up a civil problem into a war like one.

So it is good to see his copping some well deserved (and well reasoned) blasts from two seasoned journalists today - Michelle Grattan and Lenore Taylor.  As Michelle writes:

In other circumstances the admission of incorrect information might have been excusable. The situation had been chaotic and the briefing was given very soon after.
But Morrison should not be cut any slack.

First, he cuts no one else any (viz, his tirade about the ABC’s coverage of the burned hands allegations).

Second, he was dismissive of various claims about the causes and nature of what might have happened on Manus. On Wednesday, for example, he said he had given “very fulsome press conferences … If others want to provide speculative reports and noise and chatter, well I’d encourage people to ignore that and stay focused on the official reports that I have provided.”

And third, for him to take nearly a week to sort out whether the disturbance was inside or outside the centre suggests, at the least, incompetent administration – a failure by his department to extract accurate information from the service provider (G4S) and others.

 And further:  what a sign of the Coalition's cynical train wreck of an approach to boat arriving asylum seekers that they opposed them  being sent to Malaysia, really for purely political advantage, and are now asking Cambodia to take some instead!

Of course Labor is not perfect in all of this too - Rudd's "New Guinea" solution was always high risk, and riots in the island detention centres were always going to come unless people were moved out of them relatively quickly.   But at least Labor can still legitimately argue that it was the Coalition (and the Greens) who forced them into a more extreme position without even being given the opportunity of seeing if the Malaysian plan would help.  The Malaysian plan always had the appearance of being the start of a genuine regional approach:  it involved co-operation, rather than a simple "here, can you take our problem?" line.  It wasn't perfect, but well worth a try.  

Update 2:  found via Twitter:  back in 2001, Greg Sheridan was white hot with rage and indignation at the Howard government's use of the military regarding boat asylum seekers, the secrecy of such operations, and the attempt to blacken the name of all asylum seekers.   There matters are all being repeated today, if anything, to a worse degree.

In 2013, has Greg repeated anything like this with regard to the Abbott government?   What's changed, Greg. Apart from the appalling and extreme right wing politicisation of your newspaper, that is?

Silicone oil and quantum reality

Bee at Backreaction has a post up about some fascinating work by a French physicist using silicone oil drops to essentially mimic some quantum effects.

I'd not heard of this before, but it does seem a great way of visualising the idea that the smallest bits of matter might indeed by both waves and particles.

You should watch the video in the post too, it explains it pretty well.

Odd journalistic disclosure

Slate sometimes has been pretty lightweight examples of column filler, and there's one up at the moment about how its Deputy Editor (!) Julia Turner finally made herself watch Schindler's List by having a half dozen people (most of whom had also been sort of avoiding the film) over for a viewing party.

This strikes me as a very odd idea.  If a famous feature of a movie is its emotional impact, why watch it in a setting presumably designed to lessen its emotional impact?  (Unless you actually do have a history of depression or nervous breakdowns.  I guess that might give you a fair enough reason.)

Anyway, she ends up thinking the movie is "worth watching", but her analysis is rather flawed by one of the strangest critical confessions I have ever read:

 We took a break for tacos about 80 minutes in; no one talked much, apart from trying to distinguish the spicy chicken from the extra spicy. (I also admitted that I’ve long found it hard to tell Neeson and Fiennes apart. I thought Neeson was Fiennes until Fiennes himself showed up.)

That's just bizarre.  Perhaps an eye test is in order, Julia? 

Wes related material

I'm not sure when Wes Anderson's new movie The Grand Budapest Hotel is coming out in Australia, but here are a couple of stories about two of the stars:

*  Bryan Appleyard interviewed Ralph Fiennes, who I think is a great actor, and likes the new movie very much:  "It is gorgeous, moving, funny and, ideally, should have gone on for ever."   But, now that I think of it, Appleyard hated Gravity, so I have no idea whether I can trust his judgement.  (Actually, I think he's fairly lukewarm towards Spielberg too, which is a bad sign.)  

*  The Guardian has an interview article with Bill Murray.  He's only 63, apparently, but gee he's looking old in some photos I've seen.  I don't recall knowing this about him before:

And trouble followed him into his adult life; in 1970, aged 20, he was caught in possession of 10lbs of marijuana at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

Ten pounds seems quite a lot, doesn't it?  I'm surprised he only served probation.

 I see there are American reviews out for the movie already, and they are mostly good.  But the critics' praise of his last movie was too high.  I hope they are right this time.  

Little of substance

So, Tim Wilson got a full profile in the Fairfax press this weekend, and I have to say, it only reinforced my opinion of him as an overweening, fast talking, political lightweight who shouldn't be let near the Human Rights Commission.

I mean, seriously, a limited edition print of Ron and Nancy Reagan on your bedroom wall?  (OK, so that mainly goes to warped taste for a 34 year old man, whatever his sexuality.)

But really seriously this time, a man who believes this:

 ...last year ...Wilson appeared before a parliamentary committee on anti-discrimination law. At one point, Wilson was thrown a hypothetical question about an Aboriginal man who is refused service at an outback pub. Should the publican be prosecuted under anti-discrimination laws? No, said Wilson, the publican should be free to "show [his] bigotry and hatred" - and the public should be free to boycott his pub. Once again, the market would come to the rescue.

has no place in a Human Rights Commission, if you ask me.

The article also highlights a couple of issues where, when working for the IPA, he took hard free market lines on public health issues (third world countries and HIV drugs, and plain packaging of cigarettes.)   I don't know enough about the HIV drug patent argument to have a firm view, but I find it hard to believe that anything coming out of the IPA is fair or correct or in the public health interest. If my hunch is right, it would be particularly galling for a gay man to be running a case effectively against easier access to anti HIV drugs in poor countries.

I also have to say that I have always had the impression that, whether it be for general vanity or simply as a part of relentless self promotion, Tim really loves getting his picture taken.  It appears that this dates even from his university days:

 He also had "this really clever little trick", using a digital camera, "which very few people had back then", to take photos of himself at university club functions, several of which he would attend in a single night. He would then send the photos to the club magazines the next morning. "They didn't have any photos, certainly not that immediately. So they'd run them, and of course I was in half of them, and it made me look as if I was the centre of everything."

Well, I take that as enough justification for this:

The puzzling, contradictory Russians

How Russian Prudishness Produced an Anti-Gay Propaganda Law - Olga Khazan - The Atlantic

This article about Russian cultural attitudes towards sexuality is really fascinating, and includes a couple of great charts and graphs.

First, here's a handy one that illustrates clearly the global attitudes towards homosexuality:

Look at those figures for African countries, with the exception of South Africa!  And the signs of Muslim culture seems clear - although whether that really explains Indonesia and Malaysia, I have no idea.

I would say that Japan and China are about where I expected them to be, but Italy is perhaps higher (given that I think I have read there is little in the way of "gay rights" in that country.)   Korea seems a bit unexpectedly low, but look at the Philippines - in fact, in most "traditionally" Catholic countries, the acceptance rate is pretty high.   Make of that what you will.  (Actually, it makes me laugh at traditionalist Catholics who think the future is in clinging to Church teaching on sexuality which is as bizarrely prescriptive in a married couple's bedroom as it is possible to be.  People forget this because so  many Catholics ignore the Church's analysis of sex.)

But back to the Russians.  Here's another chart I've never seen before, showing the big demographic changes that occurred around the fall of communism:

 

So, they are only now getting back into the baby making game.

And despite all the talk about the increase in social conservatism, it hasn't extended to abortion:

It’s true that protecting children makes a convenient excuse for all
sorts of legalized prejudice, but Russia’s obsession with instilling
traditional sexual mores goes back decades. In more recent years, a
small, vocal group of conservative activists, many of whom are aligned
with the Orthodox church, have been doing everything from shouting down
proposals for sex education in schools, to pushing for restrictions on
gay rights, to supporting the crackdown on protest collectives such as
Pussy Riot.

To this day, Russian schools have no sex ed to speak of. No textbooks mention the word “condom,” and abortion is still one of the most common forms of birth control. Russia's children's ombudsman said last year that Russian teens can learn everything they need to know about love and sex from Russian literature.

Gee.  I only mentioned the fact that I hadn't read War and Peace the other day.  Little did I know what I could learn from it.

What a strange, strange country.

Today's weight

The 5:2 continues, with this morning's first-thing-in-the-morning weight of 85.7kg.  (Mind you, after a breakfast with a fair bit of liquid it was back up to 86.4 or something like that.)

Not bad.  I should start posting more of my 600 cal a day menu.   

Cli-fi missing

'Cli-fi': could a literary genre help save the planet?
Yeah, I have often thought this as well: isn't it a bit odd that there hasn't really been a blockbuster science fiction novel or movie that is mainly about climate change?

Ness story

The Unbelievables: truth, lies and the myth of Eliot Ness' legendary battles with Al Capone - Features - Books - The Independent

There's a new book out about Eliot Ness, and it sounds interesting.

Rupert's bloviator

Andrew Bolt show back and bigger on Ten, with media scrutiny segment | Media | theguardian.com

I didn't know this about The Bolt Report, which is the closest thing to Fox News that we have in Australia:

Ten offloaded the show to News Corp for two years in 2013 to save money.
Ten broadcasts the show but News pays for its production, staff and
transmission costs.

Inequality in America

America risks becoming a Downton Abbey economy | Lawrence H. Summers

Larry Summers talking about inequality in the US sounds very sensible to me.

I see that one of the favourite handwave of some of the rich and comfortable in Australia at the moment is "but so many Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in the last couple of decades.  You ungrateful Westerners."

I also note that Judith Sloan, (probably, I like to imagine, while sipping a gin and tonic and between tap tapping her way through another "it's all the fault of unions and the carbon tax" bit of ideological warfare for the Australian) has taken to pooh poohing the Gini co-efficient entirely:

And, by the way, do we really care about the Gini coefficient in developed economies where those at the bottom receive government transfers and in-kind benefits? 

I don't know much about the Gini co-efficient, but given that it is in the interests of the "small government, small tax at any cost" ideology of Sloan and her mates at Catallaxy to downplay or dismiss inequality, I am very suspicious about her shrug of the shoulders approach.

A reality TV confession

I blame my daughter.  She started watching My Kitchen Rules and has got me hooked.  Reality-ish TV competitions are generally to be held in some disdain, in my books, but a lot of people seem to talking about the show this year, and I have to admit, I'm enjoying the high and low comedy it provides.

I also like the continual puzzlement over how much is real and how much isn't.  Do the producers hold auditions in which they tell people "OK, you're perfect for the role of 'annoying bitchy overconfident sneering couple who're going to take a big fall':  please sign this defamation waiver"  or do they just manipulate editing to achieve the end regardless?

I mean, some of the contestants just play the dislikeable part too, too easily for it to be true, don't they?

I'm also  enjoying some of the Fairfax analysis of how certain nights have gone.  This one today by Ben Pobjie is a pretty funny account, I think.   (And I felt really sorry for the couple who seemed very nice and certainly have been lucky in finding each other as the only 2 people in Australia who like the taste of a cinnamon biscuit with salmon.)

The celebration of rude, offensive stupidity continues

Sinclair Davidson, and his crew of dimwits, congratulate* rude and offensive namecalling from a student, because he denies AGW and climate change.

The spectacular hypocrisy continues, then, all in the name of anti-science.

*  yes, he says it was "over the top and deserving of some reprimand", after expressing his pleasure at the father defending his son.  This is his typical disingenuous on display.

Numbers and behaviour

There's an article on The Conversation by a health researcher John de Witt entitled To curb rising HIV rates, we must target our human flaws, talking about the vexed issue of the increasing rate of HIV.

Every year now, it seems there is angst about the number of new cases of HIV, and how the education methods are clearly not working.   de Witt notes:

Much of what we currently do is based on common sense and past experience, which is problematic because people do not necessarily behave in their own best interests. People are, in fact, often motivated, well intentioned and well informed but suffer from the common so-called “new year’s resolution” effect; they do genuinely want to change but just don’t quite manage to get started or fail to maintain new behaviour.

We are also, rightly, reluctant to lecture or play on people’s fears because we want them to make their own informed choices. So we assume that if we give people all the information they need they will put it together and act accordingly. But most people have more on their minds than staying healthy, and most assume they are healthy anyway.

He suggests a couple of things, such as "opt out" inclusion of HIV testing at sexual health clinics (seems odd that this is not already the case for anyone who turns up worried about an STD.)  He also talks about  "simple action plans" which sound like people being reminded on their phone to get tested, etc.

These may be well and good, but he still seems to be reluctant to go to the obvious place - telling gay men to stop having so much casual sex.   Here's a novel idea:  tell guys that if they meet someone, get to know them over dinner, talk about if they ever get tested for HIV, then decide if you want to have sex with them.   The same thing could be applied to heterosexuals too - after all, a recent study on the rate of chlamydia showed how high it is getting too, particularly amongst younger people:

Prevalence of chlamydia was 5.2 per cent in men and 4.4 per cent in women. Among men, prevalence was highest in those aged 20-24 years (6.6 per cent) and in women, it was highest in those aged 16-19 years (8.0 per cent).

One figure which I realised I had no idea about when reading the article was the proportion of gay men who are HIV positive.  Just reading about 1,000 new cases every year (or talking about a 10% rise in the rate of new diagnoses) gives readers no idea about that.

But Google being our friend, it appears de Witt himself has estimated that for Australia about 10% of gay men are HIV positive, but with many of them not knowing.

Why is that figure not more widely discussed in education to the gay community?    Have ten casual lovers in a year, and there's a pretty good chance one of them will be HIV positive.  The figure is, I'm pretty sure, not often featured in the media, but then do they talk about it in their sexual health campaigns aimed at gay men?

de Witt will probably argue that this is an attempt to scare people, which doesn't work.  And certainly, as I have wondered before in this blog, it would appear that knowledge of the risk of syphilis (when it was untreatable even) did not deter men from having sex with prostitutes for hundreds of years.  Or is it thought that the figure is not high enough to scare people?   Has any research ever been done on that, I wonder, in both the gay or heterosexual community of people who have lots of partners in any given year? 

But the thing that I thought is obvious, is that if you don't talk about the rate of HIV amongst your target population, so to speak, you aren't helping at least some people who can take a rational approach to their sex life.   

An addendum:   de Witt, along with everyone else who ever writes about the increasing rate of new HIV cases, talks about  part of the problem is the fact that anti viral treatments mean people are not scared of HIV in the way they used to be.  But he notes:

Every new infection comes with a lifetime of medical treatment, significant risk of medical complications and considerable lifelong costs; about A$18,000 each year for ARTs for one person in Australia.

Again, I really wonder whether in their education attempts, how much effort do they put in to explaining why HIV is not a good thing to have even when treated?   And certainly, regardless of life expectancy (and some reports of studies might be giving exactly the wrong impression on this), the government has got fantastic financial motive to make education work.  

And you thought Russia was a worry...

With anti-gay law, Uganda says it is defending 'morals' | The Japan Times

Veteran President Yoweri Museveni has announced he would sign into law a
controversial bill that will see homosexuals jailed for life, despite
warnings from key allies, including the United States.

Officials also said Museveni had last week signed into law
anti-pornography and dress code legislation that outlaws “provocative”
clothing, bans scantily clad performers from Ugandan television and
closely monitors what individuals watch on the Internet.

 I like the understatement in this next sentence:

The anti-gay bill cruised through parliament in December after its
architects agreed to drop an extremely controversial death penalty
clause.

The legislation still stipulates that repeat homosexuals should be
jailed for life, outlaws the promotion of homosexuality and requires
people to denounce gays.

Gee.  The people who comment at Catallaxy will have no problem-o with that last bit.   But it's good to see that this is all scientifically based:

But another presidential spokesman said Monday that Muzeveni had
decided to support the bill after seeking advice from a team of domestic
scientists who were asked to “study homosexuality and genetics in human
beings.”

The spokesman said the scientists concluded that “there is no
definitive gene responsible for homosexuality,” meaning that
“homosexuality is not a disease but merely an abnormal behavior” that
needed to be banned.

Nice of the scientists of Uganda to have saved the rest of the world the bother of research.  (Some of which was recently noted here.)

I see that Uganda is 42% Catholic.  I wonder what the Church has had to say about this?  It seems the Ugandan bishops criticised the death penalty aspect from the start, but this article indicates they distinctly softened towards it when the death sentence was dropped.  Charming.

Update:  mind you, the broader Catholic Church, including the Pope's representative, have been against the law.  But it still seems the local bishops aren't saying much anymore (as far as I can see.)

This morning, I read more about the related law, to do with public decency, that has been signed into law.  From a Ugandan paper (from which I learn that imported second hand Japanese cars are very big  in that country):

Henceforth, women have been forbidden from wearing clothes like miniskirts and cleavage-revealing blouses ('tops') that excite sexual cravings in public, unless for educational and medical purposes or during sports or cultural events.
Addressing the press at the Media Centre in Kampala on Tuesday, ethics and integrity state minister, Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo said the President signed the bill into law on February 6, two months after its passing by the House.
Parliament passed the piece of legislation December last year.
The law creates a national anti-pornography committee responsible for its implementation by ensuring early detection, collection and destroying of pornographic materials.
The committee, whose representatives will be drawn from various sectors including the media and entertainment industries, will also offer rehabilitation services to victims of pornography.

Will the police be issued rulers to measure hemlines? 

Coincidence noted

Lincoln and Darwin, born hours apart, February 12, 1809 | Millard Fillmore's Bathtub