Antigay Bill in Uganda Is Shelved in Parliament

KAMPALA, Uganda — After receiving overwhelming criticism from across the globe, Uganda’s Parliament on Friday let the time expire on a contentious anti-homosexuality bill that had threatened this East African country’s international standing.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill sought to impose the death penalty for a number of reasons, including being a “serial offender” of the “offense of homosexuality.” The bill also called for Ugandans to alert the government to known cases of homosexual behavior within 24 hours.

Religious leaders said they had obtained more than two million signatures in support of the measure, and though it had been in legislative limbo for more than 18 months, the bill had been added to the Parliament’s agenda for debate this week, with many observers anticipating a possible vote on Friday.

Instead, a handful of lawmakers spent the day laughing and thanking their colleagues for their service and debating the political events of the day before, in which opposition demonstrations eclipsed the inauguration of President Yoweri Museveni. Then the lawmakers adjourned for the last time before the next session is seated, unless an emergency meeting is called.

The bill could be reintroduced in the next Parliament, but some lawmakers said its best chance for passage might have been in this session.

“It has not been dealt with,” Edward Ssekandi, the Parliament speaker, said of the bill’s last-minute addition to the agenda. “We can’t bring that bill for second reading, a general debate, then vote in committee. No, there is no such thing.”

Since the bill was introduced, gay-rights advocates have gone into hiding in Uganda; a vitriolic newspaper published the names and addresses of gay men and lesbians and told readers to kill them; and one prominent activist for gay rights, David Kato, was bludgeoned to death with a hammer in his neighborhood outside Kampala.

The legislation has torn at the tight-knit and vulnerable gay community in Uganda, with some saying they were paid to pose in support of the bill.

But while some officials have said that almost all of the bill’s clauses were either unconstitutional or redundant, the general spirit of the legislation — that being gay is not tolerated by the majority of Ugandans — was something lawmakers did not want to give up.

A parliamentary committee studying the bill recently endorsed the anti-homosexuality legislation, including the death penalty, as well as suggesting an amendment to criminalize same-sex weddings.

The legislation led a number of Western nations to scrutinize their relations with Uganda, and some members of Parliament said they resented a third hand guiding the bill’s destiny, arguing that the country’s sovereignty was threatened.

“There has been immense, immense pressure from outside, bordering on intimidation,” said James Buturo, a departing member of the current Parliament and Uganda’s minister of ethics.

“It means,” he said, “it waits for the next Parliament.”

 

Denying Links to Militants, Pakistan’s Spy Chief Denounces U.S. Before Parliament

Rather, the spy chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, blamed an intelligence failure for the presence of Bin Laden in the city of Abbottabad, where a top military academy is located and where the leader of Al Qaeda was killed in an American raid on May 2.

General Pasha said he had offered his resignation twice to the leader of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. As his presence before Parliament made clear, it was not accepted.

The two generals were called before the extraordinary 11-hour session to answer to the failures of the military and the intelligence agency that allowed a team of American commandos to enter and leave Pakistan in a stealth helicopter operation undetected.

Unusually vibrant criticism by some politicians and the Pakistani press after the raid compelled them to try to repair the reputation of the military and the intelligence agency, which the army controls.

But after recognizing the lapse, General Pasha rallied Parliament behind him, several legislators said, with strong criticisms of the United States that elicited thumps of approval from the chamber, including leading members of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the major partner in the coalition that the Obama administration supports.

At the end of the session, the leader of the opposition party, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, who has been one of the most severe critics of the military since the raid, closed ranks behind the military. The session was organized so that “a positive message should go out to the masses,” Mr. Khan said.

A resolution that was passed at the session said Pakistan would revisit its relationship with the United States “with the view to ensuring Pakistan’s national interests were fully respected.”

In that vein, Pakistan’s chief spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, will not allow the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct operations in Pakistan without the full knowledge of the ISI, General Pasha said.

The spy chief did the talking. General Kayani attended the session, along with the heads of the air force and the navy, but did not speak, apparently to be spared the humiliation. Senior military officials, considered to be above civilian law and a power unto themselves, rarely appear before Parliament, or even its defense committees.

General Pasha told Parliament he had a “shouting match” with the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, over C.I.A. activities in Pakistan when they met recently in Washington, several lawmakers who attended the session said.

Reviewing the history of American relations with Pakistan, General Pasha declared that the United States, which has provided Pakistan with about $20 billion in aid over the last decade, had let Pakistan down at every turn since the 1960s, including imposing sanctions on the country in the 1990s.

“And now they have conducted a sting operation on us,” General Pasha said, according to one lawmaker. The intelligence chief was referring to the fact that the Obama administration had decided not to inform Pakistan in advance of the raid because of fears that the Pakistanis could not be trusted.

Before answering questions from the more than 400 members of Parliament from both chambers, the military gave a PowerPoint presentation that included photographs of Qaeda militants captured or killed by the ISI since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

General Pasha then explained that Pakistan should be given credit for dismantling Al Qaeda even before the United States killed Bin Laden, according to the accounts from lawmakers after the session.

In a direct assault on statements by American officials that the ISI supports jihadist militant groups, including the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, General Pasha said there was no such policy. “We have nothing to do with the Haqqani network,” he was quoted as saying.

American officials have long maintained suspicion that the Haqqani group, along with the Taliban, has been sheltered and sponsored by Pakistan, which uses them to push Pakistani interests in Afghanistan, where the insurgents attack NATO forces.

Some of the legislators asked for explanations of why the Pakistani Air Force did not detect the American helicopters that ferried the team of Navy Seal commandos into Abbottabad and out again.

The deputy chief of Air Staff Operations, Air Marshal Muhammad Hassan, said the American helicopters were equipped with stealth technology that enabled them to evade radar.

By the time the air force learned about the raid from ground reports at Abbottabad and launched fighter jets, the helicopters had completed their mission and flown out of Pakistan, he said.

But the air marshal, in answer to a question, said that the F-16 jet fighters provided by the United States to Pakistan were capable of shooting down the drones that the C.I.A. flies over the tribal areas to attack militants. The drone campaign has become increasingly unpopular among Pakistan’s politicians even as the Obama administration insists that it has no intention of halting the flights.

For the first time, according to one lawmaker, Air Marshal Hassan acknowledged that Pakistan allowed the United States to fly the drones out of Shamsi Air Base in Baluchistan.

The Pakistani government has always maintained in public that it does not condone the drone campaign, while in private it has given permission for the flights.

Salman Masood contributed reporting.

 

Parliament sits after SNP victory

。 10 May 2011 Last updated at 19:44 ET By Andrew Black Political reporter, BBC Scotland  The Scottish Parliament is re-convening for the first time since the Holyrood The Scottish Parliament is sitting for the first time since the SNP's landslide victory in last week's election.

All 129 MSPs will be sworn in, before electing one of their number to become Holyrood's presiding officer for the five-year-term.

Meanwhile, SNP ministers have been continuing to press Westminster to give increased financial powers to Scotland.

The Nationalists won 69 seats, giving them an overall majority.

Labour emerged with 37 seats, while the Conservatives were on 15, the Liberal Democrats won five seats and the Greens have two MSPs.

Independent MSP Margo Macdonald was also returned to parliament.

The Scottish Labour and Tory leaders, Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie, have both announced they are standing down from their jobs in the autumn, while the Lib Dems' Tavish Scott quit his party's leadership at the weekend with immediate effect.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore is due to meet Alex Salmond in Edinburgh on Thursday, following the SNP's demands for more economic powers in light of the election result.

Continue reading the main story

The Scottish Parliament presiding officer is an MSP elected in a ballot of Holyrood members.

MSPs submit nominations between 1230 BST and 1415 BST.

If a candidate wins more votes than the total number received by all other candidates and the total number of votes cast is more than a quarter of the total number of seats in parliament, that candidate will be elected.

If there is no outright winner for presiding officer, successive rounds of voting will be held, with the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round being eliminated until one is left.

If there is only one candidate, MSPs are asked to vote for or against that contender or abstain.

A sole nominee is elected if they win a simple majority in their favour and the total number of votes cast is more than a quarter of the total number of seats in the parliament.

The successful candidate is required to resign from their party, in keeping with the requirement of impartiality.

Holyrood must also elect two deputy presiding officers.

Mr Salmond has said Holyrood must be given more ''economic teeth'' in the Scotland Bill, currently going through Westminster.

The SNP wants greater borrowing powers, control over corporation tax and devolution of the Crown Estates.

Meanwhile, candidates for presiding officer of the parliament include Labour MSP and former minister Hugh Henry, along with SNP backbenchers Christine Grahame and Tricia Marwick.

In his pitch for presiding officer, Mr Henry, once education and justice minister, said he would not stand in the way of an independence referendum.

Mr Salmond has indicated he would not attempt to influence his MSPs to elect an SNP presiding officer.

His position came amid speculation that SNP MSPs may wield their majority to elect one of their own members because of fears that an opposition member could rule the referendum beyond the parliament's powers.

Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson will stand to become one of Holyrood's two deputy presiding officers, a post she has previously held.

It is thought Tory MSP John Scott will also stand for the post.

Continue reading the main story

I (name) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

End Quote MSP oath of allegiance Holyrood's out-going presiding officer, Tory, Alex Fergusson, will be the first former holder of the post to return to parliament as an MSP.

The election for the parliament's first minister - with SNP leader Alex Salmond the only realistic candidate - is taking place at a later date.

During the morning swearing-in session, 46 MSPs are taking up seats in parliament for the first time, while 36 members are returning, having served continuously since the first election in 1999.

MSPs will be reflecting their cultural backgrounds by taking oaths or affirmations in Urdu, Gaelic, Scots, Italian and Doric, as well as in English.

Holyrood was also being re-convened after the Earl of Wessex attended the Kirking of parliament on Tuesday night.

The traditional ecumenical service at Edinburgh's St Giles' Cathedral was also attended by MSPs, faith representatives and other guests.

It was led by The Very Rev Gilleasbuig Macmillan, who led the Kirking ceremonies after the 1999, 2003 and 2007 elections.

Thailand’s Premier Seeks to Dissolve Parliament and Call Election

 

The step would be the next stage in a long political struggle in Thailand that has included a coup, violent demonstrations and a military assault in the heart of the commercial center here in Thailand’s capital. The election, which will take place 45 to 60 days after it is approved by King Bhumibol Adulyadej, has been a key demand of the political opposition since the mass demonstrations a year ago that ended in bloodshed, deepening the country’s political crisis.

“I am confident that this is the way to make the country move forward,” the prime minister said as he announced his call to dissolve Parliament seven months ahead of the end of his term. “While the process is under way, I’d like to insist that there’s no necessity to criticize this matter.”

Mr. Abhisit said he would hold a news conference when he returned on Monday from a meeting in Jakarta, Indonesia, of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Thailand has been unstable since a military coup in 2006, with protests and violence on both sides of a deep political and social divide. Political analysts said that a new election was unlikely to resolve the conflicts, warning that it could touch off more unrest.

The main contest will pit Mr. Abhisit’s governing Democratic Party against the Pheu Thai Party, which is backed by Thaksin Shinawatra, who was prime minister before the 2006 coup. Mr. Thaksin remains a political force in Thailand even though he fled the country to avoid prison after being convicted for corruption, and has taken refuge in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Thaksin enjoys the loyalty of many people in the poor but populous north and northeast of the country, the home of many of the “red-shirt” protesters who besieged Bangkok in April and May 2010 and who form the largest regional bloc of voters.

Clashes between troops and protesters paralyzed parts of Bangkok and led to the deaths of about 90 people.

If neither of the major parties wins a majority in the election, the outcome will depend on a competition for coalition partners from smaller parties whose allegiances are driven by political calculation and personal ambition rather than policy.

Mr. Abhisit’s Democratic Party now holds office in a coalition with smaller parties, and analysts say that it will need a coalition if it is to retain power. Mr. Thaksin’s allies dominate the red-shirt regions and in the past have won the most votes.

Many analysts expect instability after the new election, with renewed demonstrations by the red shirts if they are excluded from the government. If they win, the military and the establishment could act to overturn the result with a coup or an intervention by the courts, experts say.

“If we are talking free and fair elections, I think the pro-Thaksin red-shirts party has a chance to win,” said Pavin Chachavalpongpun of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

But, he said, “I think the Democrats will work with other smaller parties to form a coalition, with again the help of the military and influential figures.”

Poypiti Amatatham contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Thai Leader Will Ask King to Dissolve Parliament

 

“I am confident that this is the way to make the country move forward,” the prime minister said in announcing parliamentary dissolution seven months ahead of the end of his term. “While the process is under way, I’d like to insist that there’s no necessity to criticize this matter.”

Mr. Abhisit said he would hold a news conference when he returned on Monday from a meeting in Jakarta of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Thailand has been unstable since the military staged a coup in 2006, with protests and violence on both sides of a deep political and social divide. Political analysts said that the outcome of an election was unlikely to resolve these conflicts and that it could touch off further unrest.

The main contest will pit Mr. Abhisit’s governing Democrat Party against the Pheu Thai Party, which is backed by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006 but is still a political force from his refuge in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. He has fled Thailand to avoid prison on a conviction for corruption.

Mr. Thaksin enjoys the continuing loyalty of many residents of the poor but populous north and northeast, the home of many of the “red shirt” protesters who besieged Bangkok in April and May of last year and who form the largest regional bloc of voters.

Clashes between troops and protesters paralyzed parts of Bangkok and led to the deaths of about 90 people.

If neither party wins a majority, the outcome will depend on competition for coalition partners from smaller parties whose allegiances are driven by political calculation and personal ambition rather than policy.

Mr. Abhisit’s Democrat Party holds office in a coalition with smaller parties, and analysts say that if it is to retain power it is likely once again to need the help of a coalition. Parties loyal to Mr. Thaksin dominate the red-shirt regions and have in the past won the most votes.

Many analysts expect the aftermath of the election to be unstable, with renewed demonstrations by the red shirts if they are excluded from government. If they win, the military and the establishment could overturn the result with a coup or an intervention by the courts, experts say.

“If we are talking free and fair elections, I think the pro-Thaksin red-shirts party has a chance to win,” said Pavin Chachavalpongpun, an expert on Thailand at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

But he said, “I think the Democrats will work with other smaller parties to form a coalition, with again the help of the military and influential figures.”

The election, like the turmoil that has preceded it, is part of a long-running struggle between a royalist establishment elite and the mass base of poorer urban and rural Thais who have been energized by Mr. Thaksin’s populist policies like low-cost health care and cheap credit, and by his challenge to the country’s hierarchical power structure.

Prompong Nopparit, a Pheu Thai Party spokesman, said in a telephone interview that Mr. Abhisit had no choice but to dissolve the house or commit “political suicide.”

“The thing we are concerned about is the aftermath of the election,” he said. “If the majority of representatives cannot form the government, there will be another people’s uprising.”

He was referring to the possibility that, although Pheu Thai might win the most votes, a Democrat-led coalition could hold on to power, adding to a sense of disenfranchisement among the opposition.

Mr. Prompong said it was crucial that the party with the most votes should be the one to form the next government. “If not, the people will come out on the streets again because they cannot bear it any longer,” he said.

The government appears to have been preparing for this election by maintaining tight censorship on opposition media, particularly community radio stations, and shutting down thousands of Internet sites.

Leaders of the red-shirt protests have been arrested, some charged with terrorism for their part in the demonstrations. Some have been charged with insulting the monarchy for statements they have made. Hundreds of lower-level red-shirt supporters remain in jail or in hiding.

Meanwhile, the opposition is in disarray, with leaders squabbling and shifting alliances. “A weak point among the reds is their fragmentation and lack of clear leadership,” Mr. Pavin said.

n.

Poypiti Amatatham contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Hungarian Parliament Approves New Constitution

BERLIN — Despite criticism by the European Union and even the United Nations about the lack of sufficient checks and balances between the executive and legislative powers, Hungary’s Parliament approved a new Constitution on Monday, just halfway through the country’s term in holding the E.U.’s rotating presidency.

One of the most disputed provisions curbs the powers of the constitutional court on budget and tax matters and allows the president to dissolve Parliament if a budget is not approved.

The center-right party Fidesz, which swept into power last year with a two-thirds majority, was the only party that voted for the Constitution in the 262-to-44 vote. The decision by the main opposition Socialists and liberal parties to boycott the vote reflected the controversy not just over the contents of the Constitution, but also the way it was drafted and the political polarization that has continued ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 and its satellites moved toward democracy.

But Janos Lazar, leader of Fidesz’s parliamentary faction, told Parliament before the vote that the Constitution represented something fundamental: a break with Hungary’s communist past.

The Constitution served to repay “those Hungarians who changed the regime and the political players who took part in shaping political life,” he said. “We are trying to settle that debt.”

As soon as he was elected last year, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was once a leading dissident, said he would move quickly to write and pass a new Constitution that he claimed would complete Hungary’s transition to a full-fledged democracy.

The opposition parties, however, withdrew from a commission that was established last year to draft a written Constitution, the first in Hungary’s turbulent history.

“They withdrew for political reasons,” Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi said in an interview Friday in Berlin. “We wanted them to participate. We kept asking them to come back. It was a big mistake that they did not rejoin the commission.”

The opposition claimed it would not have been listened to even had it remained in the commission.

Mr. Martonyi denied such allegations and mentioned that the Greens party had been involved but had also dropped out. Nevertheless, he said the Greens’ concerns about sustainable development were reflected in the Constitution, he said.

Mr. Martonyi went on a diplomatic offensive last week to explain why the Constitution would complete Hungary’s transition from a communist state to a democratic society.

Even so, the contents of the Constitution, which will go into effect in January, did not satisfy the Venice Commission, the E.U.’s constitutional law advisory body. Last week, it questioned the transparency of the process in addition to the powers Parliament will have to curb the constitutional court’s judges, especially over budgetary and other financial matters.

The constitutional court’s restrictions with regard to financial issues will be lifted only once the public debt sinks below 50 percent of gross domestic product.

Laszlo Solyom, a former president as well as a former head of the constitutional court, criticized the curbs on the court and the way the Constitution was drawn up.

“The drafting process had lost its dignity by descending to the level of common parliamentary wrangling,” he said in excerpts of an article to be published in the Thursday edition of the weekly Heti Valasz. Still, he said, “Hungary will stay among the European democracies even under the new Constitution.”

 

Obama to give Parliament address

 13 April 2011 Last updated at 10:46 ET  President Obama visited the UK in 2008 as a Democratic presidential candidate US President Barack Obama will address both Houses of Parliament during his state visit to Britain in May.

He will speak to MPs and peers in Westminster Hall on 25 May, a spokesman for Commons Speaker John Bercow said.

Mr Obama and his wife, Michelle, are to visit London from 24 to 26 May. A state banquet will be held in their honour at Buckingham Palace during their stay.

It will be the first state visit by a US president since that of George W Bush in 2003.

It is rare for a foreign head of state to address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall.

This is usually reserved for British monarchs.

The Queen's Robing Room or the Royal Gallery are usually used to receive heads of state.

Last September Pope Benedict became the third visiting dignitary to address both Houses in Westminster Hall since World War II.

He followed Nelson Mandela in 1996, when he was South African president, and French president Charles de Gaulle in 1960.

In contrast to Mr Obama, former US presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan delivered speeches in the Royal Gallery in 1995 and 1982 respectively.

President Bush had planned to address both Houses during his 2003 state visit.

However, his speech was cancelled due to anti-war protests.