Thursday, January 27, 2011

Save Brenda Namigadde

Eight years ago, lesbian activist Brenda Namigadde fled Uganda, where she is a wanted woman.  In Uganda, the penalty for homosexuality is death.  Now, Ms. Namigadde faces deportation from the United Kingdom: in a matter of days, unless we do something, she will be sent back to Uganda, where the likes of David Bahati, the bitterly homophobic politician who authored the infamous "Kill the Gays" bill, will be waiting to see her executed.

The stakes could not be higher: if Brenda returns to Uganda, she will be killed.  It is that simple.

The LGBT community cannot sit by while one of our own faces deportation and death.  Stand with Brenda Namigadde: sign All Out's letter to UK Home Secretary Theresa May and urge her to stop Brenda's deportation.  Spread this letter far and wide: let every good man and woman know that their immediate assistance is necessary and vital to saving an innocent woman from a homophobic government.

Her very life depends on your help.

1 comment:

  1. The court change is a massive democratic advance in the nature of legal decisions, ending judges' power to make biased or partial decisions ignoring parts of a case's evidence and to call it final. This it holds the judge answerable, open endedly, to every detail of the evidence put to him, before he can sustain denying Brenda's sexuality.

    It must now be publicised and used by all supporters of Brenda and the folks suffering in Uganda, to help to empower their human rights claims.

    Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying "It's outrageous the government should be considering deporting Brenda..." On the same grounds, it would be outrageous to ignore the court change when it is a massive-impact tool available to fight against her deportation.

    COURT CHANGE : Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party". Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures it has been kept under a media silence. Still, it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments.

    This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

    Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.

    This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.

    The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

    When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.

    Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies.

    Including:
    America through many transatlantic cases, pick any, e.g. Natwest 3, Enron, Gary Mackinnon, or the CJD ban on British source blood donations in 2000. Or, to get America into the court change right from the start date, I can offer my still stalled ethical dispute about brain research with Arizona university in that period.
    Sudan through Al Shafi pharmaceutical factory suing America for bombing it.
    Uganda through the Acholiland child slave crisis and Sudan's agreement to return children.

    ReplyDelete