Wearing of miniskirts could soon land one in jail or attract heavy fines if Uganda's Parliament approves a new piece of legislation that defines anything sexy to be illegal pornagraphy.

In its current form, it is proposed that those found guilty of abetting pornography face a fine of Shs10 million under the draft law or a jail stint not exceeding 10 years, or both.

But the draft law ran into early turbulence in the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee after some members expressed concerns about its wide reaching implications for freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. MPs in the committee also criticised the government's attempts to legislate for sex, a course of action which could see it labelling some age-old cultural practices as pornographic.

The Bill defines pornography as any cultural practice, form of behaviour or form of communication or speech or information or literature or publication in whole or publication in part or news story or entertainment or stage play or broadcast or music or dance or art or graphic or picture or photography or video recording or leisure activity or show or exhibition. Lawmakers said the Bill's definition of pornography was too broad and that it went against Uganda's tradition of being tolerant of cultural diversity.

Members, however, flatly rejected the minister's proposal to establish an Anti-Pornography Committee, observing that the police would enforce the law.

It also prohibits any combination of the preceding that depicts unclothed or under clothed parts of the human body such as breasts, thighs, buttocks and genitalia, a person engaged in explicit sexual activities or conduct; erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement and any indecent act or behaviour tending to corrupt morals.

'Ethics' Minister Reverend Simon Lokodo, an extremist noted for a string of repressive law proposals, presented the proposed law backed by Deputy Attorney General Fred Ruhindi. He claimed the Bill was needed to protect women and children against exploitation and curb increasing immorality. Lokodo spewed:

The need to put in place a law that prohibits pornography is necessitated by the dangers it poses to moral fabric of the society

While the Bill seeks to outlaw indecent dressing among other social behaviours deemed pornographic under the legal parameters of the Bill, other lawmakers said the lack of definition for what constitutes "decent dressing" makes the Bill awkward and asked the government to stop curtailing freedoms in the country which could scare away tourists.

Update: Acquitted

12th April 2013. See  article from  monitor.co.ug

The Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC) has asked Parliament to throw out the newly-tabled Anti- Pornography Bill 2011, arguing that the government can fight pornography without enacting a new law. Patrick Nyakana, a ULRC commissioner told Parliament:

We conclude that the provisions of the Anti-Pornography Bill 2011 are already catered for in the Penal Code Act, the Computer Misuse Act, Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 and other laws and thus, there is no need for this law.

A proposed anti-pornography law could see journalists and ISPs jailed for terms ranging from five to 10 years and their businesses closed, 'Ethics' Minister James Nsaba Buturo said.

Buturo said pornography, which he described as a terrible vice, was growing in the country but the laws against it were too weak. He said the new law, which extensively expands the definition of pornographic material and the accompanying sanctions, will help rein in offenders. Those who deal in pornographic materials, your days are numbered, Buturo said.

We have finally acted and this time, this law will work because our integrity is not for sale, he told journalists. The Bill, he said also provides for fines. He emphasised that pornography is evil and makes the mind receptive to other vices such as homosexuality .

The current legal provisions on pornography prohibit obscene publications but Buturo says this law is incomprehensive. The issue of pornography transcends publications and includes communication, speech, entertainment, stage play, broadcast, music, dance, art, fashion, motion picture and audio recording.

Under the proposed Bill, pornography is defined as any form of communication from literature to fashion or photography that depicts unclothed or under-clothed parts of the human body (such as breasts, thighs, buttocks or genitalia), that narrates or depicts sexual intercourse or that describes or exhibits anything that can lead to erotic stimulation.

According to the proposed Bill, pornography includes fashion , implying that women could be arrested for wearing short skirts and skimpy dresses.

An increase in pornographic materials in the Ugandan mass media and nude dancing in entertainment world calls for long legal framework to regulate such vices, he said. Only teaching aides, spouses and sportsmen will get exemptions of punishment from the new law.

However, analysts say the flaws of the proposed law, lies in the broad definition of pornography.

55 British Members of Parliament (MPs) have condemned Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

They have signed an Early Day Motion (EDM 575) in the UK Parliament, urging the scrapping of the Bill. Support for the parliamentary motion comes from across the political spectrum, from left to right. Many more signatures are expected as MPs return to the House of Commons.

The EDM, drafted by east London Labour MP Harry Cohen, urges the Ugandan government to uphold international humanitarian law by abandoning the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, decriminalizing same-sex acts between consenting adults in private, and outlawing discrimination against gay people.

That this House calls on the British Government and the European Union to press the government of Uganda not to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which violates the equality and non-discrimination provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter of Human and People's Rights; abhors that this Bill, currently before the Uganda parliament, proposes the death penalty for repeat homosexual acts, extends the existing penalty of life imprisonment for anal intercourse to all other same-sex behaviour, including the mere touching of another person with the intent to have homosexual relations and imposes life imprisonment for contracting a same-sex marriage; notes that under the provisions of the Bill membership of providing funding for gay organisations advocating gay human rights and providing condoms or safer sex advice to gay people will result in a sentence of between five and seven years for promoting homosexuality and that a person in authority who fails to report offenders to the police within 24 hours will incur a three year prison sentence; further notes that this monstrous proposed law contains extra-territorial jurisdiction so that it will apply to Ugandans who breach its provisions whilst living abroad, even in countries where such behaviour is not a criminal offence, and that such Ugandans living overseas could be subject to extradition, trial and punishment in Uganda; and demands that the Ugandan government uphold international humanitarian law by abandoning the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, decriminalising same-sex acts between consenting adults in private, and outlawing discrimination against gay people.

We hope this motion will send a signal from the British parliament to the Ugandan government that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill constitutes an outrageous attack on the human rights of Uganda's lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens, said Peter Tatchell of the London-based gay human rights group OutRage!

Even if the death penalty is dropped, the Bill will still be unacceptable. It will still violate the equality guarantees of international human rights agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, added Tatchell.