The Penal Code Amendment Act of 2007 changed the law to treat girls and boys the same. Here is the text of it:

THE PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2006 (2007)

An Act to amend the Penal Code Act

BE IT ENACTED by Parliament as follows:

1. Abolition of corporal punishment

(1) Corporal punishment is abolished and accordingly, all references to corporal punishment in the Penal Code Act in this Act referred to as the principal Act, are repealed.

(2) Without prejudice to the general effect of subsection (1) of this section, Section 125, subsection (2) of section 129 and section 205 of the Penal Code Act, are amended by the repeal of the words “with or without corporal punishment”.

2. Section 129 of the Penal Code Act replaced

The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 129 the following new sections—

“Defilement of persons under eighteen years of age

129. (1) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.

(2) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years.

(3) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.

(4) The circumstances referred to in subsection (3) are as follows—

(a) where the person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of fourteen years;

(b) where the offender to his or her knowledge, is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS);

(c) where the offender is a parent or guardian of or a person in authority over, the person against whom the offence is committed; or

(d) where the offender is a serial offender.

(5) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4), commits an offence and is liable on conviction, to imprisonment for life.

(6) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—

“serial offender” means a person who has a previous conviction for the offence of defilement or aggravated defilement;

“sexual act” means penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus, however slight, of any person by a sexual organ or the use of any object or organ by a person on another person’s sexual organ

“sexual organ” includes a vagina or penis.

There is some question about when this act was assented to by the President but it was in force at least by early 2008, according child abuse groups in Uganda. Please review the post for much more on this.

Claims that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is needed to protect the “boy child” ignore, perhaps on purpose, perhaps not, the current law in Uganda.

129. Defilement of girl under the age of eighteen.
(1) Any person who unlawfully has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is liable to suffer death.

This law was passed before homosexuality became a problem in Uganda. Now that it is becoming a very serious problem, how can they be treated differently? Are they above the law? Protect the girl child and protect the boy child equally!!!!!!!

After reading the full statement (I’m not sure that was available on the CT site yesterday, as I’m sure I’d have seen it), it seems they want to amend another bill in lieu of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

As you say, they have yet to stand explicitly for or against the death penalty.

This makes me wonder, if the bill is passed and Bishop Robinson travels to Uganda, will the local Anglican diocese support his death?!

They seem to be saying, “We support the overall aims of this Bill but don’t think it’s necessary – all that’s necessary is a more limited amendment to the existing law”. The amendments they propose to the existing law do not appear to include the penalties from the new Bill (i.e. mandatory death sentence). But as I say, it’s not terribly clear.

I’m not saying I agree with their statement – large parts of it left me reeling – but I don’t think it represents a defence of the death penalty for homosexuality. But they should have made that clearer, and I suspect the decision not to make that clearer was a deliberate one. I detect a certain tacit condoning of the proposed penalty, perhaps reminiscent of the medieval church handing over heretics to the “secular arm” (“It’s regrettable that such punishments are imposed, but – *heavy sigh* – it’s not us who are imposing them…”)

I would hate to be ++Rowan Williams right now.