Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

On the question of what members can do, we face the same struggle as an activist and campaigning organisation. Much of our work involves mobilising people to effect change. There will be times when it is important to make public statements, but this is not one of them. This is a time when careful considered diplomacy is required because people need to influence and support a different kind of decision making by political leaders in Uganda. There are indications that such an approach is beginning to work. It is a matter for diplomats and parliamentarians to work out how they can engage with their counterparts in those countries, but Ireland has a particular story to tell as a post-colonial State that has gone through a 30 year process of major change followed by limited change and then rapid change over the past ten years. It may be useful to point out in informal conversations with African parliamentarians that the world did not come to an end for Ireland despite all the predictions about the impact of the changes we underwent in recent years. The world did not even come to an end last Monday morning.

There are opportunities for ongoing engagement and dialogue. For example, the human rights commission in Uganda, which has not been especially helpful, shifted its position significantly after engaging with human rights commissions from other countries and building its own capacity. Targeted support for LGBT activist organisations in Uganda is also important. The only way that the voice of this community can emerge is if it has the resources to tell its stories by publishing booklets and organising campaigns that allow it be visible in a positive and healthy way. This takes tremendous courage on the part of Ms Nabagesera and her colleagues, and we need to think about how to support them.

We must also understand what is happening in Uganda in the context of a broader human rights crisis. Sadly, this is not unique to Uganda. We see moves to enact discriminatory laws across Africa and the same issues have arisen in Russia and parts of the Balkan states. We must challenge these developments. Even in the context of the successful negotiation of the arms trade treaty, there was opposition to mentions of gender because it was recognised that it also involved sexual orientation and gender identity. The association of Islamic states, the Holy See and others opposed advances in protections under human rights law on the basis of gender, particularly in the area of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is something that we must be watchful for as a State. I suggest that members may be able to do something as parliamentarians by helping to strengthen international human rights provision in general to ensure sexual orientation and gender identity are recognised as grounds on which discrimination should not be permitted. These are tangible initiatives we can take to make a dramatic impact in the longer term.