The Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill, originally shelved due to international pressure after a gay rights activist, David Kato, was hammered to death in his home, has now been updated and although the death penalty has been removed the bill is still viewed by the wider international community as a human rights issue.

This is the full 2009 bill

Homosexuality in Uganda is already illegal, punishable by death, and what the bill was intending to do was to make it illegal to know about a homosexual, or about someone practicing homosexuality, and not tell an authority.

Whilst living there for three months, LBGT rights were, for me and during my experience, a non-issue. Watching the Call Me Kichu documentary it struck me how complex respect and tolerance appears to have become.

·   Homosexuality according to the radical Christian groups is 'non-African' and 'unnatural' and condemned by the bible..

·   Homosexuality according to a lot of Nationals, religious or otherwise, is threatening and scary, in part, thanks to bias news coverage, stigma and the supposed minority of homosexuals where a lot don't realise they live, work and pray alongside 'dangerous gays'...

·   Homosexuality according to Parliament is opposed by the population and thus, in a democracy, such wishes much be relfected through parliament...

·   Homosexuality according to homosexuals is a natural part of being, something 'discovered' and unchangeable...

So how do all these views come together?

·   Radical Christian groups preach hatred and intolerance whilst being 'true' to their values.

·   Nationals read the papers, stick by their views and obey the law which states that homosexuality is illegal

·   Parliament reflect the wishes of the citizens

·   Homosexuals feel, and continue to be marginalised, for something they perceive to be beyond their control and would just like to be free from the threat of death based on their partner preference.

Who is right? Which structure of regulation is the one to determine Uganda's model of right or wrong? National law was halted from being passed with international pressure with reference to International Human Rights yet those engaging in homosexuality are, rightly or wrongly, breaking national law.

  Are Gay rights wrong?

Are National Laws right?

So you might have guessed that "Beauty" was the theme for this week.

The reason it starts with a capital B or is in "speech marks" is to make it clear that, really, there is no pre-determined "beauty" in my eyes but I can appreciate sensitivity regarding the waves that make and shape concepts of beauty.

To be straight up about it - flick through any magazine celebrating women, beauty, fashion or health and count the faces and the shapes. By reading between the lines and looking at the pictures, it becomes clear quite quickly which faces, shapes and looks are celebrated.

I, for example, kindly got given a Women's Health (the January/February 2013 issue) and by page 12 I had counted 12 white women, none of whom were visibly bigger than a size 10 (UK) in the adverts and introductory pages.

In between these women, the only other humans were half a black man, half an Asian woman (cut off due the page spread of the advert - nothing macabre!), one lady whom, I'm assuming, was meant to be 'black' but to be honest, just looks tanned and one white man.

Originally I was linked to the newsreel talking about this documentary by Katy Jones but I think the original is pretty powerful too.

Final strength post for the week. Use it or lost it; climb and break world records or campaign for change by starting a school - just challenge consistently.

Take a look at what Briohny Smyth can do. Whatever it is commit, master and enjoy! And when someone calls you a girl ..

With the best intentions in the world I left my contact details with secondary school students I’d voluntary taught English to in Rwanda for two weeks during a year out in 2010. It was such an intensely emotional, incredible and challenging role as a teacher, friend and foreigner that I didn’t think twice about leaving details.

Later, innocuous emails trickled through facebook from 3 boys from my secondary level English class;

“Hello! how are you? I am Benjamin in Rwanda at **** secondary school. Do u remember me? I think you remember”

 Two worlds were meeting online and suddenly, no longer in my role as a teacher, the online connection erred on the side of intrusive and uncomfortable as roles were no longer chrystall clear.

From pupils in class to little G’s on facebook, with sunglasses, arms crossed and commentaries on pictures of Vanessa Anne-Hudgens, invisible boundaries had instantaneously been re-written.

Nothing explicit had happened, the emails were perfectly polite, but the sentiments had shifted due, in part, to our individual portrayals on Facebook and it seemed that our intermediary relationship was irrevocably tainted.

I learned that facebook etiquette differs internationally as pictures of me on a family beach holiday were tagged with various unrecognisable kinyerwandan names. My privacy settings don’t allow for non-friends to view pictures and so tags were added before I re-adjusted security settings to combat the on-going free-for-all viewing and commentary.

The facebook experience teased out some questions for me regarding my reaction to it. I felt violated, genuinely. I am reluctant to admit to excess sensitivity – I know what I feel, I respect what I feel and most of the time it is reasonable –but the sentiment wasn’t right.

 Even smart, educated boys, with vision and respect, morphed into typical teenage boys in the unregulated realm of the internet, ultimately leaving it to me to explain to them why I was not ok as another Vanessa Anne-Hudgens photo commentary opportunity and promptly deleting them.

Adrienne Rich, Notes towards a Politics of Location; Talk for Conference of Women, Feminist Identity and Society in the 1980's, Utrecht, Holland, June 1, 1984