The World Bank, who last year staged a screening of Call Me Kuchu, has joined the ranks of those suspending or redirecting aid to Uganda.
World Bank officials said they wanted to guarantee the projects the loan was destined to support were not going to be adversely affected by the law.
The loan was intended to boost Uganda's health services.
Sweden has also announced that it is stopping aid.
Although certain campaigners and campaign groups have called on the international community not to cut aid, we feel there may be some confusion between 'stopping direct aid' and 'stopping aid work'.
Direct payment of aid means taking tax payers' money from one country, and directly paying it to the government of another country. The UK long ago ceased doing a lot of this with Uganda, because the Ugandan government stole the money and put it in the pockets of rich politicians.
The money wasn't being spent on what it was supposed to be spent on in the first place. So the World Bank is absolutely within its remit to stop or suspend direct payments until it is certain how the money will be spent, and that it will benefit people at grassroots level, rather than pay for dingbat politician to dine out on caviar and champagne - or purchase rope to hang LGBT people in a local constituency vote-winner.
Major development agencies such as DFID, CIDA, DANIDA etc. have a duty not only to support world development, but to protect the hard earned finances raised through taxpayers. You cannot justify in any sense taking money from a country with human rights legislation, and using it to support a regime that directly quashes it.
Meanwhile, that money can be safely redirected to support human rights groups and aid organisation working on the ground in Uganda. Just think what $1mil could achieve if it went directly to aid projects at grassroots level, cutting out the middle wo/men.
Perhaps something that should have been done a long time ago?