July 03, 2009
 

Too early to cheer for 'queer'?

Yesterday, in a judgment that undoubtedly was significant, the Delhi High Court de-criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private

We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises
consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors.

There are two implications from this ruling:

1. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are no longer criminal acts and the parties involved cannot be booked under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
   
2. Non-vaginal sex (oral, anal, masturbation, etc.) is also not criminal as long as it is between consenting adults.

However, these are early days. For starters, the judgment was passed by the Delhi High Court, whose jurisdiction is probably restricted to Delhi, or at most the NCR area. However, since this is a situation where the constitutional validity of a specific section in the Indian Penal Code was struck down, the implications should be applicable to all parts of India provided that no other court in India has a contrary view. However, there's nothing that currently stops other High Courts from a contrary view, assuming that petitions against Sec 377 are in existence in other courts.

The decision could still be appealed in the Supreme Court. The government could in all likelihood not appeal against the decision. However, when morons and mobs belonging to various 'religious' and 'cultural' groups/political parties decide to take matters into their own hands as part of protesting in the name of "Indian culture and values", and if the judiciary asks the government what it's going to do to stop the violence, the government could easily point out that this was all because of the court's decision taken without factoring in the implications.

Further, all that the judgment does is to de-criminalize private homosexual activity between consenting adults. Does that necessarily make it legal? For e.g., "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent".

The last word on this is probably a few years away. Was it Lao-Tzu or Confucious who said "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"?

Labels: homosexuality, ipc, judgement, landmark, queer, section 377

Posted @ 12:45 PM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Add/View 0 comment(s)

June 25, 2009
 

Why call it queer?

Over the past 3-4 days, there've been multiple reports in Bangalore's newspapers about the Karnataka Queer Habba where individuals & organizations associated with homosexuality, sexual minorities, rights of sex-workers and sexual minorities will conduct various activities, including cricket matches, pride marches, discussions, film & theatre shows, etc.

I totally support everyone's right to indulge in consensual (informed consent, to use the legal term) sexual behaviour, regardless of whether it is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, assuming that both parties are also aware of the risks associated.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to 'Unnatural offences' makes no sense. It says

377. Unnatural offences
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary
to the offence described in this section.

Interestingly it doesn't refer to carnal intercourse with plants. Why doesn't the law cover those? Is sex with plants not against the order of nature?

Being a homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, etc. is an individual preference. To me, it's like choosing to be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian or choosing to be associated with a specific religion, sect or sub-sect. No-one, and really no-one, has a right to question your choice, especially on moral or social grounds.

It's not about whether homosexuality in humans is deviant behaviour or not. Using the known existence of homosexuality in animals to argue that homosexuality in humans is nothing to be surprised about is a dangerous line. After all, we find cannibalism and filicidal behaviour in animals as well. I'm not aware of too many people who'd support humans exhibiting such behaviour.

However, what I do find odd is the word 'queer' being used by the very people associated with the LGBT movement. 'Queer' has negative connotations and the synonyms associated would be "funny, odd, peculiar, unusual, strange".

Surely, if the LGBT movement really wants to ensure that those associated with it are treated normally, the one thing they could think about doing is to not call themselves 'queer' any more!

Labels: bangalore, homosexuality, ipc, karnataka, queer, section 377

Posted @ 12:59 PM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Add/View 10 comment(s)