21 July 2007
Hong Kong court finds public sodomy law discriminatory
The territory's highest court struck down the law because it only applied to homosexual men. Sounds like our Section 377A doesn't it? For that one, our government has promised they wouldn't "pro-actively" enforce it. But how would our legal system wrangle with such a promise? Full essay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Well, well, well, doesn't this make the Prof Yvonne Lee of Singapore's NUS Law Faculty look stupid? Her words:
"The fact is, under the proposed Penal Code reform, homosexuals wishing to lead private lives may do so, provided they do not foist their homosexual acts on the public."
http://ybsampler1.blogspot.com
/2007/05/queen-to-k6.html
Let's say that instead of an acrimonious break-up of two gay lovers, we instead have two gay activists who have sex and then turn themselves over to the police with a written confession of having violated 377A.
For example, British actor Sir Ian McKellen is in Singapore for the King Lear performance and he is gay. I wonder what would happen if he walked into a police station with a signed confession and demanded to be prosecuted for violating a seizable offense. The police may be duty-bound to take action, since S377A is technically, as you say, a serious seizable offense. Then headlines around the world would read "Gay actor Sir Ian McKellen arrested in Singapore". It wouldn't matter what the AG does. All it takes is one police officer who arrests to create a headline.
That is the kind of headline that Singapore deserves. And it will make a difference.
Post a Comment