Former Chief Justice Says Section 377A Is Outdated And Discriminates Against Males


Advertisements
 

In case you donโ€™t know what 377A is, here it is:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Which is widely interpreted as โ€œmale gay sex = jailโ€. Note that I say male gay, cause 377A only applies to males.


Advertisements
 

But let me tell you a little story about a kid.

This kid went around telling people he was homosexual. You see, he was the self-proclaimed smart kid that went around reading random shit. โ€œHomoโ€ is Latin for โ€œmanโ€. โ€œHeteroโ€ was Greek for โ€œdifferentโ€.

Naturally, as the manliest of men, he went around telling people he was homosexual. In fact, because kids were stupid, going around with the idea โ€œhomo = man, therefore calling yourself homo = manlyโ€ seemed to work well in rallying groups of boys to start calling themselves homo.

That didnโ€™t seem to sit well with adults, and the funny thing is when they tried to explain what homo means, the kids not only didnโ€™t understand anything, they also couldnโ€™t logically explain why gay sex was bad.

Want to advertise your business on our website, or on The Blue Catโ€™s video series? Click here!
Cat with computer

Anyway, enough of the kids. Letโ€™s go into what former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong says about 377A.

Unequal Treatment Violates Equality

Remember the thing I said about 377A applying only to males?

In his 72 page paper, he said that it violates the fundamental rights of all to equality, citing Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

Read Also:  Virgin Australia Passenger Charged After Refusing to Remove Bum Bag During Perth-Melbourne Flight Safety Check

Chan says that law based on sex or gender must be rational. For example, if Parliament bans women from smoking, then there must be some kind of reason, like medical research showing women more susceptible to cancer from smoking.


Advertisements
 

Me: But what about National Ser-

Wrong Interpretation 377Aโ€™s Purpose

In 2013, there was the case of Lim Meng Suang who launched a legal bid against 377A, but the judge upheld the law on the reason that the purpose of the law was to criminalise male homosexual conduct, as such behaviour was not acceptable or desirable here.

But according to Chan, 377A was in fact enacted in 1938 to be a law against male prostitution. According to crime reports, male prostitution was โ€œrifeโ€ and posed a problem back then for law and order, public morality and wholesome government.

Which, if you look at 377Aโ€™s paragraph alone, seems to make some kind of sense.

I mean the part where they say โ€œno prostitutionโ€ is โ€œabets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person ofโ€œ, which is basically half of the entire paragraph.


Advertisements
 

Gahmen Sees No โ€œLegitimate State Purposeโ€ In Enforcement

In 2007, โ€œcarnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animalsโ€ was repealed while 377A was retained.

Chan says the decision not to repeal was based on a misunderstanding of what the section meant.

He also noted that MPs were not asked to vote on it as the gahmen already decided โ€œwell before the parliamentary sitting that it would not repeal Section 377A, but at the same time not enforce itโ€.

Read Also:  Here's Why It Has Been So Hot & Humid at Night Recently

To Chan, not enforcing it implies that the gahmen sees no โ€œlegitimate state purposeโ€ in criminalising or prosecuting male homosexual conduct, and in 2007 had effectively become invalid in their eyes.

And to me, this is basically like the expired can of sardines I keep in my cupboard for no reason. Itโ€™s not like Iโ€™ll use it cause itโ€™s expired, but I guess Iโ€™ll just leave it there just for the giggles.


Advertisements
 

Three Court Challenges To Be Heard In November 2019

One is from Dr Tan, a retired general practitioner who helped organise the first Pink Dot event in 2009. The second is disc jockey Mr Johnson Ong Ming, and the third Mr Bryan Choong, former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.

But whether section 377A will ever be repealed remains to be seen.

Would you be jailed for being half-naked in public? Well, the answer will shock you. Seriously. Watch this to the end and you'll understand: