Indian SC criminalizes homosexuality

[From Laurentum]

Court in India criminalizes homosexuality
By Annie Gowen and Rama Lakshmi

NEW DELHI — India's Supreme Court overturned a historic lower court decision on homosexuality Wednesday, making consensual same-sex acts once again a crime in the world's most populous democracy.

The court ruled that India's Colonial-era homosexuality law — which says that gay sex is "against the order of nature" and punishable by up to 10 years in prison — is constitutional. Changing it should be left up to the country's Parliament, not the courts, the judges ruled.

(From Washington Post)

So, what do you think? What are your thoughts?

In my own opinion, the Indian SC's decision is undemocratic, unfair, unreasonable, and homophobic. I just don't like the idea that the government is interfering with the private (sex) lives of its citizens. A government whose democracy is genuine won't have laws like that of India. The Republic of India must authenticate its "democracy." We're already in the 21^st century. Live and let live! :D

 

[Weeaboo Name]

I like how the punishment for being gay is getting locked up with hundreds of sexually frustrated men.

 

[Kanzler]

What surprises is that this is only four years after the law was originally overturned, which means the composition for the Supreme Court must be almost entirely the same people. That or the original overturning passed by the slimmest of majorities and enough people changed posts to gain a majority in the other direction. It's also a shame that it is Indian news and we probably won't get good coverage about it.

Given all this, my perception of it so far is that it is a symbolic move for the religious. I'm not sure if this will lead to prosecutions - anti-homosexuality laws tend to be silent for decades before they are repealed, and I don't see what's happened in India that would make their justice system want to crack down on homosexuality. I'm reading that it will open the door to harassment by police, probably because police officers might not be the most educated members of society. Yet again, I wouldn't expect a group of university professors not to harass anybody either so I suppose that's only natural.

 

[Regeneration]

In my own opinion, the Indian SC's decision is undemocratic, unfair, unreasonable, and homophobic. I just don't like the idea that the government is interfering with the private (sex) lives of its citizens. A government whose democracy is genuine won't have laws like that of India. The Republic of India must authenticate its "democracy." We're already in the 21^st century. Live and let live! :D

It is pretty clear by your statement that you didn't read the entire article and just jumped on to say the Indian SC is to blame. And I partially blame the media for screwing up the news too.

Here's whats wrong. Article 377 on the Indian Constitution, is a colonial era law which criminalizes homosexuality. The ones to blame are the lawmakers in the parliament who never thought it to be worthwhile to be gotten rid of. The court merely said that the Delhi High Court wasn't allowed to make rulings on the basis of laws enacted in foreign countries. Legally speaking, nothing can be done to change this unless the article is revoked.

 

[From Laurentum]

It is pretty clear by your statement that you didn't read the entire article and just jumped on to say the Indian SC is to blame. And I partially blame the media for screwing up the news too.

Here's whats wrong. Article 377 on the Indian Constitution, is a colonial era law which criminalizes homosexuality. The ones to blame are the lawmakers in the parliament who never thought it to be worthwhile to be gotten rid of. The court merely said that the Delhi High Court wasn't allowed to make rulings on the basis of laws enacted in foreign countries. Legally speaking, nothing can be done to change this unless the article is revoked.

My feelings got me. I stand corrected. ^_^

 

[Kanzler]

I think there's some ground to "blame" or be upset at the Supreme Court. While Parliament will make and repeal laws, it's nice to have the expert constitutional opinion of the Court. Basically for four years the SC is like "yeah it's about time you think about getting rid of it" and now they're like "lol nope we take that back". I can see why it looks like a slap in the face.

 

[Regeneration]

Well, the SC doesn't really have the right to do so...

But looking at the bright side, all this drama let to some protests and did manage to catch the eye of some high level officials and politicians. Pretty soon, they'll repeal article 377 (Possibly in the winter session of the parliament).

So if you want my opinion, the Supreme Court did the right thing (possibly unintentionally, lol). They've managed to get this issue the attention it deserves.

 

[Esper]

Doesn't the court have the power to overturn laws thought? For them to say "No, we don't have the power" seems to be them saying "we stepped into something and now we want out."

So if you want my opinion, the Supreme Court did the right thing (possibly unintentionally, lol). They've managed to get this issue the attention it deserves.

But will attention help? I've never been to India, but what little tidbits I've heard from people makes it seem like homosexuality is not something people there talk about because it's still pretty taboo. That makes me think it's just as possible that extra attention with become extra persecution. I could be wrong. As I said, I don't have any personal knowledge. I just know that sometimes this kind of thing happens.

 

[Regeneration]

Doesn't the court have the power to overturn laws thought? For them to say "No, we don't have the power" seems to be them saying "we stepped into something and now we want out."

See, that is the problem. They can overturn laws only if they are deemed unconstitutional. In this case, the constitution itself criminalizes homosexuality... sigh.
So, the parliament has to do something about it. >_<

But will attention help? I've never been to India, but what little tidbits I've heard from people makes it seem like homosexuality is not something people there talk about because it's still pretty taboo. That makes me think it's just as possible that extra attention with become extra persecution. I could be wrong. As I said, I don't have any personal knowledge. I just know that sometimes this kind of thing happens.

Umm.. No.

Edit: I'm an Indian, in India.
I know how this works.

 

[derozio]

PLENTY of homophobic people here, actually. Mostly adults, though. Most guys I meet (my age. 17-19) are actually cool discussing homosexuality and with people liking others of the same sex.

And lmfao this is hilarious. Our constitution criminalizes it? Haha. Hope they just get rid of the article. I don't see how goddamn government should have any say as to which kind of hole I put my wiener into. That's personal, okay?

 

[Dakotah]

Seriously, people are surprised by this? I'm not. Not in the least.

 

[Kanzler]

Seriously, people are surprised by this? I'm not. Not in the least.

You're not? What if some US states turned their backs on same-sex marriage a couple of years from now? I think it's always surprising when progress gets turned back.

 

[Dakotah]

You're not? What if some US states turned their backs on same-sex marriage a couple of years from now? I think it's always surprising when progress gets turned back.

Given the attitudes towards the LGBT community in most states of the US, no it wouldn't surprise me at all if they removed protections for gays and lesbians. You're talking about a country that his highly polarized. If by chance a state suddenly reverts to a wholly Republican controlled state, you can very well expect to see victories gained by the LGBT community suddenly taken away. Just as states who once were governed by Democrats vote to elect a Republican government and subsequently have seen women's rights quickly eroded.

India is a largely homophobic country. This is well established, despite the protestations of others claiming otherwise. So why then should it surprise me that the courts in that country would decline to strike down a law making homosexuality illegal?

 

[LoudSilence]

I like how the punishment for being gay is getting locked up with hundreds of sexually frustrated men.

top lel

Edit: I'm an Indian, in India.
I know how this works.

What matters is knowledge and sources to back up that knowledge; nationality doesn't guarantee anything about anything.

I don't see how goddamn government should have any say as to which kind of hole I put my wiener into. That's personal, okay?

Here's the thing, though: you have to realise that these laws aren't put in place to "persecute" individuals, it's meant for the supposed protection of society as a whole. Old world mentality, but many people honestly do believe it's for the "greater good".

In India's particular case, while Hinduism itself is not unified in its position on homosexuality, Indians more or less still are. Obviously times are changing and this is changing too, but as long as the majority of people in India are still not alright with this, I dunno if anyone's gonna try to rock the boat. I'm surprised anything even happened back in '09, to be honest.

 

[Regeneration]

What matters is knowledge and sources to back up that knowledge; nationality doesn't guarantee anything about anything.

Some people just don't get a joke. -_- See the cross-out and stuff.. sigh..

Obviously times are changing and this is changing too, but as long as the majority of people in India are still not alright with this, I dunno if anyone's gonna try to rock the boat. I'm surprised anything even happened back in '09, to be honest.

What exactly makes you say that? You'd be surprised how many here are actually in support of abolishing article 377. The only thing that worries me is the amount of time it takes to get something done in the parliament.

 

[Kanzler]

Some people just don't get a joke. -_- See the cross-out and stuff.. sigh..

Next time you can say "I meant that as a joke"! ^^

 

[LoudSilence]

Some people just don't get a joke. -_- See the cross-out and stuff.. sigh..

Is that what the cross-out means <_>

What exactly makes you say that? You'd be surprised how many here are actually in support of abolishing article 377. The only thing that worries me is the amount of time it takes to get something done in the parliament.

I guess I should say society as a whole rather than youth, but polls still aren't really in favour of homosexuality. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe it's just people not wanting to talk about it rather than disliking it...isn't sexuality in general still crazily taboo in India? I mean, it took forever for people to get over kissing in Bollywood films (or have they? :P).

My info might be a bit outdated but IMO I don't think attitudes have shifted too greatly yet:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-persists-in-India-despite-court-reforms.html

At any rate, it's moving, just slowly.

 

[zakisrage]

The thing is, India is run by old people, many of whom remember the last days of India under British rule. Most of the government ministers are 65 or older. India's president was born in 1935 - he's older than my paternal grandparents. These are the people who tend to hold rather prudish views because they grew up with heavy colonial influence. The younger generation is more open-minded about sex - many younger people are objecting to practices like arranged marriage. It's the same with Lebanese - I know many younger Lebanese (such as myself) who are cool with the idea of homosexuality, even though the older generations are not.

India really needs to make these old fogies retire.

 

[Ivysaur]

Well, they will eventually leave. But this is a good cause to movilize millions of young people so the change happens faster.

 

[twocows]

So, what do you think? What are your thoughts?

In my own opinion, the Indian SC's decision is undemocratic, unfair, unreasonable, and homophobic. I just don't like the idea that the government is interfering with the private (sex) lives of its citizens. A government whose democracy is genuine won't have laws like that of India. The Republic of India must authenticate its "democracy." We're already in the 21^st century. Live and let live! :D

The point of their ruling was that, within the legal context of their constitution, the law on the books was not unconstitutional and thus not a matter for the courts to decide. This is a good thing because it means the courts are not claiming power that is not theirs. If Indian law is anything like US law, the Supreme Court's decisions are generally based on whether a given law is even legal to begin with. The decision to overturn current law on grounds other than strictly legal ones is something that should (and does) reside in the legislature, the most direct voice of the people (or in the US, it can be done by referendum, an even more direct measure of the will of the people).

I understand that a lot of people are harmed by the law and I, too, think it is unethical. However, we have a system in place to handle issues like this. We should work within the context of the system, not break it to achieve a quick win. If we give the courts the ability to legislate on moral grounds, you may not like where that ends up, since you are forfeiting decisions about morality to a very small group of people. Even if they did agree on this issue, it's not certain that they would agree on the next issue of moral relevance. Perhaps a later court would strike down a law that allows gay marriage as "unethical" if they had granted themselves that power. But they didn't. They realized that the scope of the judicial branch is to rule on the validity of the law in the context of higher laws, such as constitutional law. That means that even if they disagreed ethically with a law that allows gay marriage, they would not have the power to overturn it merely based on personal opinion, they would have to make their ruling in the context of the constitution.

Again, I get that this isn't an ideal situation, but the system is working here (at least in regards to this specific court ruling). This needs to be something that is overturned in the legislature (or by referendum if that is an option in their government) if the people of India wish to preserve the balance of powers in their democracy. I vaguely remember a similar case in the SCOTUS that disappointed a lot of people that went on to be solved the right way and at least one member of the SCOTUS later (after they were off the bench) said that they were happy when the issue was resolved in the legislature (in other words, they ruled contrary to their personal beliefs on the issue because they had to).