Whenever the media reports any man having anal sex with another man, and when the police prosecutes, the gay community will cry out loud fast and furious, that we are living in a society of homophobes. Never mind that the charge may well be for indecent behaviour in a public place like in a public toilet, and may have nothing to do with homophobia.
Gays will also argue hard that S377A is discriminatory and unnecessary. Guess what. There has been a piece of news, that is already a few days old – yet no gay dares to even breathe a word about it – that would put to rest all the fallacious claims that Singapore has anti-homophobe laws.
Here is that piece of news.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_299479.html?vgnmr=1
Nov 7, 2008
Charged for oral sex
A MAN was charged in court on Friday with three charges of having oral sex with his Indonesian maid.
Ahmad Dapon, 53, allegedly engaged in oral sex with the 31-year-old woman in his flat on three occasions between April and May last year.
He is represented by Mr Subhas Anandan.
If convicted, he faces a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
The case has been fixed for a pre-trial conference on Nov 25.
Oral or unnatural sex is an offence in Singapore, punishable with a life sentence, or up to ten years jail and/or a fine.
Isn’t the above a “victimless” crime, just like what 2 men engage in anal sex? Yet, what is the offence above? If gays can argue that S377A is discriminatory to gays, doesn’t the above (I believe it is S377) show that that Singapore laws outlaw all “unnatural sex” and not just anal sex between 2 males?
So where’s the cry from gays now?
On a side note, there is gender bias. So why is the man named, but not the woman? And what about the action of the woman? Why is she not charged, if oral or unnatural sex is a crime?
Related post on gender bias.
Same offence, different gender, different treatment
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Wasn't S3777 scrapped? How come this man was charged under a defunct law?
Wasn't S3777 scrapped? How come this man was charged under a defunct law?
I agree with you about the gender bias in the reporting, but I see no reason to single out the gay community as somehow having a special moral obligation to speak up about this. The fact that this man was charged under a defunct law does nothing to diminish the criticism of 377A that has come from people of every sexual orientation. Since it concerns the rights of every person to engage in consensual sexual activity (assuming it was consensual), theoretically speaking, it should concern everyone.
It's more likely that Ahmad Dapon was charged under s. 376, which is by no means 'victimless', since it requires lack of consent. Section 377A does not, and hence (it is argued) is 'victimless'.
Even assuming that Dapon was indeed charged under the now-defunct s. 377, the point of differential treatment remains, since s. 377A specifically targets man-and-man homosexual activity; s. 377 covered all forms of 'carnal intercourse': homosexual sex, bestial sex and 'unnatural' heterosexual sex. If s. 377A singles out gay sex, then clearly gays will feel justified in speaking out against s. 377A... but not particularly against any other provision.
this incident is and being currently discussed in the gay newslist signel.
in anycase, the law was repealed in june, if I'm not wrong, doesn't this guy have a lawyer present? does the constitution allow a person to be charged under a law repealed currently but still in place when the first offense was commited?
If I recall correctly, S377 was not repealed but amended. It was amended to be interpreted that if you have oral sex as a prelude to “natural sex”, that is OK. Of course, that itself is not very clear because how long is that prelude? 1 hour? 2 hours? 5 minutes?
>>The fact that this man was charged under a defunct law does nothing to diminish the criticism of 377A that has come from people of every sexual orientation.
>>
My point is not whether my argument diminishes the criticism of 377A. My point is that gays cry out loud that 377A is used, misused and what not, by the authorities to discriminate gays. Yet, when a similar case is done to straights, there is silence from gays. My point is that the law is the law. It is even handed. If a gay commits an offence, he gets arrested. If a straight commits an offence, he gets arrested.
>>It's more likely that Ahmad Dapon was charged under s. 376, which is by no means 'victimless', since it requires lack of consent
>>
You are assuming that was the charge, aren’t you? How do you know?
>> If s. 377A singles out gay sex, then clearly gays will feel justified in speaking out against s. 377A... but not particularly against any other provision.
>>
That is EXACTLY my point!
So there are laws that can be considered discriminatory to ANY PARTICULAR group if you so wish to interpret. Then you can further ONLY EMPHASIZE cases sympathetic to your own cause.
That is what gays have been doing, haven’t they? There is NOTHING discriminatory to gays specifically. What has happened is that gays SPECIFICALLY choose instances where gays have been targeted. That’s all!
>>this incident is and being currently discussed in the gay newslist signel
>>
So what? That is a private discussion group, not opened to public eyes. Where are the usual gays and gay sympathizers who have OPENLY criticized those who do not agree with gay ideology?
Why the silence?
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2008/11/legal-complications-of-oral-sex.html
Mr Wang says it best. Long story short; oral sex it is now legal, the story was a poor piece of journalism.
>>Mr Wang says it best. Long story short; oral sex it is now legal, the story was a poor piece of journalism.
>>
Again, my point is not about the standard of journalism (not that I think journalists are being very professional).
My point is not even whether there was a crime committed, be it S377 or S376.
My point is the haste among gays and pro-gays in picking up the news if it supports their case, yet remain totally silent, if the same scenario is repeated, but does not support their case.
Now, what if that guy had oral sex with another man and was charged?
For sure, gays will cry foul and make all sorts of allegations – without any thought whether it was professionally or poorly reported by the press!
Has not my point that gays are choosy in their selection of news been proven already?
Side note – Note that Mr Wang NEVER claimed that it was S376. He made a qualifier that he thinks it is MAY be S376. If your point is to hold him as an authentic source that it was S376, I think your have erred.
"That is what gays have been doing, haven’t they? There is NOTHING discriminatory to gays specifically. What has happened is that gays SPECIFICALLY choose instances where gays have been targeted. That’s all!"
Gays don't specifically choose instances when they've been targeted, because they don't have to. They've already been specifically targeted by the law, and are merely responding accordingly.
The issue is not whether various forms of deviant sex are being prosecuted -- clearly, not just male-male sex is prosecuted. The issue is how each form of deviant sex is prosecuted. With all other forms of deviant sex (e.g., male-female oral sex, female-female sex, prosecution is (after the October 2007 amendments) under s. 376 of the Penal Code. With male-male sex, prosecution is almost invariably under s. 377A (although technically, male-male sex also falls within s. 376).
This is discriminatory on 2 counts. Firstly, the very fact that a different offence (377A) is applied to male-male sex means that that kind of behaviour is singled out. Secondly, the fact that under the 'special' provision (377A), consent is irrelevant -- unlike the 'general' provision (376), which requires the prosecution to prove the victim's lack of consent. This represents a huge disparity in treatment -- with most sex crimes, we'd be reluctant to convict if the 'victim' was actually a willing participant. Not so for 377A.
>>This is discriminatory on 2 counts. Firstly, the very fact that a different offence (377A) is applied to male-male sex means that that kind of behaviour is singled out.
>>
Likewise, S376 discriminates ANY person who engages in “unnatural sex”. What if 2 heterosexuals have a certain fetish that is “unnatural”? They can argue that people who prefer oral sex are discriminated, can’t they?
You can construct any discriminatory practice if you so wish. It appears that gays have done that quite extensively, using S377A. Gays can always engage it privately, like what husbands and wives or co-partners have been doing privately in bed, engaging in “unnatural sex” – ie oral sex.
If 2 straight people can do their business in spite of S376 without fuss, I don’t see why gays need to shout at their top of their voices about S377A.
I re-emphasise that my point is gays make a lot of noise, if the news reports 2 men are charged when having sex, yet do about nothing when 2 straights get charged for the same.
The fact is that this news that a man had been charged when he had unnatural sex with a woman has been around for days – and not a single gay made noise about it, unlike if the charge was a man having sex with another man. But presto, when I brought this up, gays once again make a hell lot of noise in this message column.
That about proves my point gays are selectively noisy, isn’t it?
What is there to argue when the ST reports on such a misleading case? Oral sex has already been legalised as long as it is done between two consenting heterosexual adults. I would love to see them being thrown behind bars for a now defunct case.
Btw, go and do you law 101 again. Thanks.
There is no need for any 101. I agree with you totally.
The gays cry foul about laws criminalizing individuals who perform oral sex that does not lead to intercourse.
Their argument is that it is victimless and voluntary. The government has no business telling two adults what to do.
But that argument applies to heterosexuals too. It has nothing to do with misleading reports or whether the law was repealed/amended.
Why are they silent about it? Because the two involved are not gays and therefore, it is none of their business. They are vocal about it ONLY when it involves homosexuals.
So, you think they will speak up for you if you are not a gay?
Post a Comment