Law – Marriage & Family

07 October, 201809 October, 2018

Section 377A – A Contemporary, Important Law

My argument here is that section 377A of the Penal Code prohibiting sex between men is a law of contemporary relevance and substantive importance. It goes beyond mere symbolism or placating religious views. The policy that section 377A will not be proactively enforced departs from the prior policy of pro- actively raiding gay groups. It falls within the executive’s discretion to determine what resources to commit to enforcing various offences.

Further, it should be clear that S377A does not criminalise human beings, but human behaviour. Some might fault this reasoning, while others consider it reductionist to assume “we are what we do”. While all human beings have intrinsic worth, not all human conduct is equally worthy.

03 October, 201809 October, 2018

A Sin Or A Crime? – On Legislating Morality

A repeal of section 377A will not merely remove the offence. It is much more significant than that. Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual lifestyle. It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity.

In other words, the repeal of this piece of legislation can gradually result in significant changes in the ‘constitutive morality’ of our society (Devlin).

27 September, 201809 October, 2018

Signposting as a principle in lawmaking

Supporters of Section 377A point to developments in other countries that follow upon the repeal of similar laws. Some of these developments were in fact facilitated by what the repeal of such laws entailed. Repeal involves rejection of the principle on which Section 377A is based and the adoption of a contrary principle.

Those who oppose Section 377A may do so for various reasons, but they cannot logically claim to be moral sceptics - who believe there is no such thing as moral truth or justice - as that would defeat their claim that it is unjust to treat homosexual acts in this manner. If there were no moral truth, it would not be unjust to criminalise homosexual acts.

27 September, 201803 October, 2018

REASONS TO RETAIN S377A

The Government maintains a position that all religious communities are free to give voice to their conscience in matters that have moral impact. People of religious faith have equal right to be included in rather than dismissed from the public forum of debate. Some homosexual advocates argue that religious citizens should refrain from advocating that the State laws should criminalise conduct that they consider immoral. This line of argument actually contradicts the definition of secularism. For what they are really saying is “You shouldn’t make laws based on your morality, but on mine instead.”

27 September, 201807 October, 2018

At level of international law, there is no established human right to ‘sexual orientation’

First, there is no established human right to “sexual orientation” at international law — it is a contested proposition. There is no United Nations (UN) treaty which expressly underwrites discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”, itself an ambiguous term.

Attempts to read “sexual orientation” into “sex” (a biological term) in interpreting treaties such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Right are controversial and not universally accepted. While certain UN bodies/officials prefer an expansive reading of “sex” as encompassing “sexual orientation”, their opinions are not legally binding.