Singapore gay sex law ‘absurd’: couple’s lawyers in repeal c
-
Singapore gay sex law ‘absurd’: couple’s lawyers in repeal case
By Shah Salimat | Yahoo! Newsroom – 19 hours ago
An application to repeal the part of Singapore law criminalising male gay sex was heard in the High Court Thursday morning.
The case to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code on the basis of a constitutional breach was filed by graphic designers Gary Lim, 44, and Kenneth Chee, 38, who are in a 15-year relationship. The section criminalises acts of “gross indecency” between two consenting men, with a jail term of up to two years.
In a closed-door hearing, the couple’s lawyers – Peter Low, Choo Zheng Xi and Indulekshmi Rajeswari – argued before Justice Quentin Loh that the law was “absurd, arbitrary and unreasonable” as it violated Article 12 of the Singapore constitution which states that all persons are entitled to equal protection by law.
They also noted that the section’s unlawfulness was due to differences that were not easily understood such as vague, broad specifications of “acts of gross indecency”, and that the law only criminalises acts by men.
The lawyers also argued the section was absurd as it criminalises an “innate and immutable” identity.
Debate over the repeal intensified in January after a pastor campaigned for the law to be kept,prompting the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) to release a note urging the public not to comment on the case.
Section 377A also applies to heterosexuals: AGC
In their rebuttal to the arguments of the gay couple’s lawyers, the AGC said that the law does not state that the section only targets gay men, but men as a whole. This means that heterosexuals and bisexuals will also be charged under the law, they said.
The AGC also said that section 377A “has the clearly-stated purpose of reflecting public morality”, despite the gay couple’s lawyers arguing that the male-only law means that sex between females was under public morality by the government.
“Although Parliament has chosen to retain the wording of Section 377A which does not encompass homosexual acts between females, this decision strikes a legitimate balance between the moral norms of the majority and the interests of homosexuals,” argued the AGC, represented by lawyers Aedit Abdullah, Sherlyn Neo and Jeremy Yeo.
The hearing was the second time the ruling was constitutionally challenged in court in recent years but the first without a criminal charge underlying it. In September 2010, lawyer M. Ravi filed a challenge towards section 377A on behalf of his client, Tan Eng Hong who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a public toilet’s locked cubicle.
The couple’s lawyers noted that section 377A causes “tangible harm” to affected members of the population by limiting HIV outreach and causing psychological damage. However, supporting affidavits by HIV outreach expert Professor Roy Chan and counselor for homosexual men Bryan Choong were rejected by the judge.
An open court hearing is not normally held for constitutional challenges as no witnesses are to be questioned and arguments are legal in nature. The high court has reserved judgment over the case and is expected to deliver its verdict at a later date. -
-
Good to know what consenting adults do and do not do in the privacy of their own space is subject to scrutiny by law and society.
-
whatever it is cannot condol gay sex. if not men next time also damger get rape in the ass by gays!
milo first have to be careful. his backside very big. likely targets for gay rapists.
-
377A discussed to death
but it is still 377A
-
these people got nothing to do. whay wanna do things that ae like nothing better to do.
its a psychological health problem for gays that no one chose to wanna be so. but still we simplty cannot accept them as right necasue its against the laws of nature, the aim of sexual intercourse for pro-creation. can gays do that?
fine they can do it secretly but as long the the result do not create any problem no one will even giv a damn.
why wanna legalize it?
and there are peopl who can make use of such a case to pipe things up and create a commotion online.