Our overzealous nationalists prefer to believe that our country has freed itself entirely from the shackles of its colonial past - but yet we still cling to several outdated relics from the Victorian era such as the infamous Penal Code. Specifically Section 377a of the Penal Code which states 'any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature' In layman speak, that would theoretically make it illegal to indulge in anal or oral sex.
All thanks to those straight-laced Victorian prudes.
An antiquated law that has been repeatedly misused to indict a certain politician in our country - all thanks to the lil boy who cried sodomy. Even though only a select few have been persecuted over this particular law, it continues to hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the fledgling gay community, ever ready to strike.
Basically have consensual sex between two adult males, go straight to jail. Don't pass go, don't collect 200.
Ironic since it seems our bigoted authorities would be more forgiving when it comes to heterosexual sex, even if it's entirely non-consensual with a minor. How else to explain the latest furore in town where a youthful national bowler was released with a mere bond after pleading guilty to the statutory rape of a thirteen year old girl! Apparently public interest would not be served if the bowling ace was hauled to jail as he had a bright future.
Who knew! Turns out a promising future is the unwritten appendix on the Get Out Of Jail Free card.
So any straight fellows with reasonably bright futures, you have just been handed the unequivocal license to prowl the city streets in search of nubile adolescent Lolitas barely out of primary blues! Go ahead, violently sate your rampant heterosexual urges. Who cares if it's non-consensual! Who cares if it's with a child! Go ahead, it's alright, just a bit of a childish indiscretion no doubt.
Seriously my mind boggles. I am sure the case mentioned above is far more complex with unique mitigating circumstances - but come on, what a shockingly unsuitable precedent to set. Allowing such an unlawful thing to happen and yet hounding two adult males for indulging in entirely consensual sex? To all appearances it seems like it's better to have a convicted paedophile rapist at large on our streets rather than a gay man.
Sigh. Isn't it time we reviewed our archaic Penal Code?
All thanks to those straight-laced Victorian prudes.
An antiquated law that has been repeatedly misused to indict a certain politician in our country - all thanks to the lil boy who cried sodomy. Even though only a select few have been persecuted over this particular law, it continues to hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the fledgling gay community, ever ready to strike.
Basically have consensual sex between two adult males, go straight to jail. Don't pass go, don't collect 200.
 |
| So non-consensual rape is alright? |
Ironic since it seems our bigoted authorities would be more forgiving when it comes to heterosexual sex, even if it's entirely non-consensual with a minor. How else to explain the latest furore in town where a youthful national bowler was released with a mere bond after pleading guilty to the statutory rape of a thirteen year old girl! Apparently public interest would not be served if the bowling ace was hauled to jail as he had a bright future.
Who knew! Turns out a promising future is the unwritten appendix on the Get Out Of Jail Free card.
So any straight fellows with reasonably bright futures, you have just been handed the unequivocal license to prowl the city streets in search of nubile adolescent Lolitas barely out of primary blues! Go ahead, violently sate your rampant heterosexual urges. Who cares if it's non-consensual! Who cares if it's with a child! Go ahead, it's alright, just a bit of a childish indiscretion no doubt.
Seriously my mind boggles. I am sure the case mentioned above is far more complex with unique mitigating circumstances - but come on, what a shockingly unsuitable precedent to set. Allowing such an unlawful thing to happen and yet hounding two adult males for indulging in entirely consensual sex? To all appearances it seems like it's better to have a convicted paedophile rapist at large on our streets rather than a gay man.
Sigh. Isn't it time we reviewed our archaic Penal Code?
3 comments:
This is what you called double standards. Everything the government is trying to do now is to coverup their asses and incompetence.
all the new bills, new gazettes to protect themselves from being exposed. now lets see how the election goes.
wait, they are still immune to transparency.
The day that it will be done is when pigs could fly.
Which I really hope they will, someday.
We can always hope, tempus :) Don't give up, Tom! You guys are far too young to be that cynical about our country's future.
P
Post a Comment