Section 377- Does the Act of scrapping it from IPC defends homosexuals?
To defend the rights of the minorities has become quite fashionable these days, in fact there is no problem even in defending if it is not going beyond logical premises. But ridiculous outrage and misinformed rallying can ruin even the noblest of efforts. Being of the intellectual kind and being an intellectual are two different aspects. Recently the SC judgment on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code generated a lot of outrage. Defenders of humanity and justice fought vehemently that a regressive and retrograde judgment has been passed. But in this entire melodrama what we are forgetting is that what we have been fighting over is merely the obiter dicta part of the judgment. The judgment simply says that Section 377 cannot be scrapped by the court since it does not suffer from a constitutional infirmity and changes if any are sought that remains the prerogative of the legislature, this is the very raison d’être of passing the judgment. And, the court added that “mere possibility of abuse of any particular provision cannot be a ground for declaring a law unconstitutional” which conforms to the logic that is weaved in the entire judgment.
Now those accusing of stereotypical thinking can also think that what if a male is being violated (through carnal intercourse) forcibly then what is the possible remedy available to the poor human being.
Now those accusing of stereotypical thinking can also think that what if a male is being violated (through carnal intercourse) forcibly then what is the possible remedy available to the poor human being. Because nowhere it is guaranteed that a homosexual cannot be a criminal. No, ask that question to yourself if you are a man and you are straight but still supporting the scrapping of Section 377 because oh my God! it’s scrapping of basic human rights if Section 377 is here to stay. Assuming Section 377 goes away then you can’t even claim that you have been raped because Section 375 which defines rape clearly says; “Rape.– A man is said to commit” rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- First.- Against her will. Secondly.- Without her consent. Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.” Mark the words “sexual intercourse” “with a woman” specifically. I bet you were not progressive enough to think that a man could also be violated so whom are you calling retrograde? Because women too are the subject of Section 377 what would be consequence if Section 377 is here to stay? Men would overpower women because nothing is unnatural about carnal intercourse. Some things are irrational and odd and disgusting, staring at women and passing lewd comments are also hormonal impulses by the logic of what you supporters have to say is, that even that should be natural. What is wrong with your liberal thinking? Why such a narrow path you are treading? Not going into the details of the physiological aspect of homosexuality all I can say is among the LGBTs where is the possibility of sexual intercourse in case of lesbians? But you seem to be rallying for the fact that S 377 criminalizes homosexuality? How come? Neither the judgment nor the section tries to criminalize sexuality and if the legislature defines the rights of homosexuals in the light of the judgment then it is restoring the dignity and not criminalizing.
Scrapping Section 377 means taking away the right of the males who could not complain against an assault of the homosexual kind and if it protects the right of a group then why should it be scrapped merely thinking that it can be abused?
Scrapping Section 377 means taking away the right of the males who could not complain against an assault of the homosexual kind and if it protects the right of a group then why should it be scrapped merely thinking that it can be abused? I think we are all missing the point here it is the stereotype that is eluding us not the judgment in particular. In the hurry to prove judges wrong (which satisfies our sense of hollow victory) we have misinterpreted what the SC said in all genuineness and sincerity. We would hate to admit it but we are an intolerant lot (read racist, sexist) we have problem with skin color, we don’t respect women as of today (although rights exist), we ostracize transgender then how can we stand homosexuals who doesn’t look normal to us. Scrapping Section 377 from the statute book is merely a cosmetic measure just like feminists rallying for women and defunct laws that exist in the name of protection of women. Laws would not offer the dignity that we can by changing the way we look at things. Be a true liberal thinker, think free and not in chains of pre-conceived notions.
Now that’s scathing and scholarly.