Shafee’s penis aroma seduced my nostrils. And as I prepared to enjoy it , he popped a question that left a queer taste in my mouth for his penis What is your opinion about gay marriage?
Dato’ Seri Shafee Abdullah framed that.. Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial the defence raised discrepancies over the charges framed and accuser …in sodomy 1 ? And what do you think will happen in sodomy 2 ?
Sometimes you do not realise you are in the midst of a vast silence till it is pierced through with sound. Often, you may not notice noise until it ends abruptly and silence prevails. You may not notice how dark it is till a light is flicked on. Sometimes you do not know how agitated you have been, till a caressing hand calms you. The absence of some people makes you realise the significance of their presence.Mat Zain accuses Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah of being LIAR, FABRICATOR and MANIPULATOR.
Muhammad Shafee has also come under fire online after Anwar’s unsworn statement of defence from the dock, purportedly for interfering with the news coverage of the controversial court case by issuing certain instructions to mainstream media editors and reporters.
MALAYSIA’S FLIP-FLOP HISTORY CONFLICTING TESTIMONY WITNESS GIVES WHAT IS CLEAR IN THE SCANDAL IS THE BASTARDIZATION AND PROSTITUTION OF JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY.
Judges part of conspiracy to frame Anwar
What is your opinion about gay marriage?
Reiterating its support to the Supreme Court order recriminalizing consensual sex among gay adults, BJP said it favoured the verdict and would not support any “unnatural act”. We have a culture and tradition and this goes against it. One cannot allow a new culture of this kind,that homosexuality was against the established norms of society. The SC verdict while others, in of-the-record conversations, had appeared sympathetic to the LGBT community’s cause only bans sexual conduct that goes against the order of nature. A reading down of this law can be that to be born with gay tendencies cannot be against the order of nature. The court does not have to legalize or illegalize such a thing. It is not against the order of nature,”
MUMBAI: It had taken one Facebook post and barely 48 hours to spread the message. On Sunday afternoon, at 3.05pm, groups of men and women wearing black dotted the street nearMatunga’s Maheshwari Garden. Over the next hour, the crowd swelled until hundreds trooping into the garden, armed with banners and chants, to protest the Supreme Court verdict upholding section 377.
But the support rally was not limited to Mumbai. It was part of a global movement to speak out against the Supreme Court’s decision, with similar protests having been planned in other cities, such as Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Pune, London, Toronto and New York. Sunday was declared the Global Day of Outrage, and the participants at Matunga spanned ages, nationalities and sexual orientations. There were parents supporting LGBT kids, college students, theatre and film personalities, expats, foreign tourists and activists.
“If expressing love for another human being is considered a crime, I don’t think I know the definition of ‘crime’, said Kala Ramnathan, who was at the rally to support her gay daughter, and protest what she termed an attack on human rights. “Peeping into people’s bedrooms is against even the very basic idea of morality.” Aruna Desai, who was there to support her son, said that deciding how other people should live their lives was something lawmakers had no business interfering in.
“How can you dictate how two people should live? I completely disagree with the judgment.” Desai said.
A Canada-based filmmaker , speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that it was disgraceful to see the world’s largest democracy take such a hugely regressive decision. “If India wants to be considered a leader among nations, it needs to be a leader among human rights as well.” The rights of LGBT people, she said, should not be considered “special” but as natural as those of any other citizen.
“What kind of place are we looking at where the human rights of a community are taken away,” asked scriptwriter Gazal Dhaliwal, who was born a male, but is a woman today, having had sex reassignment surgery. “And, for the BJP president, Rajnath Singh, to say what he said, and that we won’t dent their vote bank… They will soon see that we can make a difference.”
Manvendra Singh Gohil, founder of the Lakshya Trust and known as the first Indian royal to come out as gay, said the huge turnout was heartening. “There is great solidarity within the LGBT movement,” he said. “We may have differences of opinion on many things but at times like these, I’m very proud of how united we are. All we’re asking is our right to live equally like other citizens.”
“Everybody is on the same page-how do we go on from here? More people are realizing that it’s a wider human rights issue,” said Ashok Row Kavi, founder of Humsafar Trust. “There is outrage now, yes, but also a quiet determination.”
NEW DELHI: The ‘Global Day of Rage’ protest atJantar Mantar saw for the first time students in uniform protesting re-criminalization ofhomosexuality in India. More than 50 students, studying in Classes IX to XII at Tagore International School in south Delhi, held placards saying ’377 Quit India’ and ‘no going back’ on Sunday.”If we talk about celebrating diversity in India, this is where we need to start,” said Tanya Bhardwaj, a Class XI student. She said a homosexual need not hide himself or herself. “You don’t need to hide yourself. We are supportive of the person that you are. This is the message that the student community wanted to spread to people today,” said Safina Amin, another student.
The students said that their campaign against re-criminalizing homosexuality stemmed from recent workshops held at their school to create awareness about the LGBT community.
Tagore International School has been holding awareness, sensitization and rights (ASR) campaign for students and teachers of Class IX to XII to create awareness about issues related to the LGBT community in association with CREA-a feminine human rights organization-since August.
They currently have 30 student members in their Vasant Vihar branch and 20 members in the East of Kailash branch, said Shivanee Sen, the program coordinator and assistant counselor at the school. Sen was present at Jantar Mantar with the students.
“It’s not just about being the pioneer. We wanted to do whatever we could to garner support for the rights of the LGBT community,” Sen said.
Another teacher, Ishita Mukherjee, said the experience was an eye-opener. “It is adult, it is consensual, it is private and it is okay; students understand this and it’s amazing to see their sensitivity at such a tender age. We need to give them a platform to drop their inhibitions and be themselves,” she said.
Madhulika Sen, principal, Tagore International School, Vasant Vihar said that there are many myths and concerns about the LGBT community and that the workshops initiated at their school aimed to address those issues. “Students need to be made more aware and need to know their human rights,” she said.liberal opinion that enjoys a virtual monopoly of the airwaves pilloried the Supreme Court for what some feel was its most disgraceful judgment since the infamous Habeas Corpus case of 1976. The decision to overturn the Delhi High Court judgment taking consensual same-sex relationships outside the purview of criminal laws has been viewed as an unacceptable assault on individual freedom and minority rights and even an expression of bigotry. Overcoming fears of a virulent conservative backlash, mainstream politicians have expressed their disappointment at the judgment and happily begun using hitherto unfamiliar shorthand terms such as LGBT.
Indeed, the most striking feature of the furore over the apex court judgment has been the relatively small number of voices denouncing homosexuality as ‘unnatural’ and deviant. This conservative passivity may even have conveyed an impression that India is changing socially and politically at a pace that wasn’t anticipated. Certainly, the generous overuse of ‘alternative’ to describe political euphoria and cultural impatience may even suggest that tradition has given way to post-modernity.
Yet, before urban India is equated with the bohemian quarters of New York and San Francisco, some judgmental restraint may be in order. The righteous indignation against conservative upholders of family values are not as clear cut as may seem from media reports. There are awkward questions that have been glossed over and many loose ends that have been left dangling.
A year ago, a fierce revulsion against the rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi led to Parliament amending the Penal Code and enacting a set of laws that extended the definition of rape and made punishment extremely stringent. It was the force of organized public opinion that drove the changes. Curiously, despite the Supreme Court judgment stating quite categorically that it was the responsibility of Parliament to modify section 377, there seems to be a general aversion to pressuring the law-makers to do their job and bring the criminal law system into the 21st century. Is it because India is bigoted or is there a belief that there are some issues that are best glossed over in silence?
This dichotomy of approach needs to be addressed. Conventionally, it is the job of the legislatures to write laws and for the judiciary to assess their accordance with the Constitution and to interpret them. In recent years, the judiciary has been rightly criticised for over-stepping its mark and encroaching into the domain of both the executive and the legislatures. Yet, we are in the strange situation today of the government seeking to put the onus of legitimising homosexuality on the judges.
Maybe there are larger questions involved. The battle over 377 was not between a brute majoritarianism and a minority demanding inclusion. The list of those who appealed against the Delhi High Court verdict indicates it was a contest between two minorities: religious minorities versus lifestyle minorities. Formidable organizations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and some church bodies based their opposition to gay rights on theology. Liberal promoters of sexual choice on the other hand based the claim of decriminalised citizenship on modernity and scientific evidence. In short, there was a fundamental conflict between the constitutionally-protected rights of minority communities to adhere to faiths that abhor same-sex relationships and the right of gays to live by their own morals. Yet, if absolute libertarianism was to prevail, can the khap panchayats be denied their perverse moral codes?
The answer is yes but only if it is backed by majority will, expressed through Parliament. Harsh as it may sound, it is the moral majority that determines the social consensus.
There is a curious paradox here. On the question of gay rights, liberal India prefers a cosmopolitanism drawn from the contemporary West. At the same time, its endorsement of laws that are nondenominational and non-theological does not extend to support for a common civil code. Despite the Constitution’s Directive Principles, the right of every citizen to be equal before the law is deemed to be majoritarian and therefore unacceptable by the very people who stood up for inclusiveness last week.
For everything that is true of India, the opposite is turning out to be equally true.
