Law - Gay, LGBT | Law Enforcement | Proposition 8 | Sex | Singapore

Singapore Court Of Appeals Reconsiders Ban On Gay Sex - VIDEO

Pink dot com singapore

The Singapore Court of Appeals yesterday heard arguments challenging the country’s 76-year-old ban on gay sex, reports Bloomberg.

In June, police asked attendees at Singapore's Pride rally Pink Dot to avoid comments on race and religion after Muslim and Christian groups called on followers to oppose the event.

In 2007, although provisions that made heterosexual oral and anal sex a crime were repealed, lawmakers agreed to uphold the ban on gay sex.  While the government says that the law has not been enforced since the 1990s, figures from the Home Affairs Ministry show that there were a total of 185 people convicted under section 377A from 1997 to 2006.

Lawyer Deborah Barker said that the 1938 law should either be declared void or modified to exclude sex between consenting adults in private.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said that the majority of people support the legal framework as it stands. A survey commissioned by the government showed that about 47% of those polled rejected “gay lifestyles,” 26% percent were receptive and 27 percent neutral.

Last month, Proposition 8 spokespeople Jennifer Roback Mors and Pastor Jim Garlow spoke at a Singapore conference whose head is fighting to retain anti-gay laws. 

Watch Pink Dot's stirring report on this year's Pride rally in Singapore, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. The people still don't want this. Why force it? Why is a non-citizen lawyer (Deborah Barker doesn't sound like the name of someone from Singapore) interfering in issue not local to her? She needs to leave her feminist moral compass at home and let these people be. Debbie, if the people of Singapore want to end their ban on gay sex, let THEM do it. You're not in the increasingly Liberal bordello that was once know as the USA.

    Posted by: Rick | Jul 15, 2014 12:00:52 PM


  2. The people still don't want this. Why force it? Why is a non-citizen lawyer (Deborah Barker doesn't sound like the name of someone from Singapore) interfering in issue not local to her? She needs to leave her feminist moral compass at home and let these people be. Debbie, if the people of Singapore want to end their ban on gay sex, let THEM do it. You're not in the increasingly Liberal bordello that was once know as the USA.

    Posted by: AG | Jul 15, 2014 12:00:59 PM


  3. Rick and AG have remarkably similar opinions.

    Posted by: Merv | Jul 15, 2014 12:31:05 PM


  4. Just to share - Deborah Barker is a Singaporean, schooled in Singapore and now representing a Singaporean gay couple that have been together for 14 years in first ever constitutional challenge in Singapore. So before you think that 'Barker' doesn't sound 'Singaporean' enough, you're clearly mistaken. We're a mix of different cultures, races, sexual orientations & gender identities. I don't think anyone in Singapore will take kindly to the fact that you just reduced them as 'un-Singaporean' just because of a different last name.

    Posted by: Benjamin X | Jul 15, 2014 1:06:44 PM


  5. Just as a Deborah can be a Singaporean, a Rick can also be black or transgender.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 15, 2014 1:44:28 PM


  6. Simon, your hypothetical is gross. Why would one aspire to be politically, socially and mentally disadvantaged?

    Posted by: Rick | Jul 15, 2014 1:59:19 PM


  7. Simon, your hypothetical is gross. Why would one aspire to be politically, socially and mentally disadvantaged?

    Posted by: Rick | Jul 15, 2014 1:59:27 PM


  8. Rick:
    That is a question you should ask yourself. That is kind of moot since you confessed not to have the mental capacity to answer a simple question.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 15, 2014 2:23:27 PM


  9. Rick had his post messed up.He meant to say:
    "Why should that group aspires to be mentally disabled like Rick?"

    Posted by: simon | Jul 15, 2014 2:28:30 PM


  10. "Singapore Court Of Appeals Reconsiders Ban On Gay Sex - VIDEO"

    Video is unrelated.

    Posted by: Randy | Jul 15, 2014 3:49:28 PM


  11. "the majority of people support the legal framework as it stands. A survey commissioned by the government showed that about 47% of those polled rejected “gay lifestyles,”"

    A majority wants to oppress a minority. That's okay is it? No, it isn't. There is no valid reason to maintain anti-homosexual legislation in Singapore (christian or conservative prejudice is not a valid reason, legalization in other countries has not led to the collpase of civilisation). It is right and proper that Singapore fully joins the developed world, not just economically but socially. One of the world's great success stories must not let its future be cobbled ignorance and prejudice!

    Posted by: Rodney | Jul 23, 2014 3:15:17 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Britain's Got Talent Winner Jamie Lambert: I'm Gay« «