When I sent it in to Open magazine in July '09 -- 11 months ago -- I called it "Hair Slicked Back". Last week, it appeared in print in the magazine, titled "Cruisin' in the Park". You will find it here.
Comments welcome.
Showing posts with label Section 377. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Section 377. Show all posts
June 30, 2010
July 10, 2009
The phalanx
Nothing unites quite like ... homosexuality.
"Clerics from the Muslim, Christian, Jain and Sikh communities held a joint press conference to denounce the judgement, insisting that homosexuality was opposed to the laws of nature and the will of God ."
"With some Hindu leaders having already condemned the judgement and well-known yoga guru Swami Ramdev announcing his intention to contest it in court, the phalanx of religious opinion opposed to the verdict is complete."
("Clerics flay order, SC seeks govt opinion", Hindustan Times, July 10 2009)
A previous version of the report quotes the Jain cleric saying "Our views should be kept in mind when the government takes any stand on the judgement", and the Muslim cleric backing that with "The government should take our views seriously." (Apart from the claims of knowledge of the will of god).
Actually, why? Why should the government be interested in the views of these folks, let alone take them seriously?
All said and done, I like that word "phalanx". It sums up perfectly what we see here: a united effort to perpetuate prejudice.
"Clerics from the Muslim, Christian, Jain and Sikh communities held a joint press conference to denounce the judgement, insisting that homosexuality was opposed to the laws of nature and the will of God ."
"With some Hindu leaders having already condemned the judgement and well-known yoga guru Swami Ramdev announcing his intention to contest it in court, the phalanx of religious opinion opposed to the verdict is complete."
("Clerics flay order, SC seeks govt opinion", Hindustan Times, July 10 2009)
A previous version of the report quotes the Jain cleric saying "Our views should be kept in mind when the government takes any stand on the judgement", and the Muslim cleric backing that with "The government should take our views seriously." (Apart from the claims of knowledge of the will of god).
Actually, why? Why should the government be interested in the views of these folks, let alone take them seriously?
All said and done, I like that word "phalanx". It sums up perfectly what we see here: a united effort to perpetuate prejudice.
July 03, 2009
More on 377
A few more thoughts on yesterday's Delhi HC ruling on Section 377:
As far as I can tell, Celina Jaitley is the one Bollywood personality who has spoken out -- firmly and consistently -- in favour of overturning 377. In today's Hindustan Times Cafe, for example, she says:
"With great pride and tears I congratulate the LGBT community. Homosexuality is now legal. Our long battle is won and the community can now walk with their heads held high."
Her use of that word "our" is especially moving.
I don't know Celina Jaitley, but this looks like her blog. Please go there and thank her for her courage and humanity.
***
As my friend Pankaj points out in a comment, I'm mentioned in the judgement. The judges used my book Branded by Law, which is about ex-"criminal" tribes, for this Jawaharlal Nehru quote:
"I am aware of the monstrous provisions of the Criminal Tribes Act which constitute a negation of civil liberty ... an attempt should be made to have the Act removed from the statute book. No tribe can be classed as criminal as such and the whole principle as such is out of consonance with civilized principles of criminal justice and treatment of offenders."
There's a clear parallel between the 1871 CT Act, which defined you as criminal if you were born into one of several communities named in the Act, and Section 377, which defined you as criminal if you were born with a certain sexual orientation.
***
As always, the very idea of homosexuality produces some odd bedfellows indeed: meaning, it brings together groups you would never expect to give each other the time of day. For example, the Jamat-E-Islami-Hind, the Catholic Secular Forum and the Hindu Jana Jagriti Sangh. See their remarks here.
Yep, these guardians of some faith would have you believe that, among other dread things, homosexuality is "harmful to humanity", it "would lead to an explosion in the population of HIV-infected people" and it is "unethical, unnatural, unspiritual." (Respectively).
And by saying those things, these guardians of some faith demonstrate to the world that they have no understanding of HIV or sexuality, let alone compassion or faith or humanity.
***
Postscript: Text of the judgement available here, or try the "Full Text of Delhi HC judgement" link here (PDF, 400K; second link downloads it as a CMS file, rename with PDF extension and it's readable).
As far as I can tell, Celina Jaitley is the one Bollywood personality who has spoken out -- firmly and consistently -- in favour of overturning 377. In today's Hindustan Times Cafe, for example, she says:
"With great pride and tears I congratulate the LGBT community. Homosexuality is now legal. Our long battle is won and the community can now walk with their heads held high."
Her use of that word "our" is especially moving.
I don't know Celina Jaitley, but this looks like her blog. Please go there and thank her for her courage and humanity.
As my friend Pankaj points out in a comment, I'm mentioned in the judgement. The judges used my book Branded by Law, which is about ex-"criminal" tribes, for this Jawaharlal Nehru quote:
"I am aware of the monstrous provisions of the Criminal Tribes Act which constitute a negation of civil liberty ... an attempt should be made to have the Act removed from the statute book. No tribe can be classed as criminal as such and the whole principle as such is out of consonance with civilized principles of criminal justice and treatment of offenders."
There's a clear parallel between the 1871 CT Act, which defined you as criminal if you were born into one of several communities named in the Act, and Section 377, which defined you as criminal if you were born with a certain sexual orientation.
As always, the very idea of homosexuality produces some odd bedfellows indeed: meaning, it brings together groups you would never expect to give each other the time of day. For example, the Jamat-E-Islami-Hind, the Catholic Secular Forum and the Hindu Jana Jagriti Sangh. See their remarks here.
Yep, these guardians of some faith would have you believe that, among other dread things, homosexuality is "harmful to humanity", it "would lead to an explosion in the population of HIV-infected people" and it is "unethical, unnatural, unspiritual." (Respectively).
And by saying those things, these guardians of some faith demonstrate to the world that they have no understanding of HIV or sexuality, let alone compassion or faith or humanity.
Postscript: Text of the judgement available here, or try the "Full Text of Delhi HC judgement" link here (PDF, 400K; second link downloads it as a CMS file, rename with PDF extension and it's readable).
July 02, 2009
377
In yesterday's Hindustan Times (July 1), I found a letter titled "Section 377 should stay", and this is what it said:
India has a rich cultural heritage, which has been preserved in spite of adverse criticism and numerous foreign invasions in the past. But when the law minister talks about revoking Section 377 of the IPC, which will decriminalise homosexuality, it sends out a wrong message to the international community. If the government has its way, the pride that we take in being different from Western countries will be lost forever. Homosexuality is unnatural, hideous and shouldn't be decriminalised.
RK Sharma
When I read this, I couldn't help wondering, is this representative of the thinking in the country as a whole? Does this mean that the whole effort to overturn Section 377 is doomed? Besides, is this person even aware that this is a law that was put on the books by one of those Western countries s/he thinks we are "different from"?
Well, the best news of I don't know how long is what transpired in the Delhi High Court today. The judges there did overturn Section 377. No longer are our gay brothers and sisters breaking the law by doing what the rest of us do with not even a thought of the law.
I don't know what kind of peculiar pride RK Sharma is talking about, but I'll tell you this: today I feel a great pride in my country. Today gives reason for every Indian to celebrate. Today is our heritage, expressed in full measure.
(Some reactions here).
India has a rich cultural heritage, which has been preserved in spite of adverse criticism and numerous foreign invasions in the past. But when the law minister talks about revoking Section 377 of the IPC, which will decriminalise homosexuality, it sends out a wrong message to the international community. If the government has its way, the pride that we take in being different from Western countries will be lost forever. Homosexuality is unnatural, hideous and shouldn't be decriminalised.
RK Sharma
When I read this, I couldn't help wondering, is this representative of the thinking in the country as a whole? Does this mean that the whole effort to overturn Section 377 is doomed? Besides, is this person even aware that this is a law that was put on the books by one of those Western countries s/he thinks we are "different from"?
Well, the best news of I don't know how long is what transpired in the Delhi High Court today. The judges there did overturn Section 377. No longer are our gay brothers and sisters breaking the law by doing what the rest of us do with not even a thought of the law.
I don't know what kind of peculiar pride RK Sharma is talking about, but I'll tell you this: today I feel a great pride in my country. Today gives reason for every Indian to celebrate. Today is our heritage, expressed in full measure.
(Some reactions here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)