[Constitution is built on the foundation of liberty and equality, and should apply to all citizens regardless of what they do consensually and in private. It's perhaps only fitting that Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists should make common cause on a regressive 153-year-old law enacted by our colonial masters (who have since moved on in their own country) - a law that prescribes life imprisonment for homosexuals, thus equating them with murderers.]
I/III. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/BJP-refuses-to-spell-stand-on-Section-377-Lekhi-supports-SC-order/articleshow/27261418.cms BJP refuses to spell stand on Section 377; Lekhi supports SC orderTNN | Dec 13, 2013, 06.02 AM IST NEW DELHI: While opposition BJP stuck to its non-committal official line on the Supreme Court's verdict on homosexuality, party spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Meenakshi-Lekhi> came out in support of SC's controversial order for restoration of Section 377. "I welcome the decision of the court because it is important that Section 377 <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Section-377> remains. It is not only women who can be exploited and harassed but men also get exploited so there is a need for a law to protect men too," Lekhi said minutes after her senior colleagues, leaders of opposition Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, had refrained from declaring their stand on the issue. BJP sources sought to distance the party from Lekhi's comments saying she had articulated her personal viewpoint on the matter. The spokesperson, who is also an SC lawyer, emphasized that she had spoken in her individual capacity, but her statement trained the spotlight on the unpreparedness of the party to take up cudgels publicly for the LGBT<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/LGBT> community. Its PM candidate Narendra Modi has kept quiet on the issue, refusing to be baited by opponents like Congress<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Congress> spokesperson Sanjay Jha<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Sanjay-Jha> who taunted him for staying silent. The reticence contrasts starkly with Congress's vocal stand against the SC order, as well as that of AAP which overcame its initial diffidence to criticize the revival of Section 377. Speaking against the backdrop of the support of fellow saffron outfits like the VHP for the SC order on restoration of Section 377, Swaraj said, "Supreme Court has also said Parliament can legislate on this issue. Government can call an all-party meeting and we will tell our view there on the issue after seeing the government proposal." She also said it was not enough for the UPA chairperson to express disappointment over the verdict, and expressed hope that the matter will be brought to Parliament shortly. Meanwhile, speaking to TOI, Lekhi said she saw the outrage over the SC order as a perfect case of "much ado about nothing". People are little informed about the criminal law process and how it gets activated, she said, adding, "You need a complainant or victim for that. Unless someone lodges a complaint, the police cannot do anything about it." As for soliciting for sex in a public space, it is punishable by law in any case, whether it is between men and women or between same sex people, she elaborated. II/III. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SP-against-any-move-to-amend-Section-377/articleshow/27267050.cms?intenttarget=no NEW DELHI: The Samajwadi Party on Thursday said it would oppose any amendments to Section 377<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Section-377> if it came to Parliament for discussion. Party leader Ram Gopal Yadav said, "Homosexuality is unethical and immoral, it is against the culture of the country and we will fight it." III. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-Congress-in-overdrive-to-scrap-SC-ruling-on-gay-sex-rights/articleshow/27268765.cms Govt, Congress in overdrive to scrap SC ruling on gay sex rightsTNN | Dec 13, 2013, 08.04 AM IST NEW DELHI: The government has decided to reverse the Supreme Court judgment on Wednesday making homosexuality a crime again. It is weighing the pros and cons of two competing options, one judicial, the other legislative: (a) a review petition before the SC, mostly likely before a five-member Constitution bench, failing which a curative one; or (b) a quick ordinance followed within six months by an amendment to the law in Parliament. It appears to have been spurred into action by Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's powerful statement on Thursday expressing "disappointment" at the restoration of an "archaic, repressive and unjust law", and by the nationwide outrage against the SC's decision to overturn the Delhi high court's 2009 verdict. It is yet to firm up its course of action. An ordinance is easier and can be promulgated as soon as the Parliament session ends on December 20. The appeal of the option is enhanced by the possibility that the session may be adjourned sine die ahead of schedule. But this step does carry the risk of being challenged in court. A successful judicial review, on the other hand, will have a finality, but is likely to be time-consuming, and the order will remain in force till hearing begins. Whatever the option it picks, there was no mistaking the government's intent to protect homosexuals against the restoration of Section 377 which criminalizes gay sex even among consenting adults. Sonia underlined the government's willingness to change the law by saying, "I hope Parliament will address this issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by this judgment." The intervention marks a new boldness on a socially contentious issue, as well as an acknowledgement of the power of the campaign of the LGBT community's right to equality, and the response it has generated. The Congress is sure to get support from the Left which has attacked the restoration of Section 377 as retrograde. But as the government raced to block operation of the SC order, it may have to contend with resistance of varying degrees. The top leadership of BJP<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Bharatiya-Janata-Party> refused to clearly articulate its viewpoint, taking shelter behind the argument that the government needed to put forward its proposal first. The Samajwadi Party <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Samajwadi-Party>, which wields a disruptive power disproportionate to its strength in Parliament, has strongly supported the SC order. The silence of regional parties—from Mamata Banerjee's Trinamool Congress<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Trinamool-Congress> to DMK and AIADMK—also indicates that government may have a difficult time hashing out a consensus on the matter. Union law minister Kapil Sibal<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Kapil-Sibal> said, "There are several possibilities and we'll adopt the possibility that gives relief to the affected millions the quickest." He emphasized the need for "swift action". As the day progressed, Sonia's tough stand against the SC order was echoed by Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi. "I personally believe that these are matters of personal freedom. I think, I would agree more with the high court verdict," Rahul said, while confirming that government would seek to scrap Section 377 if the court did not reverse its stand. "I hope that Parliament will address the issue and uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty to all citizens of India, including those directly affected by the judgment," he said. Finance minister <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Finance-Minister> P Chidambaram <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/P-Chidambaram>, who has played a crucial role in shaping the government's stand in support of the Delhi HC order, criticized the Supreme Court for reviving Section 377, saying the court had gone back in time. *Times View* This paper welcomes the stand taken by the Congress and its Cabinet ministers and hopes that the government moves quickly to reverse the SC judgment. As for the BJP, the views expressed by its spokespersons on TV - how many gays are harassed or jailed? - is akin to saying we don't need laws against murder or rape because, after all, what percentage of our 1.1-plus billion population is murdered or raped? Our Constitution is built on the foundation of liberty and equality, and should apply to all citizens regardless of what they do consensually and in private. It's perhaps only fitting that Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists should make common cause on a regressive 153-year-old law enacted by our colonial masters (who have since moved on in their own country) - a law that prescribes life imprisonment for homosexuals, thus equating them with murderers. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
