This new post is in response to this article in TOI.
I would appreciate if you could give suggestions on how to make this stronger.
Dear Mr. Kanth,
This is in response to the article “Child rights panel opposes any dilution of Section 377” published in Times of India (TOI), dated July 17 2009. TOI reports that Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) is strongly opposed to “dilution” of the provision of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
I am student of International Politics and International Development at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and I am passionate about both child rights as well as LGBT Rights. I am presently interning with a child rights organization based in Delhi, and I absolutely understand how crucial the current provisions of Section 377 of IPC are in protecting children from sexual abuse, particularly in the absence of any other adequate provisions in our legal code. I recognize its deletion at this moment, without the necessary amendments to other relevant sections of the IPC would be disastrous. I also recognize that Section 377 has been used almost exclusively to cover sexual offences in India, and instances of actual criminal prosecution of homosexual couples have been negligible.
However, you are quoted as saying “The definition of consensual and non-consensual sex may get blurred in some cases… [some] adolescents [over 18]…[may] not have the adequate decision-making ability.” This statement demonstrates a double standard on your part – while I am willing to accept that certain adolescents may not possess “adequate decision-making abilities”, that would be as true of adolescents engaging in heterosexual activities as those engaging in homosexual activities. It appears hypocritical that the DCPCR is not asking for similar protections for female adolescents.
Additionally, as mentioned in the Delhi High Court verdict, while the provision of Section 377 criminalizing same-sex carnal relations between consenting adults may not have led to any recent prosecutions, it has been used against them in other ways. As stated in the verdict, affidavits, FIRs, judgments and orders have been placed on record that objectively document instances of “exploitation, violence, rape and torture suffered by LGBT persons.” I do not have concrete data to offer on this, but from experience, also know that LGBT youth are more likely to feel suicidal and depressed in a country where the law is against them. Thus, these aforementioned provisions of Section 377 clearly violate basic civic and fundamental rights of LGBT citizens of the country.
As someone working for human rights, you must realize that granting rights to a certain segment of society does not necessarily infringe upon the rights of others in the society. Equal rights do not work as a zero sum game. I am absolutely in agreement with you that the rights of children, and their mental, emotional, and physical health, need to be protected. However, granting LGBT people the right to their private consensual sexual lives need not undermine the rights of children in any way. If there are loopholes to be addressed, such as matters of dubious consent or maturity in age for an adolescent not being in sync with maturity of thoughts and decision-making, DCPCR should focus on closing them, rather than reverting to a blanket ban on sexual relations with consenting homosexual adults. I am certain there must be a better way to address them than holding double standards for heterosexual and homosexual relations.
6 comments:
"I am certain there must be a better way to address them than holding double standards for heterosexual and homosexual relations."
Sounds good. This is the key point.
@wiredvijay on Twitter
I recognize its deletion at this moment, without the necessary amendments to other relevant sections of the IPC would be disastrous.
I absolutely agree with you that deletion in entirety would be disastrous. Mr Kanth however is objecting to dilution and he emphasises his point by saying his issue is with the legalizing of consensual sex. As he lacks any substantial argument to oppose the verdict (which has finally recognized an inherent constitutional right that has been withheld all these years) he's injecting an argument that implies 18 is not a correct age of consent, as many are ill equipped to make decisions at that age and may actually be getting forced. Well at least he can suggest a better age of consent. And he'd do well to remember that some people will never "grow up!" That he bases his "reasoning" on his personal prejudice against homosexuality becomes clear, because he conveniently forgets the equal risk of people over 18 years finding themselves forced into having sex that is seemingly consensual, with persons of oppositesex. He doesn't seem to find that cause for concern! Let's not forget that women over 18 are bullied and forced into marriages they don't desire in which they sometimes suffer untold physical and mental torment. I'm not sure I call such relationships consensual and such decisions the product of free will. These women certainly are not showing maturity by agreeing to these things.
There's this other line in the article "seriously impact the physical, psychological, emotional and sexual behaviour of children and adolescents in India" that strikes me as having a subtext. It seems to suggest that homosexuality is a kind of acquired "sexual behaviour". This is so ill founded in the light of all the knowledge we have about it.
Altogether I see each new opponent of the verdict to be digging out some obscure point to back their opposition. Why not admit that you have really no arguments left, accept the verdict graciously and allow the nation to progress?
Child protection is vital and there are sensible ways that laws can be passed to ensure rights for children.
Oh hai, you have a blog!
Coming to the task at hand... You and Incognita have said almost everything I had in mind. There are only a few things I would like to say.
The age of consent for heterosexual sex is, in fact, 16. The double standards and hypocrisy of this statement by DCPCR and Mr. Amod Kanth is obvious in its implication that even though 16 year olds are somehow capable and mature enough to consent to heterosexual sex, when it comes to homosexual sex even "adolescents" over 18 are not. People over the age of 18 are not children, heterosexual or not. If they can vote in the elections, they are surely capable and mature enough to decide for themselves when it comes to sex without interference from the government.
Section 377 still protects children against abuse. Decriminalization of homosexual sex does not threaten upon security of minors. The zero sum theory, again. Besides, it is high time that India made new laws against child abuse because Section 377 is insufficient on the count that it provides protection only against penetrative abuse.
As for the concern over the effect of this ruling on "sexual behaviour of children", I believe that adolescents will continue to have the same sexual habits as before. Only, the queer youth will have one (huge) thing less to worry about.
This statement is thinly veiled homophobia at best (relatively speaking) and nothing else.
Thanks FireboltX for pointing out the two separate ages of consent. For one thing, this anomaly needs correction in the law. Wonder how that slipped in.
"Besides, it is high time that India made new laws against child abuse because Section 377 is insufficient on the count that it provides protection only against penetrative abuse."
Again this is a very important point. There is a whole range that qualifies as abuse and much of it is serious. Definitely laws are needed to deal with abuse in all its aspects.
"it is high time that India made new laws against child abuse because Section 377 is insufficient on the count that it provides protection only against penetrative abuse."
Oh yeah!
@wiredvijay on Twitter.
I guess what 377 does is to club both of them which is really not fair to either section of society!!
Post a Comment