In a second case in the same month, in Malaysia, a courtarraigned Anwar Ibrahim, former deputy prime minister and now a leader of theopposition. He stood charged with sexual relations with a male former aide,under Section 377 of Malaysia's penal code, which also criminalizes "carnalintercourse against the order of nature."
pakistan penal code 1860 urdu book 59
Seemingly the case had nothing to do with "sodomy" or sex, butover it hung the shadow of Uganda's law punishing "carnal knowledge against theorder of nature." That law, Section 140 of the criminal code, was also aBritish colonial inheritance, though in 1990 legislators had strengthened it,raising the highest penalty to life imprisonment. The government used therevised law to harass both individuals and activists who were lesbian or gay,censoring their speech, threatening them with prison, raiding their homes. Officialsalso relied on the law to explain, or excuse, their failure to support HIV/AIDSprevention efforts among LGBT people-the inaction that sparked the protest.Four years earlier, the Minister of Information had demanded that both theUnited Nations and national AIDS authorities shut out all LGBT people from HIV/AIDSprograms and planning. He cited the law against homosexual conduct. [7] A spokesman for the Uganda AIDS Commission, the central national clearinghousefor prevention and treatment, conceded in 2006: "There's no mention ofgays and lesbians in the national strategic framework, because the practice ofhomosexuality is illegal."[8]
Section 377 was, and is, a model law in more ways than one. Itwas a colonial attempt to set standards of behavior, both to reform thecolonized and to protect the colonizers against moral lapses. It was also thefirst colonial "sodomy law" integrated into a penal code-and it became a modelanti-sodomy law for countries far beyond India, Malaysia, and Uganda. Itsinfluence stretched across Asia, the Pacific islands, and Africa, almosteverywhere the British imperial flag flew.
Labouchere's provision came too late to be introduced in theIndian Penal Code itself. However, subsequent colonial codes incorporatedversions of it, including codes that derived from the IPC. It appeared in theSudanese Penal Code in 1899, and in the influential penal law of Queensland inthe same year. Malaysia and Singapore received the gross indecency provisionjointly through an amendment in 1938.[58]Moreover, as explained below, subsequent jurisprudence in India (particularlythe Khanu judgment) expanded the scope of "unnatural offences" toinclude what would otherwise have been "gross indecency" under British law.Further, though Labouchere's innovation only spoke of male-male sex, somegovernments have made "gross indecency" apply to sex between women-by droppingthe "male" before "person" (as detailed below in chapter IV).
Similarly, while the Sudanese code adopted the "grossindecency" provision, it only punished it when non-consensual.[64]These distinctions were lost after independence, however, when in 1991 Sudan'sgovernment imposed a shari'a-inspired penal code.[65]
The Penal Code of the Australian colony of Queensland (QPC)was drafted in 1899 by the colony's chief justice, Sir Samuel Griffith.[66] It came into force in 1901 and was the second most influential penal code afterthe IPC, especially in British Africa. The QPC introduced into the IPC'sversion of "unnatural offences" the category of the "passive" sexual partner-theone who "permits." Section 208 read:
Outside Australia, the QPC first took root in Papua NewGuinea. The chief justice of Northern Nigeria, H.C. Gollan, then decided toadopt it as the model for his colony's penal code, which came into force in1904. It then became the subject of bureaucratic battles between colonialadministrators; officials in Southern Nigeria were divided between proponentsof the QPC and supporters of the Indian Penal Code.[68] The former finally won out. In 1916, two years after Nigeria combined into asingle colony, a common criminal code based on the QPC was adopted. [69]
"Gross indecency" in British-derived penal codes is highlyelastic. A Singapore Court has stated its meaning depends "on what would beconsidered grossly indecent by any right-thinking member of the public."[160]Just slightly more specifically, a 1998 amendment to the Tanzanian Penal Codeclarified that gross indecency included any act that "falls short of actualintercourse and may include masturbation and indecent behaviour without anyphysical contact."[161]Thus two men kissing, holding hands, sleeping together, or conceivably evenlooking at one another with sexual intent, could break the law.
LGBT activists held a press conference in Kampala inAugust 2007, launching a public campaign they called "Let Us Live in Peace." Thenext day, Buturo, now ethics and integrity minister, told the BBC thathomosexuality was "unnatural." He denied police harassment of LGBT people,but added menacingly, "We know them, we have details of who they are."Four days later, the press announced that the attorney general hadordered lesbians and gays arrested. "I call upon the relevant agencies to takeappropriate action because homosexuality is an offense under the laws ofUganda," he reportedly said. "The penal code in no uncertain terms punisheshomosexuality and other unnatural offenses."[202]
Most of Nigeria's Northern provinces now have their ownpenal codes. These combine principles of Islamic law with elements of theNorthern Nigeria Penal Code adopted at the time of independence.[206]
The penal codes of Kano and Zamfara states have simplytaken over the language of the British colonial provisions on "carnalintercourse against the order of nature," and put it under the shari'a-esqueheading of "sodomy (liwat)." They provide punishments of 100 lashes forunmarried offenders, and death by stoning for married ones. The Zamfara PenalCode also criminalizes "lesbianism (sihaq)," punishing it with up to 50lashes and six months' imprisonment:
I am from punjab, India. My question is that, in india IPC is applying which is made in 1860 and i found that PPC also in made in 1860. The mean is that these both acts are made in same time it means india is already divide with pakistan in 1860 so why mostly people says that they are divided in 1947 ??Pls reply with your comment if you help me in this controversial subject. 2ff7e9595c
Comments