"Miss You" - Friends of Linger

This music video is famous for having been allowed to be shown on Indian television by an appeals tribunal despite it's depiction of a gay love story. The video was first banned from television in India by the censors for the ten second scene in which the two men appear on a bed dressed only in shorts.

Music by Adhir Ghosh, Smiti Malik, Sharif Rangnekar
Lyrics and song by Sharif Rangnekar

Can We?

"I pledge to create a short film titled 'Going Home', in which we visualize a utopia for women, where, unlike today, mistrust and fear don’t dictate actions and decisions,” says director Vikas Bahl.

"This video shows a utopia where a woman can do what she did with no problem, a place where men are always helpful and polite, and a woman is always safe. It does a good job of showing why women feel scared even when guys are trying to be helpful. Not all men are like the men in the video, and women know that, but a woman doesn't know a man's intentions when she first encounters them.

If you watched this video and kept thinking, "Why is she talking to them!? Why didn't she just call her mom!? Why did she let them give her a ride!?!?" the way you're feeling is how victim-blaming happens. She had no choice, really, but to accept help from these men. And if they hadn't been helpful, it would not have been her fault. Remember that."

India: Government Asks For Court Review

Through Joe Jervis at J.M.G. I see that the BBC News website (url to full article)  today has this encouraging news.

"The Indian government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court asking it to review its decision to reinstate a 153-year-old law that criminalises homosexuality.

The government asked the court to review its order saying it believed it "violated the principle of equality".  There has been outrage over the ruling seen as a huge blow to gay rights. There have been street protests and many activists and even government ministers have criticised it. The Supreme Court order on 11 December overturned a landmark 2009 Delhi High Court ruling which had decriminalised gay sex.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court had described Section 377 - the colonial-era law which says a same-sex relationship is an "unnatural offence" and punishable by a 10-year jail term - as discriminatory and said gay sex between consenting adults should not be treated as a crime.
But the Supreme Court said it was up to parliament to change the law and the courts did not have the mandate to rule on it.

"The government has filed the review petition on Section 377 in the Supreme Court today. Let's hope the right to personal choices is preserved," Law Minister Kapil Sibal tweeted on Friday.

In its petition filed in the Supreme Court, the government says "the position of the central government on this issue has been that the Delhi High Court verdict... is correct".

The Supreme Court's earlier order was widely criticised in India. The president of the ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi described it as "an archaic, unjust law" and Finance Minister P Chidambaram said the ruling had taken India "back to 1860".

---

Let's maintain our support for our Indian brothers and sisters up and keep hoping that something good comes out of this.

Poor Judgement

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains a statute (Section 377. Unnatural offences.) which states "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Photo by Anindito Mukherjee/Reuters

Although the law was introduced in 1860 under the colonial days of British rule, to criminalize and prevent homosexual acts, it also strikes at the insertion of a penis in any human orifice except a vagina, thus even consensual heterosexual acts such as fellatio and anal, nasal and auditory canal penetration are punishable under this law. (I am not sure if armpits or cleavages can rightly be defined as human orifices, but I wouldn't risk it!)

According to reports the law has rarely—if ever—been used to prosecute anyone for consensual sex, it has however often been used by the police to harass homosexuals.

The High Court of Delhi, in 2009 found (Kaushal v. Naz Foundation) the statute to be unconstitutional insofar as it criminalized consensual adult sex acts in private. The high court stated that the law violated "the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law."

The high court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of India by a wide variety of fundamentalist religious groups (Muslim, Christian and Hindu).

Dishon'ble Mr Justice G. S. Singhvi

Dishon'ble Mr Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya

The Supreme Court (Hon'ble Messrs Justices S. J. Mukhopadhaya and G. S. Singhvi)  delivered it's long awaited decision on the matter this week, (the decision in extenso) in which it set aside the high court's decision and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC. The justices, however, kindly suggested "that the parliaments should debate and decide on the matter."

Homosexuality is thereby yet again a punishable offence in India, as well as fellatio and heterosexual anal intercourse. 

This decision is in my opinion anachronistic, discriminatory, bigoted and cowardly as it completely bypasses the human rights issues concerned in the case. Gay rights are human rights, the sooner it gets into the bigots minds that we do not choose our sexual identity but are born that way the better. The LGBT community deserves the same protection under the law as any other disenfranchised or minority group, what is so difficult to comprehend about that?

The LGBT community in India have been struck a terrible blow as it cannot be expected of the utterly fractionated parliaments to proceed in this matter, especially considering the widespread homophobia in Indian society and the upcoming elections next year.

Chanakya Sethi, a graduate student at Yale Law School, summarizes my reaction well when he writes on Slate.com, "The majority passes a law that the minority believes discriminates against it. The minority goes to court seeking relief from the majority. But because the minority group constitutes a 'minuscule fraction of the country’s population,' the court will defer to the will of the legislature—that is, to the will of the majority."

---

As a reaction to the decision a “Global Day of Rage” is being organized with a string of worldwide protests that will take place tomorrow, Sunday December 15, 2013.

Events will be held in major cities like Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai, New York, Cambridge, London, Boston, Sydney, Toronto, see the organizers Facebook page for information on other locations.