Ex IMH patient M Ravi challenges Section 377A of Penal Code

[RonRon]

I am all for 377A! These Ah Neh faggots have nothing better to do!:oIo::oIo:

AsiaOne
Tuesday, Sep 27, 2011
A court here has reserved judgement on a constitutional challenge to Section 377A of the Penal Code after a lawyer filed it as his client was charged for performing oral sex on his male partner in a public toilet in CityLink Mall in March 2010.

Lawyer M Ravi's client, Tan Eng Hong, was initially charged under Section 377A, but the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) replaced the charge to committing an obscene act in public, after Mr Ravi filed the constitutional challenge.

The Straits Times reported that Mr Tan, 48, and his partner, Ching Chee Shyong, 41, were both convicted and fined $3,000 each under the new charge

Lawyer Ravi back in dock
Mr Ravi then asked the Court of Appeal to allow the constitutional challenge to be heard on Sep 27. He said this was necessary because the law allowed possible prosecution of gay men in the future, even though Members of Parliament had said they would not be prosecuted for sexual acts in private.

He also added it was discriminatory, as the maximum two-year jail sentence for gay sex in public places is heavier than the maximum of a three-month jail term for sex between a man and a woman in public. There is also no law that criminalises sexual acts among lesbians.

However, Deputy Public Prosecutor Aedit Abdullah said there was no need for the challenge, as Mr Tan was charged for committing an obscene act in a public place to the annoyance of others. Since he was not prosecuted under 377A, he could not argue that his constitutional rights were being violated by that particular law.

But DPP Abdullah also told Appeal Judges Andrew Phang and V K Rajah and Justice Judith Prakash that the AGC cannot give a 'binding promise' that gay men would not be prosecuted under 377A.

 

[psy83]

As the DPP mention, The two individuals were not charged under 377a but charged for committing an obscene act in public. Nothing for Ravi to Fight.

Anyways why did ravi go to IMH... Lawyers and esp Human Right lawyers get pretty stress in life.. Its a constant fight against the Establishment that really drains you, You tend to be Right liberal people fighting against Governments, Elites and powerful people.. That will stress me out as well esp if im fighting the PaP.

 

[vamjok]

As the DPP mention, The two individuals were not charged under 377a but charged for committing an obscene act in public. Nothing for Ravi to Fight.

Anyways why did ravi go to IMH... Lawyers and esp Human Right lawyers get pretty stress in life.. Its a constant fight against the Establishment that really drains you, You tend to be Right liberal people fighting against Governments, Elites and powerful people.. That will stress me out as well esp if im fighting the PaP.

just take a look at our Uncle Yap

 

[Ramseth]

PAP has offered to lift 377(a) in private between consenting adults who are legally married. I don't have a dog but I have a friend who's willing to offer his dog for those in need. Go to his home and he'll arrange for his alsatian to fuck your asshole if you love having it fucked so much that you're shameless enough to bring it up as parliamentary issue to debate over. Commission and fees negotiatiable. You just pay up and we all shut up. Nothing to worry about law, police, chapter or section. Cheaperer, fasterer and besterer, isn't it?

 

[psy83]

So now 377a has been pushed into the Grey Area of Law.

 

[steffychun]

Maybe Ravid should emigrate to Texas and see if he can push this motion amongst the Right Wing Americans

 

[Qantas]

PAP has offered to lift 377(a) in private between consenting adults who are legally married. I don't have a dog but I have a friend who's willing to offer his dog for those in need. Go to his home and he'll arrange for his alsatian to fuck your asshole if you love having it fucked so much that you're shameless enough to bring it up as parliamentary issue to debate over. Commission and fees negotiatiable. You just pay up and we all shut up. Nothing to worry about law, police, chapter or section. Cheaperer, fasterer and besterer, isn't it?

If you have a dog, it will end up in the cooking pot pronto!!!

 

[scroobal]

Looks like the Govt stuffed up big-time. If he had not challenged, they would not amended the charge. It also went against what the PM and old man said in parliament.

The gay community have been always susceptible to being blackmailed by younger gays because of this law. Many years ago a lawyer was charged and the trial was quite embarrassing. They however do not want to give the real reason for this agenda.

 

[Kid278]

As the DPP mention, The two individuals were not charged under 377a but charged for committing an obscene act in public. Nothing for Ravi to Fight.

The issue here is this 377a thingy is in a mess. The law doesnt stop at public and the AGC cannot give a binding promise on future prosecution. Besides that it does not include lesbians and also punishment on gay men is much heavier as oppose to man and woman which is discriminatory. All these the law department has to straighten it out once and for all.

 

[Ramseth]

If you have a dog, it will end up in the cooking pot pronto!!!

No, I'm no so heartless. A pet dog is a pet dog and a guard dog is a guard dog. I wouldn't bear to eat them. I only eat dogs that I've never seen before until after it's cooked and served on table.