Muslim cop imposes moral policing on muslim couples in Indian Hyderabad

[rubyjackass]

Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

294. 4[ Obscene acts and songs.-- Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.]

Romance is not an obscene act, nor is it an annoyance to others. That law is to protect people from unwanted and intrusive actions of others, like whispering an obscenity or showing a sexually suggestive gesture at a stranger. Not to curb consenting couples being affectionate. That is why the wording 'to the annoyance of others' is present in it.

Dude. Indian Supreme Court called gay sex as an unnatural act. Do you think they will interpret Secion 294 as you meant? No way. In India kissing in public is obscene.

 

[janon]

Dude. Indian Supreme Court called gay sex as an unnatural act. Do you think they will interpret Secion 294 as you meant? No way. In India kissing in public is obscene.

Indian supreme court did not - it is explicitly said so in the Indian penal code that homosexuality is unnatural. That is not the court's interpretation, but the exact wording of the law, passed by the british and still in place. It is up to the parliament to change that law, not the supreme court.

But what obsecnity is has been interpreted by the courts. Something "shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."

So can a kiss be deemed to corrupt and deprave people who see it? I think not. In any case, I don't think the couples in question were kissing in public either - they just happened to be enjoying each other's company, which makes frustus jealous and ask for punishment.

 

[Arabian Legend]

Secular India yeah right! Indians members unmask yourselves shows how intolerant you are!

Muslims moral policing Muslims what hindus got to do with this?

Indian Muslims should claim their own land.

 

[kurup]

Secular India yeah right! Indians members unmask yourselves shows how intolerant you are!

Muslims moral policing Muslims what hindus got to do with this?

The word secularism has a specific meaning . Look it up sometimes before posting it on every damn case .

Indian Muslims should claim their own land.

They already has one . It is called Pakistan .

 

[Arabian Legend]

The word secularism has a specific meaning . Look it up sometimes before posting it on every damn case .

I have already no need to big mouth about it. maybe you don't know what it is! flip few pages back, see how the hindus are reacting to this.

They already has one . It is called Pakistan .

Another one should be created.

 

[45'22']

I have already no need to big mouth about it. maybe you don't know what it is! flip few pages back, see how the hindus are reacting to this.



Another one should be created.

even bangladesh is also there
for the third one give us some more time

 

[kurup]

I have already no need to big mouth about it. maybe you don't know what it is! flip few pages back, see how the hindus are reacting to this.

The act of stupidity performed by a !diot police officer doesnot relate to that of the state .

They were protesting against it . Nothing wrong in that .

Another one should be created.

Baluchistan will do fine .

 

[KRAIT]

No matter what religion they follow, they are free in this country. The policeman should get punishment.

Enough of this moral policing. It is increasing in India.

 

[WAR-rior]

Inidan army used Muslims as human shields during Kargil war.

We are not interested to know what your Army teach you. Anyways, whole world knows the credibility of Pakistan Army Propaganda. By the way, why dint your Army accepted NI soldier's dead body?

 

[janon]

Secular India yeah right! Indians members unmask yourselves shows how intolerant you are!

Muslims moral policing Muslims what hindus got to do with this?

Indian Muslims should claim their own land.

It is the policeman who violated secularism, by imposing his religous values by abusing his position. This is not saudi arabia, where the religious police go around making sure people pray or stoning girls for making love.

In a secular republic like India, personal values are personal choice, and a policeman has no right to impose his values on others. The fact that peope are outraged by the policeman's actions shows that we are secular at heart, and not a theocracy like yours.

The policeman can live a sexually and romantically frustrated life if he wants - he has every right to do so, if thats what he wants. But he has no right to impose that frustration on others. He is paid to keep law and order, not to harrass law abiding citizens minding their own business.

As for your question of muslims policing muslims - sorry, but Indian policemen are paid for by the state govt, not by any relgious body. In their professional life, they are neither muslim nor hindu nor any other religion. In their personal life they can follow whatever relgion they want to, but cannot force others to do the same. State policemen paid for by the taxpayer cannot go around imposing his morals on our citizens, hindu or muslim or whatever.

It is called personal choice, which may be an alien concept to you. How our boys and girls live their lives is not the business of the state, unlike in theocracies like yours. The very fact that your state has to impose certain values by force shows that those values are contrary to human nature.

As for the last sentence - many Indian muslims did so, in 1947. Didnt work out too well, it is the most volatile and conflict ridden region in the world today. On the other hand in India, we have a stable, free, democratic republic where people of all religions live in harmony most of the time, free to practice and profess their religion. Not in danger of sliding towards anarchy and failed state status.

 

[rubyjackass]

Indian supreme court did not - it is explicitly said so in the Indian penal code that homosexuality is unnatural. That is not the court's interpretation, but the exact wording of the law, passed by the british and still in place. It is up to the parliament to change that law, not the supreme court.

But what obsecnity is has been interpreted by the courts. Something "shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."

So can a kiss be deemed to corrupt and deprave people who see it? I think not. In any case, I don't think the couples in question were kissing in public either - they just happened to be enjoying each other's company, which makes frustus jealous and ask for punishment.

IPC does not explicitly mention homosexuality. Rights activists were earlier hoping that SC will not interpret homosexuality as against nature.
Quoting the relevant section from wikipedia:

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
377. Unnatural offences: 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.

Holding the same standard of conservatism, I am betting any PDA over and above kissing will be interpreted as obscene. I don't know from where you quoted the definition of obscenity or whether it is even in context. But then you also wrongly claimed that IPC specifically criminalizes homosexuality.

You cannot just wish away the conservative attitude of a vast majority of Indians. BJP has already hailed the SC court judgement and said homosexuality should be illegal. And not just frustus, there are real people who get upset seeing and letting their children seeing 'lovers' in a park. And yes some of them do real obscene stuff, even by Western standards.

 

[janon]

IPC does not explicitly mention homosexuality. Rights activists were earlier hoping that SC will not interpret homosexuality as against nature.
Quoting the relevant section from wikipedia:


Holding the same standard of conservatism, I am betting any PDA over and above kissing will be interpreted as obscene. I don't know from where you quoted the definition of obscenity or whether it is even in context. But then you also wrongly claimed that IPC specifically criminalizes homosexuality.

You cannot just wish away the conservative attitude of a vast majority of Indians. BJP has already hailed the SC court judgement and said homosexuality should be illegal. And not just frustus, there are real people who get upset seeing and letting their children seeing 'lovers' in a park. And yes some of them do real obscene stuff, even by Western standards.

The law was introduced specifically for homosexuality and bestiality. Laws are made with a context in mind, it's not like they made a law against unnatural acts, and then left it to the interpretation of judges what 'unnatural' might mean. That's not how lawmaking works. From wikipedia, about the british introducing section 377 in the commonwealth:

Section 377 of the penal code in several former British colonies criminalizes anal sex between men and other homosexual acts. The provision was introduced by British colonial authorities in the British Raj as section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and was used as the model for sodomy laws in many other British colonies, in many cases with the same section number.

The prohibition of homosexual acts is provided for in section 377 of the penal codes of India, Malaysia, Singapore (see Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Maldives and Jamaica. It is the model for similar laws that remain in force in Bhutan, Brunei, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, Samoa, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Ghana, The Gambia, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. It was the model for since-repealed laws in Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, and New Zealand.

Section 377 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have gotten the debate backwards. What was argued in court was not whether section 377 covers homosexuality or not - it is undisputed that the law is against homosexuality and bestiality. What was debated is whether such a law is unconstitutional, and should therefore be scrapped. It was about doing away with section 377, not trying to figure out whether it applies to homosexuality or not.


As to where I got the definition of obscenity from - Section 292 of the Indian penal code. I quoted the defiinition verbatim.

Section 292 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

About the last paragraph of your post - I'm not sure why you are saying that to me. I did not wish it away. In fact I'm the one who said that it is up to parliament to change the law. I did not say whether theyy will do it or not. I know the reality, and did not pretend it was different.

 

[rubyjackass]

The law was introduced specifically for homosexuality and bestiality. Laws are made with a context in mind, it's not like they made a law against unnatural acts, and then left it to the interpretation of judges what 'unnatural' might mean.

Who decides what the law was introduced for? That is where the courts come in. In that sense it is left to the interpretation of judges. The whole purpose of judiciary and Supreme Court is to make this interpretation. If you ask the lawyers who were arguing the case for decriminalizing homosexuality, you will hear that their case is that: in this day and world, homosexuality is not unnatural. Which means they are asking the Courts to interpret the section in a way suitable for today.

I said you were wishing it away because you claim that PDA(kissing in public) is not obscene. I am saying PDAs will be considered obscene, going by the gay sex judgement. Because 1) the obscene acts addressed by the law were PDAs and 2) PDAs are still considered obscene by a majority(arguably) of Indians.

 

[janon]

Who decides what the law was introduced for? That is where the courts come in. In that sense it is left to the interpretation of judges. The whole purpose of judiciary and Supreme Court is to make this interpretation. If you ask the lawyers who were arguing the case for decriminalizing homosexuality, you will hear that their case is that: in this day and world, homosexuality is not unnatural. Which means they are asking the Courts to interpret the section in a way suitable for today.

I said you were wishing it away because you claim that PDA(kissing in public) is not obscene. I am saying PDAs will be considered obscene, going by the gay sex judgement. Because 1) the obscene acts addressed by the law were PDAs and 2) PDAs are still considered obscene by a majority(arguably) of Indians.

Sorry boss, you really ought to learn more about the lawmaking process. The people who make the law and pass it already know what it is for. Every law is introduced in a context. Sometimes some laws need interpretation from a judicial and constitutional POV, and that is where courts come in.

Section 377 was passed to criminalize homosexuality and bestiality. There is no doubt in anybody's minds about it. I gave you the wikipedia link for section 377, introduced by the British in all commonwealth countries. Are you saying that they passed the law, but did not know why they passed it, and hoped that 200 years later a court would tell them?

And that bit where you said "if you ask any lawyer who argued"...it is clear that you have not asked any lawyer yourself. The argument in court was NOT whether the law applies to homosexuality or something else - the argument was whether that law should exist or not. To be more precise, the argument was whether section 377 is unconstitutional, because it violates fundamental rights. That is why you hear all the activists asking the law to be scrapped, saying that section 377 should go. And that is also why in many former commonwealth nations, that law has been scrapped. You are wrong when you say that it is upto the courts to decide why the law was passed - the people who passed the law already knew why they passed the law, what it was for.

If a law is passed by the parliament, the courts can only strike it down if it is deemed unconstitutional. ie, if it violates the letter and spirit of the constitution. And if they cannot argue that it is unconstitutional, then the law will stay, until and unless the parliament amends or scraps it later. Lawmaking is the function of the parliament only.

 

[livingdead]

Secular India yeah right! Indians members unmask yourselves shows how intolerant you are!

Muslims moral policing Muslims what hindus got to do with this?

Indian Muslims should claim their own land.

the religion of police does not matter, he should be prosecuted for inventing his own law, judging people by that law, and inventing the punishment too.
Yes, in secular India, that should not be allowed.

If muslim couples were breaking law, file charges against them, and let court punish if found guilty.