377 gay rights > shemalejasmin@yahoo.comSide Effectts of legalizing Gay Sex in india > PLZ Re Think before legalize 377 >
shemalejasmin yahoogroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shemalejasmin
All MsM and hijdas Openly Do illaglly SEX WORK in public
Do all illagle things like >
01 - Stolen money from public and betting coustmers
who come SEX with hijads and msm and Gays ???
02 - Mudering coustmers if they refuse give money & gold from Public in india?
03- public in india not giveing money when hijads begging ,
hijads Betting coustmer refuse give the money?
04 - hijads froced to try to extort money from them by threatening citizens in ALL India ?
Need avidance plz go all police staions in india see cases of hijads and msms ?
WHO stop bullshit of gay,msm and hijads ??
89% of msm or GAY are PLHA or aids or STD ?
Still want 377 legalizing GAY SEX >
Aahahahahhahahahhahh ahahahahahhaah>>
Gays, Eunuchs have more than more than 135 cases pending Section 377 MUMBAI:
The city police have registered 135 criminal cases pertaining to unnatural sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code over the last ten years. Significantly, all these cases are still pending at various police stations. TOI spoke to a cross-section of homosexuals and eunuchs who said a majority of these cases was filed to harass the LGBT community. "Recently, two eunuchs who were travelling in a second class compartment were thrown out by cops though they had valid tickets. They were then put behind bars and asked to strip,'' alleged Abhijit Aher, who has been associated with Humsafar Trust, an NGO that works for the welfare of LGBTs. Aher said there were several instances where eunuchs were put behind bars when all they were doing was begging or having commercial sex. "Members of this community resort to begging and commercial sex as nobody in the society is willing to offer them a decent livelihood,'' he added. Members of the city's gay community say sometimes masseurs offer consensual sex and then try to extort money from them by threatening to file cases against them. "In many cases, the homosexual persons pay the exorbitant amount as they fear they may have to appear in court if a case is filed against him under Section 377 of the IPC,'' Aher said.
Section 377 of the IPC says that any person who has voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment that may extend up to ten years, and will also be liable to a fine. "This section has been misused by the police and it is high time the law is amended,'' said IPS officer-turned-lawyer Y P Singh. Agrees RTI activist Chetan Kothari, who has filed a query on this issue. "The fact that a large number of cases are still pending shows that the police are not interested,'' he said. Gay activists said though they welcomed the Delhi high court order, they were not sure if it would have an immediate impact on the cases filed against members of their community.
Baba Ramdev set to challenge HC verdict legalising gay sex
New Delhi Yoga guru Baba Ramdev will be approaching the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the Delhi High Court judgement
legalising gay sex among the consenting adults.
The petition is likely to be filed tomorrow, lawyers associated with Ramdev said. Lawyers Suresh Sharma and Gandharva Makker said the petition assailing the High Court verdict was to be filed on Tuesday but was delayed due to "unavoidable circumstances".
They said the yoga guru has challenged the July 2 judgement contending that homosexual activities are not only against public morality, public health and healthy environment but also against the interest of the society.
"...homosexual activities which are otherwise unnatural there is high risk of exposure of a large chunk of population to dangerous sexually transmitted disease including HIV/AIDS," the petition, likely to be filed, said.
"The decision of the High Court, if allowed to sustain will have catastrophic effects on the moral fabric of society and will jeopardise the institution of marriage itself. This offends the structure of Indian value system, Indian culture and traditions, as derived from religious scriptures," it said.
Ramdev, quoting Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas, contended that homosexuality is a disease that is curable.
"It can be treated like any other congenital defect. Such tendencies can be treated by yoga, pranayam and other meditation techniques," he said in the petition.
The High Court, in a landmark verdict, legalised gay sex among consenting adults, which was earlier an offence under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code with punishment up to life imprisonment.
The verdict had retained the penal provision for non consenting gay and homosexual acts involving minors. Ramdev, in his petition, contended that legislative mandate under section 377 of IPC did not infringe the right to privacy of persons indulging in homosexual activities as held by the High Court.
He maintained that section 377 is not violative of right to dignity of an individual and reduction in purview in the penal provision would aid in promoting homosexual activities which are primarily responsible for spread of HIV.
Ramdev said in the petition that the High Court has erred by adjudicating Section 377 to be violative of fundamental rights
"The High Court has erred in its ruling by interpreting the terminology sex as sexual orientation. In fact, the term sex referred under Article 15 is in relation to the male or the female sex. It can't be interpreted in context to the sexual orientation of a person," the petition said.
He alleged the verdict would promote homosexual activities which would adversely affect population growth in the country.
"Homosexual relationships, if encouraged, would bring population growth of a country to a halt and may deprive this country of its greatest asset of human resources," he said.
Gay sex legalised in India, religious leaders protest
THEIR VERDICT: Supporters of an Islamic student organisation protest against Delhi HC's order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Centre, the Delhi government and the NGO Naz Foundation seeking their stand on a lawsuit challenging the July 2 verdict of the Delhi High Court decriminalising gay sex.
A bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam issued notices on the lawsuit filed by a Delhi advocate Suresh Kaushal. The bench has sought replies of the various parties by July 20, the next of hearing of the matter.
Challenging the high court verdict, Kaushal contended before the bench that the high court had delivered a "perverse ruling" that would threaten the natural balance of society.
"By any standards this is animal instinct. This is unnatural. It should have been avoided and not permitted because tomorrow people will seek to have physical relations with animals. West is supplying all these problems to us. None of our scriptures say this is tradition or a right. Only one way...our one is is relationship between man and woman," Kaushal said.
The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment, had said last week that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be amended and any sex between consenting adults should be legalised.
Kaushal alleged that since the High Court verdict there have been seven cases of gay marriages and order was likely to affect the institution of marriage.
However, the Supreme Court said: "we have not changed the definition of marriage." For "gay sex, to my knowledge, no body has been prosecuted," said Justice Sathasivam.
Of the major political groupings, only the Communist Party of India-Marxist has welcomed the court order. The Congress and the BJP have reacted cautiously and have not said what stand will they take if the issue comes in Parliament.
Religious leaders of all faiths have also united against legalising homosexuality.
On Thursday, a Hindu Shankaracharya, a Jamaat-e-Islami cleric, Delhi's Catholic Bishop and a Jain muni held a press conference where they described gay sex as immoral, unnatural, and alien to Indian society, culture, tradition and religious ethos.
Gay rights activist Sunil Gupta, however, strongly disputes their arguments.
"We want decriminalisation not legalisagtion. We are talking about the rights of people. The kind of comments being made about homosexuals are immature. We must be allowed to live with dignity and freedom. Millions are silently being harassed," he said.
Meanwhile, Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily says the Government has not received the Supreme Court's notice but will reply in due course.
He said, "It's not the view of an individual minister but the view of the Government as a whole. The PM has directed all three ministries to analyse the High Court's verdict and its impact. The report will be submitted in a day or two."
Gay rights activists in India have been posting congratulatory messages on blogs and Twitter ever since the Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled gay sex was not a crime.human rights.Some see the ruling as crucial for the country's battle against HIV/AIDS.
India has the world's second highest HIV/AIDS caseload and gay advocacy groups say fear of persecution by law enforcement agencies often leaves homosexuals without easy access to health information and preventive care, rendering them more vulnerable to infection.
The gay sex debate and repealing of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that makes "unnatural sex" a punishable offence will have wide- ranging implications in the months to come.
But it's difficult to predict whether conservative Indians would change their perception of the gay community. India has traditionally been a study in curious contradictions that are deeply interwoven in its social fabric through centuries. If it is embracing and tolerant of alien customs, it is also proud and conservative of its own. Visitors to the ancient temples of Khajuraho, built in the 10th century, would find homosexual couples immortalised in its stone carvings.
Yet, in the 21st century, gay men and women in India find it hard to come out of the closet in a society that frowns on public display of affection even among heterosexual couples.
While there rarely has been a conviction under section 377 in the last two decades, gay rights activists say it remains a powerful tool in the hands of the police to harass homosexuals.
It also remains to be seen if the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court will be extended to encompass homosexuals in all Indian states.
The government's reaction following the court ruling has been cautious.
Analysts say it would need to take the debate forward without antagonising religious sentiments especially those of Christians and Muslims, who are traditionally opposed to homosexuality.
For now, the court ruling will hold unless challenged in the Supreme Court or replaced by an act of Parliament. The main debate that remains still is to find a common law that allows constitutional rights to gays having consensual sex without letting off paedophiles and same-sex rapists.
But are Indians ready to accept a same-sex couple moving in next door, gay parents at PTA meetings or at social events?
Teachers and Academics Against 377
University teachers, researchers and academics from all over India issued a strong statement in support of the recent Delhi High Court judgement decriminalizing consensual sex among adults and challenged the legitimacy of “religious leaders” to speak for the whole of society.
180 signatories from institutions and universities in Allahabad, Calicut, Peechi, Punalur, Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam, Sonipat, Goa, Jammu, Nanded, Mumbai, Pune, Pondicherry, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Chennai, Chandigarh, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Guwahati and Shillong endorsed a statement that said:
We, teachers, researchers and academics from all over India, welcome the Delhi High Court judgement reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalize consensual sex among adults in private. The judgement held that “Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.” In other words, the court believes that continuing to criminalize citizens on the grounds of their sexual preference violates the Fundamental Rights to life and personal liberty, to equality, and the right not to be discriminated against on non-relevant grounds.
We in the academic community have had a hitherto silent engagement with the pain, harassment, fear and discrimination that comes with being non-heterosexual/queer. We know students, colleagues, friends and family members who are queer, or may be queer ourselves.
But sexual preference and identification is only one part of people’s identities. We believe that a modern democracy must respect diversity regardless of whether consensus exists in society on the desirability of each such practice, provided such practices respect the personhood of others. There need not be consensus in society, for instance, on either meat-eating or vegetarianism as desirable, provided both groups are free to follow their dietary preference. Similarly if “religious leaders” believe that homosexuality is not sanctioned by the scriptures, they have the right to propagate their views, provided that these views are not taken as having the final sanction on the issue for society as a whole.
At the same time, religious identity is as important for many homosexuals as for heterosexuals. Homosexual people who are practicing Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians have fully participated in this challenge and supported the decision.
We state emphatically that Section 377 as it exists is anti-democratic, and reiterate our support for the Delhi High Court judgement.
180 Signatories:
Apurba K Baruah, Manorama Sharma (NEHU, Shillong);Tilottama Sharma Misra, Udayon Misra (Guwahati);Shaila Desouza, (Goa University and Member, Goa State Commission for Women);Alito Siqueira, (Goa University);Prabhakar Bhimalapuram, K Madhava Krishna, Harjinder Singh ‘Laltu’, (IIIT, Hyderabad);Sowmya Dechamma, G Haragopal, Jenson Joseph, R.V.Ramana Murthy, Yasser Arafath P.K, Sanjay Palshikar, Sujata Patel, Arun Kumar Patnaik, Aparna Rayaprol, (University of Hyderabad);A.Suneetha, (Anveshi, Hyderabad);Satish Poduval, M. Madhava Prasad, N. Manohar Reddy, Susie Tharu (EFLU Hyderabad)Anup Dhar, Rakhi Ghoshal, Tejaswini Niranjana, Rochelle Pinto, (CSCS Bangalore)Annapurna Garimella, Lata Mani, Kavery Nambisan, Vijay Nambisan, Rekha Pappu, Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, (Bangalore)Janaki Abraham, Sadhna Arya, Naman P. Ahuja, Pratiksha Baxi, Maitrayee Chaudhuri, Anuradha Chenoy, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Rohan D’Souza, Ajay Gudavarthi, Siddharth Mallavarapu, Ranjani Mazumdar, Nivedita Menon, Padmini Mongia, A.K.Ramakrishnan, Mohan Rao, Anupama Roy, Tanika Sarkar, Urmimala Sarkar, Kavita Singh, (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi);Amrapali Basumatary, Amita Baviskar, Shahana Bhattacharya, Brinda Bose, Gautam Chakrabarti, Uma Chakravarty, Anita Cherian, Radhika Chopra, Prem Chowdhry, Nonica Datta, P. K. Datta, Satish Deshpande, Anita Ghai, Saroj Giri, Charu Gupta, NA Jacob, Rachana Johri, Chitra Joshi, Sunalini Kumar, Mukul Manglik, Dilip Menon, Krishna Menon, Rajni Palriwala, Sumit Sarkar, Parth Shil, Mohinder Singh, Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Sanjay Srivastava, Nandini Sundar, Achin Vanaik, Madhvi Zutshi (Delhi University);Sabeena Gadihoke, Shohini Ghosh, K.S.Kusuma, Sanghamitra Misra, Ambarien Al Qadar, Sreerekha, Shamuel Tharu, (Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi);Ratna Kapur, (CFLR, Delhi);Anu Aneja (IGNOU, Delhi)Sarada Balagopalan, Aditya Nigam, Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Ravi Sundaram, Ravi Vasudevan, (CSDS Delhi);Renu Addlakha, Mary E. John, Sreelekha Nair, N Neetha, (CWDS, Delhi);Malavika Karlekar, Editor, Indian Journal of Gender StudiesShah Alam Khan (AIIMS, Delhi);Vineeta Bal, (National Institute of Immunology,Delhi)Pulapre Balakrishnan, (Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Delhi)Kailash K.K., Deepak K. Singh, Janaki Srinivasan, (Panjab University, Chandigarh)
Mangesh Kulkarni, Sharmila Rege, Anagha Tambe, (University of Pune)Ajit Menon, Anandhi.S, Padmini Swaminathan, (MIDS, Chennai);MSS Pandian (Chennai);Meena Kandasamy (Anna University, Chennai)K. Srilata (IIT Madras)Nasreen Fazalbhoy, Kamala Ganesh, Shoba Venkatesh Ghosh, Kanchana Mahadevan, Leena Rao, Sam Taraporevala, Vrijendra (University of Mumbai)K. Sridhar (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai)Vineeta Bhatia, Amita Bhide, K.P. Jayasankar, Nandini Manjrekar, Anjali Monteiro, Bindhulakshmi P, Lakshmi Lingam, B. Manjula, Shilpa Phadke, Monica Sakhrani, (TISS, Mumbai)Supratik Chakraborty, Om Damani, Anindya Datta, Siby K. George, Siddhartha Ghosh, Farhana Ibrahim, Shishir K. Jha, K. D. Joshi, Piyul Mukherjee, Ratheesh Radhakrishnan, Bhaskaran Raman, Sharmila, (IIT Bombay)Kaiwan Mehta, (K Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture, Mumbai)Chhaya Datar, Rohini Hensman, Rohan Shivkumar, Rajinder Singh (Mumbai)Gita Chadha (University of London External Programme, Mumbai)Johannes Manjrekar, Shivaji K Panikkar, Indrapramit Roy, Santhosh.S (M S University of Baroda);Meera Velayudhan (Ahmedabad);J Devika, Praveena Kodoth, V.J.Varghese, (CDS Thiruvananthapuram)Jiju Varghese Jacob (Govt. Polytechnic College Punalur)T.V.Sajeev (Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi)Janaky Sreedharan, Mini Sukumar, K.Gopinathan, (University of Calicut)V C Harris (Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam)Sibaji Bandyopadhyay, Dwaipayan Bhattacharyya, Anjan Ghosh, Epsita Halder, Janaki Nair, (CSSS Kolkata);Abhijit Gupta, Kavita Panjabi, (Jadavpur University)Nikhila H., (Pondicherry University)Pushpesh Kumar, (SRTM University, Nanded)Rekha Chowdhary, Ellora Puri, (University of Jammu)Oishik Sircar (Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat)Sukla Sen, Life Fellow, Indian Academy of Social Sciences, Allahabad
