ChatterBank2 mins ago
Once again blamed for everything?
9 Answers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/g ay-activists-in-india-want-british-apology-for -sex-law-898979.html
Now we are being blamed for exporting homophobia during the 19th century into India. We are called upon to apologise for introducing anti-sodomy laws that still make homosexuality illegal in India today, even though it is now sixty-six years after Mahatma Gandhi called on the British to leave India.
Section 377 of the Indian penal code which outlaws "unnatural sexual offences" and theoretically punishes anal or oral sex with up to 10 years in prison, although In practice no one has been prosecuted under the law in the past two decades.
If India wants to hang onto section 377, surely it is their prerogative, and nothing to do with us.
Now we are being blamed for exporting homophobia during the 19th century into India. We are called upon to apologise for introducing anti-sodomy laws that still make homosexuality illegal in India today, even though it is now sixty-six years after Mahatma Gandhi called on the British to leave India.
Section 377 of the Indian penal code which outlaws "unnatural sexual offences" and theoretically punishes anal or oral sex with up to 10 years in prison, although In practice no one has been prosecuted under the law in the past two decades.
If India wants to hang onto section 377, surely it is their prerogative, and nothing to do with us.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Perhaps they would also like us to apologise for buiding most oftheir roads and railways. And while we're about it, we'd better say sorry for providing them with the legal and basic parliamentary structure which they still largely follow today.
Or we could, of course, simply tell the "gay activists" in Bombay to go forth and multiply. (Oh I forgot, they can't can they!)
Or we could, of course, simply tell the "gay activists" in Bombay to go forth and multiply. (Oh I forgot, they can't can they!)
At the time the anti-sodomy laws was introduced there was really no moral question of it at the time. It's really kind of pointless to hold it against the British - to do so is to attack the C19 Britons for not possessing the morality of another age.
We can't deny however that it's a nasty legacy of the British. The British also left India a far more economically developed and, yes, more united country* than it would ever have achieved otherwise. After public outcries at home (because the British were initially indulging in them), the more brutal practices of the Moghuls were also largely eradicated in time (with a few individual exceptions - notably the mutiny).
*Yes, I know India was partitioned. But this was an Indian proposal and while it did fragment, it still posesses a far greater degree of unity than would have been possible without the British.
We can't deny however that it's a nasty legacy of the British. The British also left India a far more economically developed and, yes, more united country* than it would ever have achieved otherwise. After public outcries at home (because the British were initially indulging in them), the more brutal practices of the Moghuls were also largely eradicated in time (with a few individual exceptions - notably the mutiny).
*Yes, I know India was partitioned. But this was an Indian proposal and while it did fragment, it still posesses a far greater degree of unity than would have been possible without the British.
I EXPECT gratitude from India for teaching them english which is their most valuable asset today......Y else would B.Gates invest in their IT - apart from cheaper labour.
This is an example of India's modernity:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-104581 5/Worlds-oldest-mother-70-pleased-male-heir-de clares-daughter-burden.html
This is an example of India's modernity:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-104581 5/Worlds-oldest-mother-70-pleased-male-heir-de clares-daughter-burden.html
Another interesting facet to this story is that many countries and cultures still retain strict ant-sodomy laws today. In particular I am thinking of India�s closest neighbours, Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) and Pakistan.
Pakistan was created mainly to accommodate those who could not tolerate any beliefs different to their own. I think about 20 to 25% of India�s population settled in Pakistan (East and West) after partition. It is clear therefore that a sizeable chunk of the population of pre-partition India was perfectly happy with such restrictions.
Once they (and the British) had gone India had ample opportunity to relax its laws in any way it wished. It has chosen not to for more than sixty years and to now blame the British for the introduction of laws which clearly had the support of a large proportion of the population is offensive.
But that's often the case with "gay activists".
Pakistan was created mainly to accommodate those who could not tolerate any beliefs different to their own. I think about 20 to 25% of India�s population settled in Pakistan (East and West) after partition. It is clear therefore that a sizeable chunk of the population of pre-partition India was perfectly happy with such restrictions.
Once they (and the British) had gone India had ample opportunity to relax its laws in any way it wished. It has chosen not to for more than sixty years and to now blame the British for the introduction of laws which clearly had the support of a large proportion of the population is offensive.
But that's often the case with "gay activists".
What I'm saying is that I often find gay activists (and indeed many other "activists") offensive.
Their cause is paramount and no consideration is given to those who may not agree with them.
In this particular case I find it offensive that the gay activists in India see fit to pour scorn on Britain for introducing a law with which they do not agree. Britain has been out of India for 60 years and their government has not seen fit to abolish or alter the law.
Britain has no need to apologise to them for the reasons I set out in my earlier post and I find it offensive to hear a suggestion that it should.
Their cause is paramount and no consideration is given to those who may not agree with them.
In this particular case I find it offensive that the gay activists in India see fit to pour scorn on Britain for introducing a law with which they do not agree. Britain has been out of India for 60 years and their government has not seen fit to abolish or alter the law.
Britain has no need to apologise to them for the reasons I set out in my earlier post and I find it offensive to hear a suggestion that it should.
Okay, okay, I'm with you on the apology thing. I'm also with you on the fact that it's most definitely wrong to hold the British (especially the British of 2008) morally responsible.
But I think you're trivialising their opposition to this law - even though I agree that opposition should be focused on the Indian government (which it largely is) rather than the British, let's not forget that they have a very real and very genuine grievance here.
But I think you're trivialising their opposition to this law - even though I agree that opposition should be focused on the Indian government (which it largely is) rather than the British, let's not forget that they have a very real and very genuine grievance here.
You may well be right.
But I still don�t like �activists� (not only gay ones) when their actions are offensive or inconvenient towards others. What many of them seem to forget is that under democracy you don�t always get what you want.
It may well be (I don�t know, I�m only guessing) that the majority of people in India want to retain anti-sodomy legislation. Unlike the UK, India is not foolish enough to allow the will of the electorate to be overruled by some over-arching legislation like our Human Rights Act, and so the will of the majority prevails.
This, of course, means that some people will not get what they want. But does not mean they can be offensive to others in the name of their cause.
But I still don�t like �activists� (not only gay ones) when their actions are offensive or inconvenient towards others. What many of them seem to forget is that under democracy you don�t always get what you want.
It may well be (I don�t know, I�m only guessing) that the majority of people in India want to retain anti-sodomy legislation. Unlike the UK, India is not foolish enough to allow the will of the electorate to be overruled by some over-arching legislation like our Human Rights Act, and so the will of the majority prevails.
This, of course, means that some people will not get what they want. But does not mean they can be offensive to others in the name of their cause.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.