SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS AGAINST NATURAL ORDER
From Date: 14-04-2023.
G. ALEX
BENZIGER,
Advocate
No. 123, Addl. Law Chambers,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai-600 104.
Tamil Nadu.
To
1.
Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi
Prime Minister of India
Prime
Minister's Office
South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Hon'ble Shri Kiren Rijiju
Minister of Law & Justice
3rd
Floor, 'C' Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003.
3. Secretary to
Government,
Government of India,
Ministry of Law and Justice.
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110 001.
Most Honourable sir,
Sub: Some points for consideration in respect of
Same-sex marriages in India pending
before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India-Reg.
…..
I am a practicing advocate in the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, with 38 years of bar experience. I am a
Roman Catholic Christian by birth and living according to the teaching of our
Lord Jesus Christ and the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Our forefathers
were converted into Christianity 300 years before. I am hailing from
Kanyakumari District, our family has the genealogy from 1754 onwards till date.
(www.maravankudieruppu.com/genealogy.html).
1. The Supreme Court of India heard
the arguments on the plea seeking legal validation of same-sex marriages in
India. The Supreme Court noted that legalizing same-sex marriage in India is a
‘seminal Issue’ and noted that a constitutional bench of five judges would
further make a decision on the plea. The apex court posted the plea for
arguments on 18th April. In this regard, I am also submitting some
facts for consideration.
2. The Indian government opposes
recognizing same-sex marriages, it said in a filing to the Supreme Court on 12th
March, 2023, urging the court to reject challenges to
the current legal framework lodged by LGBT couples. “Living together as
partners and having sexual relationship by same sex individuals ... is not
comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and
children," the ministry argued. The court cannot be asked "to change
the entire legislative policy of the country deeply embedded in religious and
societal norms", it said.
3.
The Ministry of Law believes that while there may be various forms of
relationships in society, the legal recognition of marriage is for heterosexual
relationships and the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining this. In recent months at least
15 pleas, some by gay couples, have been filed asking the court to recognize
same-sex marriages, setting the stage for a legal face-off with Hon’ble Prime
Minister Shri. Narendra Modi's government. "When the question of granting
recognition, legal sanction to a relationship is concerned, that is essentially
a function of the legislature and for more than one reason," India's
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the government, told the
court.
4. The Ministry of Law believes that while there
may be various forms of relationships in society, the legal recognition of
marriage is for heterosexual relationships and the state has a legitimate
interest in maintaining this, according to the filing seen by Reuters, which
has not been made public. "Living together as partners and having sexual
relationship by same sex individuals ... is not comparable with the Indian
family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children," the ministry
argued. The court cannot be asked "to change the entire legislative policy
of the country deeply embedded in religious and societal norms", it said.
5. "As petitioners we have received wide
support from people from all walks of life and it does not seem to me that most
Indians feel injured by the thought of some loving families getting legal
rights," one of the litigants in the current case, businessman Uday Raj
Anand, told Reuters after the government filed the reply in court. In an
historic verdict in 2018, India's top court decriminalized homosexuality by
scrapping a colonial-era ban on gay sex. The current case is being seen as a
further important development on LGBT rights in the country.
6. The
issue has stoked emotions in the media and in parliament, where a member of
Shri. Modi's ruling Hindu nationalist party in December asked the government to
strongly oppose the petitions filed in the top court. The government has argued
that any change to the legal structure should be the domain of the elected
parliament, not the court.
7. Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi’s
spoke at Dashamah Soundarya Lahari Parayanotsava Mahasamarpane in Bengaluru on
29-10-2017 India's cultural heritage holds the answers to all global problems.
Further, Shri. Modi said, Adi Shankaracharya gave the principle of Advaita or
Oneness, where there is no existence of Dvaita. There is no possibility of
conflict where there is no dualism. In different parts of the world whenever
there is an obstruction in the path of life the countries set their eyes on
India. In this way, all the problems of the world can be resolved by our
traditions. We have inherited these traditions in our life. Further, Shri. Modi
categorically said that “if today's young man is reading everything from his
mobile phone then how will he get to know about the traditional knowledge
hidden in the books? Who will let him know about this great heritage? So,
telling the school students about our Indian culture and values through the
programme Vivekadipani and through quiz competitions is a great initiative by
Swamiji. This is a great service even for future generations.
8.
Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi during the 95th Edition of
'Mann Ki Baat' on 27-11-2022 said that our country is home to the oldest
traditions in the world. Therefore, it is also our responsibility to preserve
our traditions and traditional knowledge, to promote it, and to take it forward
as much as possible. Further, he urged one and all to take up similar
initiatives and work for the preservation of cultural styles and traditions in
their respective region and areas.
9.
Further, Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi has said that
Tradition and Technology are the temperaments of New India. Mr. Modi, while
addressing the gatherings during the inauguration of the Barisu Kannada Dim
Dimava Cultural Festival at Talkatora Stadium in New Delhi on Saturday, February 25, 2023 evening said that the
country is moving forward together with development and heritage, and progress
and traditions.
10. The Court cannot go against the Natural
Order and Moral Order.
11. China
went against the natural course and custom and enacted the law that “one family
has one child”. Following this Order, the Chinese military faces a significant
challenge as the fertility rate falls in 2020. Finally, China has no other way
rather than to introduce a three-child policy. The change was approved during a
Politburo meeting chaired by President Xi Jinping, according to the official
news agency Xinhua.
12.
On July 4, 2011, the then Health Minister Hon’ble Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, derided
“homosexuality as an unnatural “Disease” from the West, unfortunately, this
disease has come to our country too…. where a man has sex with another man,
which is completely unnatural and should not happen but does”. The minister
said this during a conference held in New Delhi on HIV/AIDS, wherein Hon’ble
the then Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh, Congress Party President
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, and some of the Government Ministers were also present at
the conference.
13.
But, on the next day, July 5, 2011, the gay activists strongly condemned and
demanded that the minister “should publicly apologize”, and in Chennai one
NGO-LGBT rainbow coalition staged a protest, demanding an apology from the
minister. It is unfortunate that the protesting
people are not gays, then what do they want? For what purpose? The NGO is run
by whose money? But they want publicity under the name and the banner of an
NGO. In reality, India is not only a conservative country but also
tradition a following country. In reality, GAY people are very microscopic in
India.
14.
Everybody talking about global warming and to preserve natural resources to
enhance our life securely as well as satisfactorily in future. But, in the
human society, somebody goes against nature
and compels everybody to follow that way. It is shame on the legislature
who was responsible to enact the same-sex marriage law against natural order.
15. 2000 years
ago the Roman Writer and Politician Cicero in his book “Laws” (I, 10): defined
as follows:- There is in fact a true law, namely right reason which is in
accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal ….
It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one
rule today and another tomorrow. But there will be one law, eternal and
unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it
were, one common master and ruler of men, namely God, who is the author of this
law, its interpreter and its sponsor. The man who will not obey it will abandon
his better self and, in denying the true nature of man, will thereby suffer the
severest of penalties, though he has escaped all the other consequences which
men call punishment”.
16. In
this single and short paragraph Cicero summarizes all the essential features of
“natural law”: First, it is the direct expression of the Divine Will. Therefore
it is universal, eternal and unchangeable. Second, its rules can and must be
found with the help of right reason. Third, man has a sacred obligation to obey
these rules. Whenever he breaks them, he violates his own “true nature” and
therefore automatically punishes himself.
17. Thus, the concept of the
Natural Law implies that moral principles are inherent in nature, and they tell
us exactly how we should behave. As long as we obey them, we fulfil our true
destiny. All our actions will not only be natural, but also perfectly moral. In
other words, if everybody acted according to his nature, i.e., his “better self”,
the world could forever live in harmony, justice and peace. Cicero was, of
course, by no means the first to suggest this appealing idea. Long before him a
school of Greek philosophers called Stoics, and before him Aristotle and Plato
had made the same basic suggestion”.
18. Natural law depends on natural order. Morality and Natural Order is
interlinked. Natural Order is pertaining to Nature and morality is pertaining
to human behaviour that is in line with moral science.
What is
natural order?
a). Spring, summer, autumn and winter, the four seasons are in every calendar
year. It will come and go without any interruption. This is a natural order.
The sun rising from East and setting in West is happening every day and no one
can change it. So, this is a natural order.
b). Likewise, a female crow lay eggs in the nest, while the brooding time come
the male crow that was responsible for the fertilization with the female, is to
help the female, till the chick to fly and go independent. This is a natural
order.
c). The female crocodile lay eggs in a safe place. For 80 days the female
crocodile is to watch over them and after that go over the eggs, therein the
crocodile is to take the new born crocodiles in its jaws and transport them to
a safer place. This is a natural order.
d). The cuckoo bird is known to lay
its eggs in the nest of other birds, usually crows because the cuckoo bird does
not make its own nest. Therefore, it lays its eggs in the nest of crows where
the crow takes care of her eggs and her young ones. This is the
natural order.
19. Likewise the ‘moral law’ is in the human
society. If we follow the moral order, the human society will be safer. If the
human society does not follow the moral order then it causes the destruction of
human society, and that leads to the destruction of the planet Mother Earth.
20. "Climate change" means
a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity
that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition
to
natural climate
variability observed over comparable periods. So, it is proved that if the
world is going against the natural course the world will face the consequences.
That is why nowadays everybody talking about global warming and calls for
"Save Mother Earth".
21. If the world is going against
Natural order and moral order, then there is no peace in the world. Ultimately,
chaos and confusion will prevail in the world.
22. St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 AD) was the greatest medieval Roman
Catholic theologian distinguished from types of law, that is:
(i)
Eternal law: the justice of God, which is almost identical with
His
reason,
(ii.). Natural law: the eternal law implanted by
God in nature and
in the
human mind,
(iii). Divine law: God’s overt revelation of His
will and
(iv). Human Law: derived from natural law.
The first three types of law express the will of a
heavenly legislator and therefore clearly fall into the realm of theology. Only
the fourth type, human law, can be said to have some secular basis. However,
since it is derived from divine law, its ultimate validity still has to be
decided on moral and religious grounds.
23.
Morality is the basis of all things and truth is the substance of all morality.
24. The most important thing in the world
is the “FAMILY” which means, Father, Mother, and Children. If this family
system is lost then this Universe's Existence is for whom. If this traditional family system is lost
then there is no meaning in the existence of this universe.
25. Two persons of the opposite sex
living together and to bear children is marriage. It is natural. Two opposite
living cells are joined in a womb and form a new being, whether it is human
person or animal kingdom or botanical world. Civil union is a friendship, but
same sex persons living together is not a family, any time they may be
separated and go alone. It is like a partnership firm, it is an understanding
until they leave at their will.
26. But the natural family there is a
father, a mother and children. Here they may be separated, but the children
can’t call somebody else as father or mother. People should go with the nature,
to go with the human behaviour, to go with civilized society, even in the animal
kingdom they never go against the nature. The people must allow the world to go
as it is.
27. The West has been pushing
for the approval of abnormal deviant sexual practices as alternative lifestyle.
The Western World, allows civil unions, providing state–level spousal right to
same sex couples. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion and in no way natural.
Legalizing gay
marriage would leave “society destroyed” because the family is the basic cell
of human society. If we permit homosexuality, then it will lead the society as
a fornicating society.
28. Moreover, Lesbian couples are
twice as likely as gay men to end civil partnerships as 'divorces'. Because,
Marriage is not a good model for lesbian couples, because they lack the natural
complementarity of the sexes. (Annexure-1 and 2).
29.
To commemorate this milestone in LGBTQ history, we
are taking a look at countries around the world that have officially legalized
same-sex marriage. Nearly 35 out of 195 countries have passed laws allowing gay
marriage, according to the internet sources.
(Annexure-3).
a). 23 countries have legalized same-sex marriage
nationally through legislation. Among these, Australia, Ireland and Switzerland
legalized same-sex marriage through legislation only after nation-wide votes.
b). 10
countries have legalized same-sex marriage nationally through court decisions —
Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Slovenia (followed by
national legislation), South Africa, Taiwan and the United States of America.
c). 2 countries, South Africa and Taiwan,
enacted legislation legalizing same-sex marriage after courts mandated them to
do so.
30. If we allowed this gay marriage,
then in the future, the following people will be claiming the following matters
as their rights. That is;
i. ‘Marry your rapist’ laws in 20 countries
still allow perpetrators
to escape justice. (Annexure-4).
ii. New Turkish law will allow men to legally
rape young girls –
if they marry them. (Annexure-5).
iii.
Paedophiles rebranding themselves as 'Minor-Attracted
Persons’, seek same protection as LGBT
community: Report.
(Annexure-6).
iv. California Legislature Passes Bill Reducing
Penalties for Oral,
Anal Sex with willing Children. (Annexure-7).
v. Parent files lawsuit in New York asking for
permission to
marry their child. (Annexure-8).
vii.
In the future, somebody may publically sex with the animals.
(Annexure-9).
Therefore, I request
your good self that as per your words, our country is moving forward together
with development and heritage, and progress and traditions. The family system
that is, Father, Mother, and Children system should be saved.
Enclosures:
Yours faithfully,
Annexures 1 to 9.
(G. Alex Benziger).
ANNEXURE-1.
Skyrocketing
lesbian ‘divorce’ rates show failure of same-sex couples imitating marriage
BLOGS
Marriage is not a good model for lesbian couples,
because they lack the natural complementarity of the sexes.
Joseph Shaw Fri Jan 8, 2021 - 10:41 pm EST
January 8, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — It seems that women in the
U.K. who consider themselves “married” to other women are separating in soaring
numbers — at rates higher than actual divorces, which is to say among
heterosexual couples, who alone can marry. One lesbian activist, Natalie Drew,
blames this uptick in lesbian “divorces” on same-sex “marriage” itself.
The Daily Mail reports that
“divorces” among same-sex couples increased from 428 in 2018 to 822 in 2019,
and of the 2019 figure, almost three quarters are lesbian couples. (There were
also 107,599 actual divorces that year in the U.K., an increase of 20% on the
previous year.) Drew ran a clinic to help women in lesbian couples conceive children,
and, as she told the Daily Mail, “a third of the 586 lesbian couples [sic] she
helped to have babies between 2011 and 2015 have split up.”
Drew’s argument is
that the ceremony and terminology of marriage, as opposed to “civil
partnership,” encourages lesbian couples to adopt a traditional specialization
of roles: “You get caught up in these expected roles, one being the
breadwinner, going out earning the money, and one being the mother.”
This may seem
surprising, as the legal rights and duties of marriage and civil partnerships
in the U.K. are identical, but it’s an argument we’ve heard before. The
heterosexual couple who fought in the courts for civil partnerships to be
extended beyond same-sex couples (as in due course they were) said they wanted a legal relationship
free of the “patriarchal baggage” of marriage.
It seems to be just the word “marriage” that is at
issue here, since it has been stripped of patriarchal associations as far as
the law is concerned. The U.K.’s Law Commission has gone even farther, taking a
few moments out of its busy work of proposing more censorship in order
to suggest that the legal guidelines to marriage ceremonies themselves be junked, so people can marry where and when
they want, and using whatever words they wish — as long as it is (as they put
it) “safe and dignified.” Will this be enough to eradicate the “patriarchal
baggage” of the word “marriage”? Certainly, they are going to give it their
best shot.
There is another aspect to this.
Natalie Drew was in the business of facilitating women in same-sex couples
having a baby. What happens when a woman has a baby? Well, the baby needs to be
looked after. If there are two adults around, at least one of them will have to
be at home, at least for a few months, to do this looking after — preferably
the mother, who will be best placed, you know, to breastfeed the baby, and will
anyway need some time to recuperate after the birth. It will then make some
sense if it is the other one who goes to work, if someone needs to bring home
the bacon. Is this not all fairly obvious? But if this is how things are, it is
not the terminology of marriage that is the problem so much as the biology of
human reproduction.
Biology, the feminists said, is not
destiny, but it does have a nasty way of coming back to bite you just when you
thought you’d chased it away. Drew offered her clients the chance to have a
baby without the involvement of a man — at least, without the involvement of a
man they had to have very much to do with. What she could not so easily banish
was the masculine role:
the role of the person who has not had
the baby, who is needed for other tasks to protect and sustain the household
while childbirth and child-rearing are going on.
Drew does have a point, to this
extent: marriage is not a good model for lesbian couples, because they lack the
natural complementarity of the sexes. Insofar as same-sex couples buy into the
traditional model, they are going to find themselves struggling to adapt it to a
quite different psychological and biological reality. For all that, as I say,
the legal treatment of marriage has left us little more than the word
“marriage,” it is presumably with some view to buying into its traditions, its
social recognition and status, and its durability that lesbian couples are
motivated to go through a form of marriage. Drew’s argument seems to be that
what they want, they are not well adapted to having.
In my view, the best
argument against same-sex “marriage” is precisely that the institution of
marriage as traditionally understood is designed to help heterosexual couples
raise their children, and it’s not going to work well for what our political
elite like to call “non-traditional families.” My thought has been that
re-imagining marriage to fit other kinds of couple would damage marriage,
making it less supportive of traditional families, pushing it farther and
faster in the direction of non-durability, for example. Drew is making a
complementary argument from the opposite direction: a relationship model based
on marriage, even as watered down as it is, doesn’t actually suit these other
couples.
ANNEXURE-2
Lesbian couples twice as likely as gay men to end
civil partnership as 'divorces' up by 20%
Emily Dugan Tuesday 08 October 2013 16:33 Comments
Lesbian couples are
nearly twice as likely as gay men to end a civil partnership, according to the
latest government figures.
The number of
same-sex couples ending their civil unions leapt by 20 per cent last year,
seven years after their introduction in 2005. Overall there were 794
dissolutions in 2012, almost 60 per cent of which were female couples, figures
from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.
ANNEXURE-3
arriage Equality Around the World
https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world
Produced by
the HRC
Foundation
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation tracks
developments in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage around the world.
Working with our network of alumni and partners, we lift up the voices of local
advocates and share tools, resources, and lessons learned to empower movements
for marriage equality. For more information about HRC’s work in support of
marriage equality and the full equal rights for LGBTQ+ people--including
protections from violence, discrimination and other issues, visit hrc.org/Global.
Current State of
Marriage Equality
There are
currently 34 countries where same-sex marriage is legal: Andorra, Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United
States of America and Uruguay.
Processes of Legalization
- 23 countries have legalized same-sex marriage
nationally through legislation. Among these, Australia, Ireland and Switzerland
legalized same-sex marriage through legislation only after nation-wide
votes.
- 10
countries have legalized same-sex marriage nationally through court
decisions — Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico,
Slovenia (followed by national legislation), South Africa, Taiwan and the
United States of America.
- 2
countries, South Africa and Taiwan, enacted legislation legalizing
same-sex marriage after courts mandated them to do so.
Countries that Legalized Marriage Equality in 2022
Cuba: On September 25, 2022, in a national referendum, Cubans approved a
Family Code that included provisions allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Andorra: On July 21, 2022, the unicameral legislature of Andorra, the General
Council, voted unanimously to amend the country's civil union law to include
marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Slovenia: On July 8th, 2022, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia ruled that
the ban on same-sex marriages violated the constitution of Slovenia and gave
the Slovenian parliament 6 months to pass legislation accordingly, which it did
on October 4. The ruling took effect immediately after the court decision.
Countries that Legalized Marriage Equality in 2021
Chile: On December 9, 2021, the president of Chile signed into law a marriage
equality bill that passed in the Senate on December 7 and the lower house on
Nov. 23. Same sex civil unions had been legal since 2015. Slovenia: On July
8th, 2022, a ruling from the constitutional court of Slovenia decided that the
ban on same-sex marriages violated the constitution of Slovenia.
Switzerland: On December 16, 2020, the Swiss Parliament overwhelmingly passed
legislation extending marriage to same-sex couples. A public referendum held in
September 2021 overwhelmingly confirmed support for marriage equality by 64%.
Countries that Legalized Marriage Equality in 2020
Costa Rica: The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled in November 2018 in support of
the historic January 2018 advisory opinion of the
ANNEXURE-4
‘Marry your rapist’ laws in 20 countries still allow perpetrators to escape justice
This
article is more than 1 year old
Critical UN report says the legislation is ‘deeply
wrong’, subjugates women and shifts the burden of guilt on to the victim
Wed
14 Apr 2021 09.52 BST
A
2016 protest in Beirut against article 522 of the Lebanese penal code which
shielded rapists from prosecution on the condition that they married their
victim. It was repealed in 2017. Photograph: Patrick Baz/Gettyimages
Twenty countries still allow rapists to marry their victims to escape
criminal prosecution, according to the UN’s annual state of world population
report.
Russia, Thailand and Venezuela are among the countries that allow men to
have rape convictions overturned if they marry the women or girls they have
assaulted.
Dr Natalia Kanem, executive director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA),
which published the report on
Wednesday, said such laws were “deeply wrong” and were “a way of subjugating
women”.
“The denial of rights cannot be shielded in law. ‘Marry your rapist’
laws shift the burden of guilt on to the victim and try to sanitise a situation
which is criminal.”
Dima Dabbous, director of Equality Now’s Middle East and Africa region,
whose research is cited in the UNFPA report, said the laws reflected a culture
“that does not think women should have bodily autonomy and that they are the
property of the family. It’s a tribal and antiquated approach to sexuality and
honour mixed together”.
Dabbous added that it is “very difficult to change [these laws] but it’s
not impossible”. She said the law in Morocco was repealed following widespread outrage when a young woman killed herself
after she was forced to marry her rapist. Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Tunisia followed suit.
Hamida,
right, and Souad, the sister and mother of Amina Filali who killed herself in
Morocco in 2012 after being forced to marry her rapist. Photograph: Abdelhak
Senna/AFP/Getty
However, Kuwait still allows a perpetrator to legally marry his victim
with the permission of her guardian. In Russia, if the perpetrator has reached
18 and has committed statutory rape with a minor below 16, he is exempt from
punishment if he marries the victim.
In Thailand, marriage can be considered a settlement for rape if the
perpetrator is over 18 and the victim is over 15, if she “consented” to the
offence and if the court grants permission for marriage.
Marriage laws and practices that subordinate women are widespread and
difficult to root out, said the UNFPA, which reported that 43 countries have no
legislation criminalising marital rape.
However, they are far from the only ways in which women and girls,
people with disabilities and people of diverse sexual orientations are
inhibited.
The report, which focuses on bodily autonomy – the ability to make
choices about your body free from violence or coercion – highlighted that
nearly half of women (45%) in 57 countries are denied the right to say yes or
no to sex with their partner, use contraception or seek healthcare.
A
young woman who said she was raped by her friend sits with others at La Maison
Rose, a shelter for women and girls who have fled abuse, rape and forced
marriage in Dakar, Senegal. Photograph: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters
In Mali, Niger and Senegal, the situation is particularly harrowing.
Fewer than one in 10 women make their own decisions about healthcare,
contraception and sex with their partners.
“The fact that nearly half of women still cannot make their own
decisions about whether or not to have sex, use contraception or seek
healthcare should outrage us all,” said Kanem. “In essence, hundreds of
millions of women and girls do not own their own bodies. Their lives are
governed by others.”
More than 30 countries restrict women’s freedom outside the home, while
girls and boys with disabilities are nearly three times more likely to be
subjected to sexual violence, with girls at the greatest risk.
Education is key to improving bodily autonomy, said the report, while
laws must be changed, and social norms must become more gender balanced. Health
providers can also play a critical role.
“The denial of bodily autonomy is a violation of women and girls’
fundamental human rights that reinforces inequalities and perpetuates violence
arising from gender discrimination,” said Kanem. “It is nothing less than an
annihilation of the spirit, and it must stop.”
The new bill is set to be introduced by lawmakers at the end of January.
A similar one was defeated in 2016 following national and global outrage
·
Bookmark
·
·
·
·
·
·
Comments
By
- 19:58, 23 JAN 2020
·
UPDATED12:35, 24 JAN 2020
- A Turkish
protester wears a wedding dress and is covered with fake bruises (Image:
AFP - Getty)
- A disturbing law is set to
be introduced into parliament in Turkey that will allow men to avoid
punishment for raping underage girls by then marrying their victims.
- The new bill is set to be
introduced by lawmakers at the end of January.
- The People’s Democrat Party
in Turkey is warning the legislation would legitimise child marriage and
statutory rape, and pave the way for child sexual exploitation.
- Suad Abu-Dayyeh, a
campaigner for Equality Now, told The Independent: "I applaud the
brave work of women’s rights campaigners in Turkey who are taking a stand
against this discriminatory bill and pushing back again regressive forces
that are seeking to remove current legal protections for girls.
- “Similar 'marry-your-rapist'
legal provisions have been on the statute books of countries across the
Middle East and North Africa.
- The bill is
set to be introduced at the end of January (Image:
AFP/Getty Images)
"Thanks to years of campaigning by women’s rights activists and
lawmakers, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Palestine have all
removed these loopholes in recent years.
“Rather than attempting to introduce legislation that harms women's
rights and protections, Turkish lawmakers should take heed of these advances in
repealing gender discriminatory laws.”
A 2018 government report on child marriage estimates a total of 482,908
girls were married in the last decade.
38% of Turkish
women have suffered physical or sexual violence from a partner, according to
the United Nations. (Image: AFP via
Getty Images)
The legal age of consent in Turkey is 18.
Violence against women and girls is prevalent in Turkey – with 38% of
Turkish women having suffered physical or sexual violence from a partner,
according to the United Nations.
ANNEXURE-6a
Pedophiles rebranding themselves as 'Minor-Attracted Persons’, seek same protection as LGBT community: Report
By Divya Kishore
Published on : 06:36 PST, Jun 29, 2020
(Getty Images)
An investigation for The Mail on
Sunday has found that several notorious child-sex offenders of Britain are
using online platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter to rebrand
themselves as ‘Minor-Attracted Persons’. Through these social media sites,
they are also trying to re-categorize pedophilia as a harmless sexual
preference.
As per the findings of the investigation, every day hundreds of social accounts
are being set referring to both potential and prolific abusers as “MAPs” -
Minor-Attracted Persons. The rebranding is reportedly an attempt by them to
detach themselves from the “stigma” attached to the word pedophile. The report
has claimed that anonymous users have also come up with their own rainbow “MAP
Pride” flag, with some even arguing that they should be celebrated as a niche
group alongside the LGBT community.
Not just that, the anonymous users have also created their slogan just like the
LGBT community. Some of those slogans are, “#MAPPride” and “#Mappositivity”,
reportedly seen as an aim to present pedophilia as part of society’s wider move
towards sexual freedom. The unidentified users have posted memes online
proclaiming “Gay MAPs are amazing” and cartoon characters saying, “Repost if
you think maps should be able to date minors.” One such account was
@SandMapMinorva, which has now been suspended. The message posted on that
account read: “Minor-attraction is natural.”
Besides, the investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that for the
profile image of these anonymous accounts, the users are using cartoon avatars
rather than photographs. Most of them have mentioned the ages of children they
are attracted to and it goes to as low as “two to seven”. “They are a fiendish
group of sub-humans and they will find no haven in the LGBTQ community. We
utterly rebuke their delusional and evil claims,” Otep Shamaya, a gay rights
campaigner, said.
However, this is not the first time such type of campaign has started online.
According to reports, in the 1970s and 80s, the Paedophile Information Exchange
(PIE) campaign was there that took advantage of the gay liberation movement at
the time to push for pro-child abuse policies, such as lowering the age of
consent to just four. It has also been said that the current propaganda has
chilling echoes of the PIE that happened decades ago.
Though the PIE campaign
was dissolved in 1984, the investigation by the newspaper has found out that
its former chairman, Tom O’Carroll, is still active and is using social sites
to argue for the legalization of pedophilia. In one “interview”, which is still
on YouTube, Britain’s most notorious pedophile campaigner - O’Carroll - has
claimed that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is similar to a
relationship between a child and the mother. Along with YouTube, O’Carroll also
uses his Wordpress blog to work towards the legalization of sex with children.
However, the report said that Wordpress had suspended his blogs.
The report stated that some academics are also
supporting these kinds of campaigns as they believe pedophiles’ voices should
be heard. One such academic is Dr Craig Harper, senior lecturer in psychology
at Nottingham Trent University, who signed a 2018 letter written to Twitter
demanding retrieval of pedophile accounts that were taken down. Harper stated
that “pedophilia and child abuse are not the same things” and “pedophilia is a
sexual attraction pattern that shares common features with other sexual
orientations”.
Meanwhile, child sex abuse survivor Jacqui
Dillon, who runs the Beck Road Alliance online support network, said: “This is
absurd and dangerous. Twitter and other corporations are now providing
pedophiles with access to children online.”
ANNEXURE-6b
EU rebrands pedophiles ‘People with a Sexual
Interest in Children’
JAN 19, 2023 9:00 AM BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS15 COMMENTS
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/01/EU-REBRANDS-PEDOPHILES-PEOPLE-WITH-A-SEXUAL-INTEREST-IN-CHILDREN
The Scotland police recently referred to pedophiles as “minor attracted people.”
Many expressed outrage over this attempt to normalize the abuse of children.
Now comes this.
The West is sinking deeper and deeper
into a kafkaesque mix of socialism and depravity, while the Churches remain
largely silent instead of protecting Judeo-Christian values and innocent children.
The “EU project’s use of the term
Minor-Attracted People (MAPs) to describe paedophiles” is causing a huge
backlash. Let’s hope that those who are dissenting succeed in stopping this
abuse. The European Commission “is funding the Drag Queen Shows across Europe,”
which means taxpayers are funding it, with no say in where their money is
going.
“‘Horrible Propaganda’ – EU Project
Rebrands Paedophiles ‘People with a Sexual Interest in Children,’” by Peter
Caddle, Breitbart, January 16,
2023:
A Member of the European Parliament
(MEP) has accused the European Union of pushing “horrible propaganda” after a
project described paedophiles as “people with a sexual interest in children”,
accusing the bloc of seeking to rebrand them with a term that is both “more
appealing and morally neutral”.
Cristian Terhes, a Romanian MEP who
sits with the European Conservatives and Reformists group, has slammed the EU
for allegedly pushing for the term “paedophile” to be replaced with something
“more appealing and morally neutral”.
It comes after controversy surrounding
an EU project’s use of the term Minor-Attracted People (MAPs) to describe
paedophiles, despite the fact that the term is highly controversial, and seen
by some as overly sympathetic towards predators.
However, despite the use of the term
prompting huge backlash only last month, Terhes claims that the EU still seems
to be trying to soften the language around paedophiles, with another EU project
on child protection repeatedly referring to them as “people with a sexual
interest in children”.
“I am shocked and appalled, in equal
measure, that the European Commission was, until very recently… replacing the
term ‘paedophile’ with the more appealing and morally neutral phrase of Minor
Attracted Person,” Terhes alleged in comments to Breitbart Europe.
“They even intensified this horrible
propaganda and are now talking of ‘people with a sexual interest in children’,”
he continued.
“This attitude of the European
Commission to soft soap an evil and criminal behaviour, like paedophilia, is
dangerous and a threat to all children in Europe,” the public representative
went on to say, calling for the project in question to be withdrawn by European
Commission, currently led by Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen.
The Romanian MEP also took aim at the
EU’s continued funding of drag queen shows for children, with the bloc giving
financial support to drag projects in the likes of Germany, Spain, and
Slovenia.
One project sponsored by the EU that
took place in Berlin — titled ‘Drag It Up!’ — saw “38 young queer people”
trained in the art of drag, with those involved being taught to put on makeup
and wigs, walk in high heels, and implement “methods of blurring and
exaggerating traditional binary gender roles”….
ANNEXURE-7
California Legislature Passes Bill Reducing Penalties for Oral, Anal Sex with Willing Children
1,404,083Josh
Edelson/AFP via Getty Images
3 Sep 2020482,551 2:44
California lawmakers passed a bill Monday that
would reduce penalties for adults who have oral or anal sex with a willing
minor child if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim.
The bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom
(D).
According
to SB 145, the legislation “would exempt from
mandatory registration” as a sex offender “a person convicted of certain
offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than
the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to
register.”
The measure would allow a judge to
decide if an adult who engages in oral or anal sex with a child must register
as a sex offender if that person is within ten years of the age of the victim.
In January
2019, the San Francisco Examiner reported on the introduction
of the bill by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D), who claimed the current law, which states
oral and anal sex between an adult within ten years of the age of a willing
minor requires the adult to be registered as a sex offender, discriminates
against LGBT individuals.
The bill would put an end to
“blatant discrimination against young LGBT people engaged in consensual
activity,” Wiener said:
This bill is about treating everyone
equally under the law. Discrimination against LGBT people is simply not the
California way. These laws were put in place during a more conservative and
anti-LGBT time in California’s history. They have ruined people’s lives and
made it harder for them to get jobs, secure housing, and live productive lives.
It is time we update these laws and treat everyone equally.
Currently in California, judges may
decide whether adults who have “penile-vaginal intercourse” with minors close
to their age must register as a sex offender.
Wiener said the current law targets
LGBT individuals because they do not engage in penile-vaginal intercourse.
“This is
such horrific homophobia,” Wiener said, according to the San
Francisco Chronicle. “It’s irrational, and it ruins people’s lives.”
The Chronicle‘s report
stated that, in 1975, California decriminalized oral and anal sex between
consenting adults, but adults who engaged in these practices with minors were
treated as sex offenders.
In a tweet,
Wiener urged his followers to read an Associated Press “fact check” story about
the controversial bill that minimizes its
impact with the headline, “Bill Would Not Legalize Pedophilia in California.”
“The bill is the subject of a
massive misinformation campaign by MAGA/QAnon,” Wiener posted.
ANNEXURE-8
NewsWorldAmericas
Parent
files lawsuit in New York asking for permission to marry their child
Filing is asking for a judge to declare incest laws
‘unconstitutional’
Tuesday 13 April 2021 16:20
0 seconds of 35 secondsVolume 0%
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/marry-child-incest-legal-ny-b1830704.html
00:35
A parent has filed
a lawsuit in New York seeking to
overturn laws barring incestuous practice so that they can marry their
adult child.
The lawsuit was
filed in Manhattan federal court on 1 April, and is asking for a judge to
declare incest laws “unconstitutional” so that a parent can marry their
offspring in a New York City ceremony, according to documents obtained by
the New York Post.
“Through the
enduring bond of marriage, two persons,
whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a
greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,” the parent argued in
the filing.
The lawsuit has kept the identities of both parties vague, with the
genders, ages, address and names of both the parent and adult child currently
unknown.
The parent wrote in
the court papers that they decided to stay anonymous because their request is
“an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and
biologically repugnant”.
However, the filing
does confirm that “the proposed spouses are adults. The proposed spouses are
biological parent and child,” and reveals that “the proposed spouses are unable
to procreate together”.
The documents
describe the parent and child as a “PAACNP (Parent and Adult Child
Non-Procreationable)” couple and claims it would “diminish their humanity” if
they could not be legally married.
The parent has not
yet proposed to their offspring, and explained that they have not done so as
they feel that it would cause “emotional harm” if they were engaged but not
legally allowed to marry.
When applying for a
marriage licence in New York City, both spouses must reveal the name and
country of birth of their parents and declare that there are no legal
impediments to the marriage.
Incest is currently
a third-degree felony in New York state, which can be punished with up to four
years in prison for each offender.
Incestuous
marriages performed in the state are also not recognised by New York, with
spouses facing up to six months in prison and a fine for going through with a
ceremony.
The pair have not
yet applied for a marriage licence, but Manhattan family and matrimonial law
attorney Eric Wrubel told the Post that the lawsuit is “never
gonna fly”.
Incest between
consenting adults is illegal in every US state apart from New Jersey and Rhode
Island, but marriage is prohibited in those states along with the rest of the
country.
ANNEXURE-9
Palestinian Islamic ‘Scholar’ Blames Europeans For Everything, Including Sex With Animals
MAR 27, 2022 10:00 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD
That indispensable source of
information on Muslim lands and peoples, MEMRI, has just carried a report on a
speech given by Yousef Makharzah, a Palestinian Islamic scholar, in which he
accuses the Europeans of every conceivable atrocity, including having “sex with
animals and beasts more than with humans.” MEMRI’s report is here: “Palestinian
Islamic Scholar Yousef Makharzah: Europeans Practice Bestiality, Sleep With
Animals More Than With Humans; Western Civilization Is Inferior, Asinine,
Racist,” MEMRI, March 6, 2022:
Palestinian Islamic scholar Yousef Makharzah
said in a March 6, 2022 speech that aired on the Hizb-ut-Tahrir-affiliated
Al-Waqiyah TV (Lebanon) that Syrian refugees were driven to Europe by
“oppressive Europeans” and that the Europeans are the cause of the Muslims’
tragedies. Makharzah claimed that Europeans practice bestiality to the extent
that “they have sex with animals and beasts more than with humans.” He also
said that that Western civilization is inferior, asinine, and racist, and that
it causes “a man to oppress his brother and kill him with no justification.” In
addition, Makharzah asserted that when European colonialist came to Muslim
countries, they made the Muslims “more ignorant and shallow” so they would
purchase the European consumer goods. For
more about Sheikh Makharzah, see MEMRI TV Clips No. 7849, No. 8500, No. 8557,
No. 8877, No. 9207, No. 9356 and No. 9411.
Yousef Makharzah: “Why did the
Syrians flee to Europe? They were driven there by the oppressive Europeans. Why
did the people of the poor countries in Africa flee to Europe?
“They were driven there by the
injustice of colonialism that devoured the wealth of those countries. The
[Europeans] are the cause of our tragedies.
The 6.7 million Syrians who fled the
11-year-old Syrian civil war were driven to do so to avoid the unending
violence of the war, and especially the repeated attacks, by Assad’s army, on
civilians. Europeans had nothing to with those atrocities. The
refugees were Syrians fleeing other Syrians. Why would the Europeans have
“driven” Syrians to Europe, where they are not wanted, and where they
constitute a terrific drain on the economies of the generous welfare states of
Europe, that provide those Syrian refugees who do arrive with free housing,
medical care, education, and family allowances. Fortunately, of the 6.7 million
Syrian refugees, 5.6 million remain in the Middle East, in Turkey, Lebanon,
Jordan, and Iraq. Only In the crazed imagination of Yousef Makharzah are
Europeans “driving” Syrians to Europe.
They brought cattle and beasts into
their bedrooms. They have sex with animals and beasts more than with humans.
“Sex with animals”? The only religion
whose clerics have solemnly considered sex with animals, and has carefully set
out the “rules” that should govern such sex, is Islam. It was that most learned
of Shi’a theologians, Ayatollah Khomeini himself, who set out the dating
Do’s-N’-Don’ts for Muslims having sex with sheep, cows, camels. Here is what he
wrote in his “Tahrirolvasyleh,” fourth volume, 1990:
A man can have sex with animals such as
sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has
his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but
selling the meat to a neighboring village is reasonable.
Good to know, because otherwise you
might commit the unpardonable faux pas of serving the meat of a camel — or of a
cow, or of a sheep — you have just sodomized, to people of your own village,
and that, as Ayatollah Khomeini reminds us, would never do.
Yousef Makharzah continues:
This filthy civilization that is
invading us is the Western civilization. Our leaders and our intellectuals were
enticed by this bestial civilization. It is an inferior, asinine, and racist
civilization, that causes a man to oppress his brother and kill him with no
justification.
The civilization of the advanced West
fills so many Muslims with wonder and envy, as it is so obviously superior to
that of the Muslims, and this sends the troglodytic Makharzah into a fury. He
knows – the Qur’an tells him so – that Muslims are the “best of peoples”(3:110)
while the Infidels are “the most vile of created beings.”(98:6) Therefore he
insists, though without any evidence, that Western civilization must be
“inferior, asinine, and racist.” If it is “inferior,” why have tens of millions
of Muslims flooded into the countries of the West, with millions more trying
desperately to enter in order to settle deep within that “inferior, asinine,
and racist” civilization? And why is that pull felt most keenly among Muslim
“leaders and intellectuals,” who presumably have the best opportunity to study
and compare the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds? Could it be because they find
that civilization not at all “inferior, asinine, and racist,” but in every
respect superior to the Islamic civilization that they with great difficulty
are tasked with defending?
When they came to our country, they
made us more ignorant and shallow, so that we could become a consumer market
for their industry. Through their Muslim leaders-for-hire, they prevented us
from innovating. They prevented us from [developing] industry and improving our
lives.
So the explanation for Muslim
backwardness has nothing to do with Islam; it is the result of a deliberate
plot by those who “came to our country” (dar al-Islam) to make us “more ignorant
and shallow.” Goodness, how weak Muslims must be, to be used in such a manner.
The European reentry into the modern Middle East began with Napoleon’s invasion
of Egypt in 1798, but the Middle East and North Africa would remain under the
rule by fellow Muslims, Ottoman Turks, for at least another century. And for
more than 75 years, no Muslim land has been under non-Muslim — European — rule.
Yet Muslims such as Yousef Makharzah must blame the Europeans for all that has
gone wrong in their wretched, backward lands.
How did those Europeans make Muslims
“more ignorant and shallow”? The French remained in both Morocco and Tunisia
for a very short period, about 40 years; only in Algeria did the French have a
full-fledged colony, with a large transfer of French colons, that
lasted from 1830 to 1962. The Italians held Libya only from 1911 to 1940. All
over North Africa, even in that short time, the Europeans did much good. They
built the first modern school systems, to replace the madrasahs. They allowed
girls to go to school. They built the first universities. They modernized
agricultural production. They built hospitals and clinics; as a result, infant
mortality plummeted and life expectancy lengthened. They built roads, bridges,
ports. They did not make Muslims “more ignorant and shallow.” The Europeans did
more to educate the Arabs who were under their rule in North Africa than had
been done by the Ottomans during more than 600 years of rule.
In the Middle East, the Europeans —
Britain and France — were present not as colonists, but as holders of League of
Nations’ Mandates. Britain held those for Iraq, and Palestine, and having
sealed it off from Mandatory Palestine, for Jordan as well. The British helped
to set up the Hashemite monarchies in Iraq and Jordan, and provided arms and
training to their armies, but little else. The French, who held the Mandate for
Syria and Lebanon, did a great deal to set up a system of secular schools and,
as part of its mission civilisatrie (“civilizig mission”), introduced French-language
schools for the Lebanese elite, for whom French became more popular than
Arabic, for it was the second language of the enlightened West.
If most Muslims remained “more ignorant
and shallow,” this was not because of the Europeans, but because Islam itself
encouraged submission to authority, and discouraged, even punished, skeptical
inquiry. This habit of mental submission kept people “more ignorant” as they
rejected, for example, new scientific theories, and the True Believers clung to
the belief that all knowledge could be found in the Qur’an, which dampened any
desire to learn more..
Yousef Makharzah claims that “through
their Muslim leaders-for-hire, they prevented us from innovating.” There are several things wrong with this
claim. What “Muslim leaders for hire” were there? Not Hafez nor his son Bashar
Assad, the Syrian despots who despise the West. Not Gamal Abdel Nasser, nor
Saddam Hussein, dictators who embodied anti-Western pan-Arabism. None of the
rich Sunni Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and
Kuwait, were “Muslim leaders-for-hire”: it was they who paid, and still pay,
Western politicians and P.R. firms to do their bidding in the capitals of the
Western world.
It was never the West that “prevented
us [the Muslims] from innovating.” It is Islam itself that warns Muslims of the
dangers of innovation, or bida. Innovation in any aspect of
life is a danger for Muslims, because it might lead Believers to want to
“innovate” in matters of faith, even perhaps seeking changes in the tenets and
teachings of Islam, iand that would never do.
Yousef Makharzah has made wild charges
about the West that do not withstand scrutiny. He rants against “this
filthy civilization that is invading us is the Western civilization. Our
leaders and our intellectuals were enticed by this bestial civilization. It is
an inferior, asinine, and racist civilization, that causes a man to oppress his
brother and kill him with no justification.” In what respect is
Western civilization inferior to that of the Muslims? In its scientific
achievements, in its political framework, in its art, its music, its
literature, its philosophy? In its equal treatment of men and women, and of
people of all religions, and of no religion? In what way are Western states “inferior”
to such states of high Muslim civilization as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria?
As to the charge that Yousef Makharzah makes against our “filthy civilization that is invading us [the Muslim lands]” – to repeat, we are not invading you. You are invading us. Tens of millions of Muslims have already settled in Europe, deep behind what they are taught to regard as enemy lands. Please, we don’t want you here, please go home, back to your wonderful Muslim countries, instead of remaining in our “inferior, asinine, and racist civilization,” where a “man will kill his brother with no justification,” so very unlike what happens in the peaceable kingdoms of Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan, and so very many more.
Comments
Post a Comment