Posted on 05/14/2007 9:41:23 PM PDT by topher
India Refuses Diplomatic Status for Homosexual Partners of Canadian Gay Diplomats
By Hilary White
NEW DELHI, May 11, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Calcutta Telegraph reports that the Indian government has refused diplomatic status to the same-sex “spouses” of two members of the Canadian diplomatic corps.
Indian culture is very traditional and Indian law retains a strict understanding of marriage being possible only between a man and a woman. While convictions are rare, section 377 of the Indian Penal Code retains provisions against “unnatural sex” and sodomy a charge that carries a possible ten year prison sentence.
The Telegraph quoted unnamed sources in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs who said that the Canadian government had requested an exemption from the law for the man and woman in question. But the Ministry sources said the government has told Canada its diplomats are not exempt from the law of the land in which the diplomat is based.
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations prevents any criminal prosecution for the families of diplomats, but with India refusing to recognize homosexual partnerings as equivalent to marriage, it is unclear if the Convention would protect the two.
A spokesman for Canada’s Foreign Affairs Office told LifeSiteNews.com only that the report was “totally inaccurate,” but refused on “privacy” grounds to give any further clarification. The Canadian Press reports the same non-response from Foreign Affairs.
Under Indian law, there is no recognition of same-sex “marriage” or any equivalent civil arrangement. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin made a visit to India at the height of the same-sex marriage debates in 2005, at which time the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, responded to questions about Canada’s “same-sex marriage” law saying, “There would not be much appreciation for a law like that in India.”
Only one member of a political party in India, Brinda Karat of the Communist Party of India, has endorsed the legalization of homosexual activity in a 2003 open letter to the then Minister of Law and Justice, Arun Jaitley. Other political parties uniformly view the homosexual anti-family ideology as something that is being imported by foreign interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444
Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at
http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/
Maybe Canada should break diplomatic relations with India over this... Over maybe the reverse should be true -- India breaking with Canada over their immoral diplomats...
How long will it be before we hear a statement from Nancy Pelosi chastizing this position about homos, just to keep her voters in San Freakcisco happy?? Can’t lose those votes, can we Nancy....
Only one member of a political party in India, Brinda Karat of the Communist Party of India, has endorsed the legalization of homosexual activity in a 2003 open letter...
Maybe Canada needs to appeal to Communist Countries to get pressure on India... [/sarcasm off]
Well this isn't surprising, as Communism 101 will tell you that the first obstacle to overcome in revolutionizing society for Communist rule is the family.
If I tried to make up bizarre headlines for a million years I couldn’t come up with that one. The dots don’t connect for me.
O pater urbis, unde nefas tantum Latiis pastoribus ?
- Juvenal, Satire II
O father of our city, whence came such wickedness among thy Latin Shepherds?
It’s about time somebody stopped acting like this is no big deal.
It’s about time somebody stopped acting like gay marriage is no big deal.
India refused to grant diplomatic status to the sex partners of gay Canadian diplomats. How was that too hard to understand?
Good for them.
“Unnatural offences 377.
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 a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.”
Comment: “This section is intended to punish the offence of sodomy, buggery and bestiality. The offence consists in a carnal knowledge committed against the order of nature by a person with a man, or in the same unnatural manner with a woman, or by a man or woman in any manner with an animal.
Cases and Sentence: In a recent case where a prominent person committed this offence, the Supreme Court having regard to his loss of service and other consequences to his career following the offence let him off with a sentence of two months’ imprisonment. In yet another case the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the accused to six months’ imprisonment as the accused while committing sodomy did not use force on the boy. In a case of Himachal Pradesh where a truck driver twice committed sodomy on a boy in his truck, a sentence of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00 were imposed on the accused.
It thus appears that unlike rape the actual sentence imposed under this section is not usually heavy.”
February 14 1999: India OKs Film About Lesbian Love.
India’s government will not order cuts in a film about a lesbian relationship that was pulled from theaters last year after violent protests, a government minister said Sunday. “The censor board has said no cuts are needed and we have accepted that decision,” Information and Broadcasting Minister Pramod Mahajan was quoted as saying by Press Trust of India Sunday.
I’m so glad I don’t live there anymore. San Francisco, a once charming and beautiful town, has been ruined by extreme left politicians and gays.
The Calcutta Telegraph reports that the Indian government has refused diplomatic status to the same-sex “spouses” of two members of the Canadian diplomatic corps.
Do you think the that The Calcutta Telegraph might be trying to create a story? Or is it just a case that the light sentences for the crime are because there is changing opinions on this in India (Sodomy, etc)...
Ping — thought about putting this on the Catholic Topic...
Sigh... Obviously the headline is easy to understand. If it didn't really happen, if it wasn't a real event, anyone would be hard pressed to make up a fake headline that contains those elements. Maybe Saturday Night Live's teams of writers could come up with something that goofy for Chevy Chase to read in a fake news broadcast, but I don't connect such disparate subject matter into one common concept very often.
Yep
Yes, there are changing opinions in India... the law has actually become sort of archaic and arcane.
Look at this source:
Indian government bars two gay diplomats
Canada diplomatically refuses comment
The Canadian Press
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=34834669-2a6f-4bda-8427-f6213f29728b
Published: Friday, May 11, 2007
OTTAWA - The Canadian government has refused to comment on a report that India has barred two Canadian homosexuals from receiving diplomatic status in that country. Canadian officials have failed to persuade the Indian government that a gay man and lesbian woman married to Foreign Affairs employees should receive diplomatic-spousal status, an Indian newspaper has reported.
While same-sex marriages are allowed in Canada,the mere act of homosexual intercourse is listed as a serious crime in India. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which came into effect in 1862, provides for a life sentence for same-sex acts, the Telegraph reported last Sunday.
Indian police routinely arrest and punish gays and lesbians under the law, but lawyers and activists have filed a petition in Delhi High Court demanding its revocation, the Telegraph says.
The Telegraph reported that the Canadians argued that the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations means diplomats and their families would be immune from Indian laws. Indian officials said the Vienna convention offers immunity only from criminal procedure.
In Ottawa, the Canadian government’s only comment on the story was to call it inaccurate. Foreign Affairs spokespeople cited only one inaccuracy: they denied the Telegraph’s claim that Canadian officials at the New Delhi embassy had refused to comment.
Then they refused to comment.
© The Edmonton Journal 2007
San Francisco, the city of clean air and water, and polluted bodies and minds...........
I was just chuckling about this headline. Takes real talent to string that together and then not do tongue in cheek reporting.
Please tell me that Canada didn’t deliberately send gay Diplomats to India - where they KNEW they would never be accepted. To me the news is not about India’s response but it is about Canadian Government being disrespectful enough of India’s traditions to have even done such a thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.