The hidden homosexuality of so much of the Catholic hierarchy has distorted "every aspect of the church", a new book claims.

"In the Closet of the Vatican", a 570-page tome which will be published in 20 countries on Wednesday, claims that four out of five Vatican clerics are gay.

French sociologist Frederic Martel, who spent four years interviewing more than 1,500 priests, bishops and cardinals, said the reflex to hide the "double life" of so much of the clergy has left the church "distorted with shame" and caught in a culture of cover-up.

"The culture of secrecy around the fact that the Vatican is mostly gay is the key to reading much of the moral positions the church has taken up" in the last 50 years, Martel told AFP.

It is a "source of distortion of every aspect of the church", he added.

"I set out to understand how, to quote Pope Francis, the institution has come to be built around lies, double lives and hypocrisy," said the sociologist.

"This lie has had huge consequences," said Martel, from its opposition to family planning to the child abuse scandals.

Pope 'prisoner of system'&nbsp;

"It allows us to understand the misogyny of the clergy, the scandals around the Vatican Bank during the time of Archbishop Marcinkus, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and the revolt Pope Francis is now facing," the writer said.

The fact that the Vatican is "an essentially homosexual institution" -- but a closeted one -- accounts for much of the fierce opposition the Pope is now facing as he attempts to reform the hierarchy and its civil service, the Curia, he found.

"The Pope understands the system of which he himself is a prisoner," he argued, citing "his famous phrase, 'Beneath rigidity there is often wickedness and a double life'."

A rule of thumb in the Vatican, Martel said, is "the more a prelate is homophobic in public the more likely he is to be gay in private".

As the sexual revolution gathered pace through the 1960s and 1970s, the church felt "obliged to up its homophobic rhetoric to hide its own secret", added the author, who is also a presenter on French radio. &nbsp;

Abusing priests protected&nbsp;

The most damaging side-effect of the culture of secrecy, he maintained, is the way it has impacted on the child abuse scandals which have shaken the church to the core.&nbsp;

"There is no link whatsoever between sexual abuse and homosexuality," Martel insisted.

"But abuser priests have overwhelmingly been protected by gay bishops who were afraid of scandal and being exposed in the media.

"The church created a culture to hide its gay secret which in the end hid the abuse," Martel argued.

"That is how the system became so perverse and why there is no possibility of reform other than to change the doctrine of chastity for the clergy."

Martel said gay life within the Vatican broke down into roughly five groups. "Non-practising gay clerics who stick by their vows of chastity; those who have gay relationships but struggle with their desires and who self-flagellate, and then those who live with their lovers.

"Often you have cardinals who will be in a relationship with an assistant or a friend, and then there are others who go out and have lovers," he said.

Finally, there was a group "which included two cardinals close to the late John Paul II, who used male prostitutes".

Martel said Pope Francis is more or less "gay-friendly" compared to his predecessors, particularly "when it comes to (not) judging individuals. That said, he is a fiercely opposed to gay marriage".

The hidden homosexuality of so much of the Catholic hierarchy has distorted "every aspect of the church", a new book claims. "In the Closet of the Vatican", a 570-page tome which will be published in 20 countries on Wednesday, claims that four out of five Vatican clerics are gay.

The hidden homosexuality of so much of the Catholic hierarchy has distorted "every aspect of the church", a new book claims. "In the Closet of the Vatican", a 570-page tome which will be published in 20 countries on Wednesday, claims that four out of five Vatican clerics are gay. French sociologist Frederic Martel, who spent four years interviewing more than 1,500 priests, bishops and cardinals, said the reflex to hide the "double life" of so much of the clergy has left the church "distorted with shame" and caught in a culture of cover-up. "The culture of secrecy around the fact that the Vatican is mostly gay is the key to reading much of the moral positions the church has taken up" in the last 50 years, Martel told AFP. It is a "source of distortion of every aspect of the church", he added. "I set out to understand how, to quote Pope Francis, the institution has come to be built around lies, double lives and hypocrisy," said the sociologist. "This lie has had huge consequences," said Martel, from its opposition to family planning to the child abuse scandals. Pope 'prisoner of system' "It allows us to understand the misogyny of the clergy, the scandals around the Vatican Bank during the time of Archbishop Marcinkus, the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and the revolt Pope Francis is now facing," the writer said. The fact that the Vatican is "an essentially homosexual institution" -- but a closeted one -- accounts for much of the fierce opposition the Pope is now facing as he attempts to reform the hierarchy and its civil service, the Curia, he found. "The Pope understands the system of which he himself is a prisoner," he argued, citing "his famous phrase, 'Beneath rigidity there is often wickedness and a double life'." A rule of thumb in the Vatican, Martel said, is "the more a prelate is homophobic in public the more likely he is to be gay in private". As the sexual revolution gathered pace through the 1960s and 1970s, the church felt "obliged to up its homophobic rhetoric to hide its own secret", added the author, who is also a presenter on French radio. Abusing priests protected The most damaging side-effect of the culture of secrecy, he maintained, is the way it has impacted on the child abuse scandals which have shaken the church to the core. "There is no link whatsoever between sexual abuse and homosexuality," Martel insisted. "But abuser priests have overwhelmingly been protected by gay bishops who were afraid of scandal and being exposed in the media. "The church created a culture to hide its gay secret which in the end hid the abuse," Martel argued. "That is how the system became so perverse and why there is no possibility of reform other than to change the doctrine of chastity for the clergy." Martel said gay life within the Vatican broke down into roughly five groups. "Non-practising gay clerics who stick by their vows of chastity; those who have gay relationships but struggle with their desires and who self-flagellate, and then those who live with their lovers. "Often you have cardinals who will be in a relationship with an assistant or a friend, and then there are others who go out and have lovers," he said. Finally, there was a group "which included two cardinals close to the late John Paul II, who used male prostitutes". Martel said Pope Francis is more or less "gay-friendly" compared to his predecessors, particularly "when it comes to (not) judging individuals. That said, he is a fiercely opposed to gay marriage".

Four out of five Vatican clerics are gay, says French sociologist Frederic Martel

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/singapore-warns-malaysia-as-maritime-tensions-flare-190206&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCz_S_kPLfAhUJfn0KHeIzBBQQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Bt_FgmO8BcLf5PsGxadP2">Malaysia</a>'s government will alter an elementary-school textbook which suggested girls should dress modestly to prevent sexual assault, authorities said Wednesday, after it sparked widespread anger.

Social media exploded with outrage after images circulated of a section of the book, which is used by nine-year-olds, entitled "Saving one's modesty". 
It featured a series of pictures of a fictional girl called Amira, whose parents advise her to protect "the modesty of her sexual organs" by wearing the correct attire.

They also tell her to keep the door of her room closed when changing clothes, and to avoid spending time in quiet locations alone.

If she fails in her efforts to prevent an assault, Amira would bring shame to her family, be shunned by her friends and face emotional problems, the book said.

Activists said the book was teaching children from a young age that female victims of sex attacks only had themselves to blame.

"We are appalled," said Meera Samanther, vice president of rights group Women's Aid Organisation.

"The educational material sexualises nine-year-old girls, teaches them to be ashamed of their bodies, and shifts the blame from the perpetrator to the survivor of sexual assault."&nbsp;

Following the outcry, the education ministry said the controversial section of the book would be covered over using stickers.

It is not the first time authorities in Muslim-majority Malaysia have been accused of taking a poor approach to issues of gender or sexuality.

The health ministry was criticised in 2017 for offering cash prizes for the best videos explaining how to "prevent" homosexuality.&nbsp;

The competition was amended following an outcry.

Malaysia's government will alter an elementary-school textbook which suggested girls should dress modestly to prevent sexual assault, authorities said Wednesday, after it sparked widespread anger.

Malaysia's government will alter an elementary-school textbook which suggested girls should dress modestly to prevent sexual assault, authorities said Wednesday, after it sparked widespread anger. Social media exploded with outrage after images circulated of a section of the book, which is used by nine-year-olds, entitled "Saving one's modesty". It featured a series of pictures of a fictional girl called Amira, whose parents advise her to protect "the modesty of her sexual organs" by wearing the correct attire. They also tell her to keep the door of her room closed when changing clothes, and to avoid spending time in quiet locations alone. If she fails in her efforts to prevent an assault, Amira would bring shame to her family, be shunned by her friends and face emotional problems, the book said. Activists said the book was teaching children from a young age that female victims of sex attacks only had themselves to blame. "We are appalled," said Meera Samanther, vice president of rights group Women's Aid Organisation. "The educational material sexualises nine-year-old girls, teaches them to be ashamed of their bodies, and shifts the blame from the perpetrator to the survivor of sexual assault." Following the outcry, the education ministry said the controversial section of the book would be covered over using stickers. It is not the first time authorities in Muslim-majority Malaysia have been accused of taking a poor approach to issues of gender or sexuality. The health ministry was criticised in 2017 for offering cash prizes for the best videos explaining how to "prevent" homosexuality. The competition was amended following an outcry.

Anger at Malaysia's elementary-school textbook telling girls to 'protect sex organs'

Army chief <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/army-has-managed-situation-well-along-china-pakistan-borders-bipin-rawat-189336">Gen Bipin Rawat</a> Thursday suggested that the Supreme Court verdict on decriminalisation of gay sex may not be implemented in the Army.

Gen Rawat, during his annual press conference, said such actions are forbidden in the Army.

At the same time, he added that the Army is not above the law."We will not allow this to happen in the Army," he said.

In what was hailed as a historic move, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court last September unanimously decriminalised part of the 158-year-old colonial law under Section 377 of the IPC which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, saying it violated the rights to equality.

When asked about the court ruling on adultery, he said the Army is conservative.

"We can't allow it to perpetrate into the Army," the Army chief said.&nbsp;

Last year, the Supreme Court had struck down a colonial-era anti-adultery law, saying it was unconstitutional, dented the individuality of women and treated them as "chattel of husbands".&nbsp;

Army chief Gen Bipin Rawat Thursday suggested that the Supreme Court verdict on decriminalisation of gay sex may not be implemented in the Army. Gen Rawat, during his annual press conference, said such actions are forbidden in the Army.

Army chief Gen Bipin Rawat Thursday suggested that the Supreme Court verdict on decriminalisation of gay sex may not be implemented in the Army. Gen Rawat, during his annual press conference, said such actions are forbidden in the Army. At the same time, he added that the Army is not above the law."We will not allow this to happen in the Army," he said. In what was hailed as a historic move, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court last September unanimously decriminalised part of the 158-year-old colonial law under Section 377 of the IPC which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, saying it violated the rights to equality. When asked about the court ruling on adultery, he said the Army is conservative. "We can't allow it to perpetrate into the Army," the Army chief said. Last year, the Supreme Court had struck down a colonial-era anti-adultery law, saying it was unconstitutional, dented the individuality of women and treated them as "chattel of husbands".

Can't allow gay sex to perpetrate into the Army: General Bipin Rawat

The government of Thailand has approved draft legislation to allow same-sex civil union, a step which could make it the first Asian country to recognize such partnerships once the bill is passed, official sources said on Wednesday.

Apichat, an official of the government spokesperson's office, told EFE that the government approved the Civil Partnership Bill on Tuesday.

The official said no date had been fixed yet for the legislation to be presented in the National Legislative Assembly for debate and approval as the State Council was reviewing its details.

The bill is not expected to face any problems in its passage in the parliament as the country has effectively been under military rule since a coup led by General Prayut Chain-ocha - the current prime minister - on May 22, 2014.

The parliament on Tuesday also approved the legalization of marijuana for medicinal and research purposes, making Thailand the first country in Southeast Asia to do so, joining Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and some states of the United States.

Thailand, where all political activities were banned until recently, is set to hold general elections in the first half of 2019.

Prime Minister Prayut has not ruled out contesting the upcoming elections.

The government of Thailand has approved draft legislation to allow same-sex civil union, a step which could make it the first Asian country to recognize such partnerships once the bill is passed, official sources said on Wednesday.

The government of Thailand has approved draft legislation to allow same-sex civil union, a step which could make it the first Asian country to recognize such partnerships once the bill is passed, official sources said on Wednesday. Apichat, an official of the government spokesperson's office, told EFE that the government approved the Civil Partnership Bill on Tuesday. The official said no date had been fixed yet for the legislation to be presented in the National Legislative Assembly for debate and approval as the State Council was reviewing its details. The bill is not expected to face any problems in its passage in the parliament as the country has effectively been under military rule since a coup led by General Prayut Chain-ocha - the current prime minister - on May 22, 2014. The parliament on Tuesday also approved the legalization of marijuana for medicinal and research purposes, making Thailand the first country in Southeast Asia to do so, joining Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and some states of the United States. Thailand, where all political activities were banned until recently, is set to hold general elections in the first half of 2019. Prime Minister Prayut has not ruled out contesting the upcoming elections.

Thai government approves bill to legalise same-sex civil union

A gay Singaporean man Monday won the right to adopt a child he fathered via a surrogate in the United States, in a landmark court ruling for the conservative city-state.

While Singapore is affluent and modern in many ways, attitudes towards homosexuality are routinely criticised as outdated.&nbsp;

Gay marriage is not permitted and sex between men remains illegal under a law that dates from the British colonial era, although it is rarely enforced.&nbsp;

In the latest case, the man who is in a long-term relationship&nbsp;first inquired about adopting in Singapore but was told a homosexual couple was unlikely to get permission.

He found a surrogate in the United States who agreed to carry his child for US$200,000. Surrogacy is effectively banned in Singapore.&nbsp;A son was born and is now five years old.&nbsp;

The man, a 46-year-old pathologist who has not been identified, brought the boy back to Singapore and applied to formally adopt him, in the hope of securing his Singapore citizenship.&nbsp;

A district judge rejected the initial application in December last year. But he appealed to Singapore's High Court, which ruled in his favour.

Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that "the evidence has demonstrated to us that it is very much in the interests of the child that the adoption order be made".

"His prospects of acquiring Singapore citizenship could be significantly enhanced by making an adoption order, which would, in turn, lead to an overall increase in the stability of his life in Singapore."

But he noted that the decision was related to that particular case and should not be viewed as an endorsement of what the man and his partner had done.

The man's lawyer Ivan Cheong said his client was "overjoyed and happy that at the end of a long adoption process, the child's welfare is upheld."

"At the end of the day, it is about what is in the child's best interests."

A gay Singaporean man Monday won the right to adopt a child he fathered via a surrogate in the United States, in a landmark court ruling for the conservative city-state.

A gay Singaporean man Monday won the right to adopt a child he fathered via a surrogate in the United States, in a landmark court ruling for the conservative city-state. While Singapore is affluent and modern in many ways, attitudes towards homosexuality are routinely criticised as outdated. Gay marriage is not permitted and sex between men remains illegal under a law that dates from the British colonial era, although it is rarely enforced. In the latest case, the man who is in a long-term relationship first inquired about adopting in Singapore but was told a homosexual couple was unlikely to get permission. He found a surrogate in the United States who agreed to carry his child for US$200,000. Surrogacy is effectively banned in Singapore. A son was born and is now five years old. The man, a 46-year-old pathologist who has not been identified, brought the boy back to Singapore and applied to formally adopt him, in the hope of securing his Singapore citizenship. A district judge rejected the initial application in December last year. But he appealed to Singapore's High Court, which ruled in his favour. Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that "the evidence has demonstrated to us that it is very much in the interests of the child that the adoption order be made". "His prospects of acquiring Singapore citizenship could be significantly enhanced by making an adoption order, which would, in turn, lead to an overall increase in the stability of his life in Singapore." But he noted that the decision was related to that particular case and should not be viewed as an endorsement of what the man and his partner had done. The man's lawyer Ivan Cheong said his client was "overjoyed and happy that at the end of a long adoption process, the child's welfare is upheld." "At the end of the day, it is about what is in the child's best interests."

Gay Singaporean man wins right to adopt surrogate son

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier.

He also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system.

On the Supreme Court allowing women's entry into the Sabarimala shrine, he said such a ruling cannot happen on select practices as it may have many social consequences.

Speaking at the HT Leadership Summit, Jaitley said the judgment decriminalising gay sex was fine but "the problem comes when writing these historical judgements, you get carried away and want to be part of history and therefore you go a step further".

He said he fairly agreed with the reasoning given by the court in the judgement that sexual activity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right of life and that no discrimination on the basis of sex should be there, but added that he completely disagrees with the reasoning that sexual activity is part of free speech.

"Because I think that's little excessive and consequences of that may not be on decriminalisation. Free speech is entirely a different gambit, it can be restrained on the reasons of sovereignty, security, public order and so on and mind you there is tendency of creating new fundamental rights everyday.

"So when you convert this into a fundamental right and say its free speech then how do you restrain any form of sexual activity, homosexual or bisexual in a school hostel, prison, army frontier," he said.

Stating that this requires further debate, he said this reasoning was not necessary for deciding the case of Section 377 which decriminalised gay sex. 
On the Supreme Court ruling on adultery, he said some of the judges said these are matrimonial offences and personal wrongs and not public wrongs.

"So therefore it is outside the purview of criminal law. Would that cover bigamy or polygamy also which are personal wrong? Would that cover cruelty? Would that cover dowry offences? Now this logic covering them, then it would be a wholly anti-women judgement," he said.

He said he was not in dispute that the "very badly worded section" on adultery needed to be quashed but "the later view may find a reference in some western journals very favourably but it may end up converting Indian family system into Western family system where the fragility of marriage as an institution itself will increase.

"Therefore you probably require to debate the second part of the observation which again was not necessary for deciding this case."

On the Sabarimala ruling, Jaitley said if you want to take a progressive step, then Articles 14 and 21 will apply against all religions.

"It can't happen that you select a practice and apply it because that will have many many social consequences in pluralist society like India. If you start stepping into the religious practices and customs and say (Article) 14 must be tested on... Personal law and (Article) 14 must be tested in Article 21, then will it apply to polygamy? Will it apply to oral divorces? Will it apply to other religions where ladies are not allowed to enter religious places?

"If you have a selective practice and then you use an argument to say well we will decide this issue in some other case every time it arises. If you are being progressive and bold then it must be uniformly so and that does not seem to be happening....If you are willing to proclaim you must be willing to strike," he said.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier. He also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system. On the Supreme Court allowing women's entry into the Sabarimala shrine, he said such a ruling cannot happen on select practices as it may have many social consequences. Speaking at the HT Leadership Summit, Jaitley said the judgment decriminalising gay sex was fine but "the problem comes when writing these historical judgements, you get carried away and want to be part of history and therefore you go a step further". He said he fairly agreed with the reasoning given by the court in the judgement that sexual activity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right of life and that no discrimination on the basis of sex should be there, but added that he completely disagrees with the reasoning that sexual activity is part of free speech. "Because I think that's little excessive and consequences of that may not be on decriminalisation. Free speech is entirely a different gambit, it can be restrained on the reasons of sovereignty, security, public order and so on and mind you there is tendency of creating new fundamental rights everyday. "So when you convert this into a fundamental right and say its free speech then how do you restrain any form of sexual activity, homosexual or bisexual in a school hostel, prison, army frontier," he said. Stating that this requires further debate, he said this reasoning was not necessary for deciding the case of Section 377 which decriminalised gay sex. On the Supreme Court ruling on adultery, he said some of the judges said these are matrimonial offences and personal wrongs and not public wrongs. "So therefore it is outside the purview of criminal law. Would that cover bigamy or polygamy also which are personal wrong? Would that cover cruelty? Would that cover dowry offences? Now this logic covering them, then it would be a wholly anti-women judgement," he said. He said he was not in dispute that the "very badly worded section" on adultery needed to be quashed but "the later view may find a reference in some western journals very favourably but it may end up converting Indian family system into Western family system where the fragility of marriage as an institution itself will increase. "Therefore you probably require to debate the second part of the observation which again was not necessary for deciding this case." On the Sabarimala ruling, Jaitley said if you want to take a progressive step, then Articles 14 and 21 will apply against all religions. "It can't happen that you select a practice and apply it because that will have many many social consequences in pluralist society like India. If you start stepping into the religious practices and customs and say (Article) 14 must be tested on... Personal law and (Article) 14 must be tested in Article 21, then will it apply to polygamy? Will it apply to oral divorces? Will it apply to other religions where ladies are not allowed to enter religious places? "If you have a selective practice and then you use an argument to say well we will decide this issue in some other case every time it arises. If you are being progressive and bold then it must be uniformly so and that does not seem to be happening....If you are willing to proclaim you must be willing to strike," he said.

SC ruling on 377: Disagree with reasoning that sexuality is part of free speech, says Arun Jaitley

South Korea held its first ever drag parade this weekend, a small but significant step for rights activists in a country that remains deeply conservative when it comes to gender and sexuality.

Dozens of drag queens and kings marched through Itaewon on Saturday, a suburb of Seoul best known for its nightlife and a nascent but vibrant gay scene.

Carrying rainbow flags, they cheered and strutted their best outfits, receiving shouts of support and the odd baffled look from those they passed.

While homosexuality is not illegal in South Korea, same-sex marriage is not recognised and people cannot legally change their birth gender.&nbsp

The country is home to a large evangelical Christian community and LGBT people feel pervasive pressure to to stay closeted.&nbsp

"When it comes to South Korea, human rights guarantees for sexual minorities are insufficient," Yang Heezy, a drag queen and the organiser of Seoul Drag Parade, told AFP.

"Today's drag parade and more queer culture festivals should take place to bring attention to sexual minorities and help those who are not from those minorities learn more," he added, sporting a flame red wig and floral dress.

Both South Koreans and foreigners participated in Saturday's parade.

One participant, who gave her drag queen name Lola Bank, said there was a feeling of exhilaration among marchers.

"The fact that we are able to be in public in drag is a huge milestone to queer acceptance in Korea," Lola enthused, dragging on a cigarette.

"I’ve always struggled with my masculinity and my femininity. And when I get in drag I’m saying kind of like a 'fuck you' to society’s expectations of how I should behave as a male."

Gay pride parades have been a fixture in South Korea for years but have often been protested by religious groups, who have held rival anti-homosexuality rallies while trying to physically block marchers.

Even left-leaning South Korean President Moon Jae-in -– a former human rights lawyer –- said he "opposed homosexuality" during a campaign debate last year.

Gay rights activists claim that some progress has been made in recent years, with surveys showing increasing tolerance -- particularly among young people -- and growing participation at gay pride events.&nbsp

Saturday's small parade saw no counter-demonstration.&nbsp

Lee Hyang-soon, an elderly street vendor, smiled and waved to participants as they passed.

"It's really cool. Seeing all the foreigners join in, it feels like Korea is becoming world famous," she said. "I'm happy. It's fabulous."

Dozens of drag queens and kings marched through Itaewon on Saturday, a suburb of Seoul best known for its nightlife and a nascent but vibrant gay scene

South Korea held its first ever drag parade this weekend, a small but significant step for rights activists in a country that remains deeply conservative when it comes to gender and sexuality. Dozens of drag queens and kings marched through Itaewon on Saturday, a suburb of Seoul best known for its nightlife and a nascent but vibrant gay scene. Carrying rainbow flags, they cheered and strutted their best outfits, receiving shouts of support and the odd baffled look from those they passed. While homosexuality is not illegal in South Korea, same-sex marriage is not recognised and people cannot legally change their birth gender. The country is home to a large evangelical Christian community and LGBT people feel pervasive pressure to to stay closeted. "When it comes to South Korea, human rights guarantees for sexual minorities are insufficient," Yang Heezy, a drag queen and the organiser of Seoul Drag Parade, told AFP. "Today's drag parade and more queer culture festivals should take place to bring attention to sexual minorities and help those who are not from those minorities learn more," he added, sporting a flame red wig and floral dress. Both South Koreans and foreigners participated in Saturday's parade. One participant, who gave her drag queen name Lola Bank, said there was a feeling of exhilaration among marchers. "The fact that we are able to be in public in drag is a huge milestone to queer acceptance in Korea," Lola enthused, dragging on a cigarette. "I’ve always struggled with my masculinity and my femininity. And when I get in drag I’m saying kind of like a 'fuck you' to society’s expectations of how I should behave as a male." Gay pride parades have been a fixture in South Korea for years but have often been protested by religious groups, who have held rival anti-homosexuality rallies while trying to physically block marchers. Even left-leaning South Korean President Moon Jae-in -– a former human rights lawyer –- said he "opposed homosexuality" during a campaign debate last year. Gay rights activists claim that some progress has been made in recent years, with surveys showing increasing tolerance -- particularly among young people -- and growing participation at gay pride events. Saturday's small parade saw no counter-demonstration. Lee Hyang-soon, an elderly street vendor, smiled and waved to participants as they passed. "It's really cool. Seeing all the foreigners join in, it feels like Korea is becoming world famous," she said. "I'm happy. It's fabulous."

In a first, South Korea holds drag parade with Rainbow flags and high heels

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5.

On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender.

Sanavi Ponnusami has alleged that Air India rejected her, telling her that they don&#39;t have a category for trans-women.

She had said that her living condition is not great and can&#39;t afford advocates to fight a case, as the Supreme Court listens to cases like hers.

She approached the Apex Court against the alleged discrimination in 2017.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5. On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender. Sanavi Ponnusami has alleged that Air India rejected her, telling her that they don't have a category for trans-women. She had said that her living condition is not great and can't afford advocates to fight a case, as the Supreme Court listens to cases like hers. She approached the Apex Court against the alleged discrimination in 2017.

Supreme Court to hear writ petition by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy

8th January 2018 was the day when the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, rekindled the hopes in the minds of the members of LGBT community who, for long, had been considered criminals in the statute book and was seen as outcast in the eyes of many. This was the day when it was decided by the Apex Court to reconsider it&#39;s 2013 decision, whereby, Section 377 of the IPC was reinstated in the statute while setting aside the judgment of Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation Case.

&nbsp;

As a brief overview, Section 377 also criminalises the sexual relationship between two consenting adults which is against the order of nature. The provision became a part of the Indian legal system at the time of introduction of the Indian Penal Code in 1860 when India was still a colony of the British.

&nbsp;

While debating upon this issue, it becomes abundantly clear that the primary thrust of the supporters of homophobic regulations rests upon the abstract principles, such as public morality and order of nature. A deeper analysis, thereof, would reveal that India is, in fact, labouring under the weight of someone else&rsquo;s misjudgment.

&nbsp;

Pre-colonial India never recognised any discrimination based on someone&rsquo;s sexual inclination, let alone criminalising the same, and our ancient scriptures and sculptures are a testimony to the fact that homosexuality was an accepted facet of our culture.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On the contrary, the western world, particularly the United Kingdom, which laid the foundation of the modern Indian legal fa&ccedil;ade, was averse to homosexuality owing to both social and religious considerations.

&nbsp;

As the Delhi High Court recounted in its judgment, the earliest records of homosexuality as a crime in the English common law were chronicled as early as 1290. Subsequently, under the Buggery Act of 1533, homosexuality came to be penalised by hanging. By mid-1800&rsquo;s, the death penalty on homosexuality was abolished but it still remained a crime, &lsquo;not to be mentioned by Christians&rsquo;.

&nbsp;

At the time the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, India was still a colony of the British and it was, actually, the English morality on the subject which came to be enforced upon the Indian society. Even after 70 years of independence, we still consider ourselves shackled in the Victorian mindset.

&nbsp;

Order of nature is another argument that is advanced to defame homosexuality on every forum. In extending the same order of nature argument, we can say, members of LGBT community are born different and, for them, that is their respective order or nature.

Unfortunately, in the world of humans, laws of nature no more hold good and it is only the likings and dislikings of a select few that become the touchstone for the remainder. In the wisdom of our legislature, which, at times, gets claustrophobic, sexual intercourse is meant only for the purpose of procreation and nothing else. This sentiment is reflected in the very language of the section when it speaks about carnal intercourse against the order of nature.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, the Supreme Court seems to be opening up to the wider connotation of this concept. In Navtej Singh Johar case, it was observed that order of nature is not a constant phenomenon. Social morality also changes from age to age. The law copes with life and, accordingly, change takes place. Morality which public perceives, the Constitution may not conceive of.

&nbsp;

Indian lawmakers, on the other hand, have failed to come to terms with the positive aspects of their own ancient culture and, even now, are consistently digging their heels against the legal developments across the world which have been introduced to meet the genuine demands of society.

&nbsp;

In the light of above, it would be worthwhile to analyse as to what is the stand towards homosexuality in the United Kingdom now. While India continues to carry the burden of a negative perception and the corresponding law which was enforced upon her by her conqueror, it has already become redundant in UK. Interestingly, United Kingdom had decriminalised homosexuality in 1967 onwards and, in 2014, gay marriages also became legal in England, Wales and Scotland.

&nbsp;

This head-in-the-sand attitude of the Indian system is not new and was witnessed in the past too when age-old and fossilised arguments were advanced in order to scuttle some revolutionary developments at the hands of Courts.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It is high time that India begins to drive away from age-old legislations which snatch the basic fundamental rights of citizens. It is possible only when we let the realities of the time sink in and open up to changes required to deal with them. Hopefully, the Supreme Court would, finally, open the doors of acceptance to LGBT community and confer upon them their right to live with dignity.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Pre-colonial India never recognised any discrimination based on someone’s sexual inclination, let alone criminalising the same.

8th January 2018 was the day when the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, rekindled the hopes in the minds of the members of LGBT community who, for long, had been considered criminals in the statute book and was seen as outcast in the eyes of many. This was the day when it was decided by the Apex Court to reconsider it's 2013 decision, whereby, Section 377 of the IPC was reinstated in the statute while setting aside the judgment of Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation Case. As a brief overview, Section 377 also criminalises the sexual relationship between two consenting adults which is against the order of nature. The provision became a part of the Indian legal system at the time of introduction of the Indian Penal Code in 1860 when India was still a colony of the British. While debating upon this issue, it becomes abundantly clear that the primary thrust of the supporters of homophobic regulations rests upon the abstract principles, such as public morality and order of nature. A deeper analysis, thereof, would reveal that India is, in fact, labouring under the weight of someone else’s misjudgment. Pre-colonial India never recognised any discrimination based on someone’s sexual inclination, let alone criminalising the same, and our ancient scriptures and sculptures are a testimony to the fact that homosexuality was an accepted facet of our culture. On the contrary, the western world, particularly the United Kingdom, which laid the foundation of the modern Indian legal façade, was averse to homosexuality owing to both social and religious considerations. As the Delhi High Court recounted in its judgment, the earliest records of homosexuality as a crime in the English common law were chronicled as early as 1290. Subsequently, under the Buggery Act of 1533, homosexuality came to be penalised by hanging. By mid-1800’s, the death penalty on homosexuality was abolished but it still remained a crime, ‘not to be mentioned by Christians’. At the time the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, India was still a colony of the British and it was, actually, the English morality on the subject which came to be enforced upon the Indian society. Even after 70 years of independence, we still consider ourselves shackled in the Victorian mindset. Order of nature is another argument that is advanced to defame homosexuality on every forum. In extending the same order of nature argument, we can say, members of LGBT community are born different and, for them, that is their respective order or nature. Unfortunately, in the world of humans, laws of nature no more hold good and it is only the likings and dislikings of a select few that become the touchstone for the remainder. In the wisdom of our legislature, which, at times, gets claustrophobic, sexual intercourse is meant only for the purpose of procreation and nothing else. This sentiment is reflected in the very language of the section when it speaks about carnal intercourse against the order of nature. However, the Supreme Court seems to be opening up to the wider connotation of this concept. In Navtej Singh Johar case, it was observed that order of nature is not a constant phenomenon. Social morality also changes from age to age. The law copes with life and, accordingly, change takes place. Morality which public perceives, the Constitution may not conceive of. Indian lawmakers, on the other hand, have failed to come to terms with the positive aspects of their own ancient culture and, even now, are consistently digging their heels against the legal developments across the world which have been introduced to meet the genuine demands of society. In the light of above, it would be worthwhile to analyse as to what is the stand towards homosexuality in the United Kingdom now. While India continues to carry the burden of a negative perception and the corresponding law which was enforced upon her by her conqueror, it has already become redundant in UK. Interestingly, United Kingdom had decriminalised homosexuality in 1967 onwards and, in 2014, gay marriages also became legal in England, Wales and Scotland. This head-in-the-sand attitude of the Indian system is not new and was witnessed in the past too when age-old and fossilised arguments were advanced in order to scuttle some revolutionary developments at the hands of Courts. It is high time that India begins to drive away from age-old legislations which snatch the basic fundamental rights of citizens. It is possible only when we let the realities of the time sink in and open up to changes required to deal with them. Hopefully, the Supreme Court would, finally, open the doors of acceptance to LGBT community and confer upon them their right to live with dignity. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Superpower India treats LGBTs as per discriminatory colonial laws

A US-based Indian engineer married his gay lover on December 30 in a traditional ceremony at Yavatmal, Maharashtra.

The two got married only a few days before the Supreme Court agreed to review criminalisation of homosexuality.&nbsp;

Yavatmal native Hrishi Mohankumar Sathawane (40) married Vinh, reportedly from Vietnam, at a hotel just a few steps away from the office of the superintendent of police.

Hrishi, who holds a BTech from IIT-Bombay, currently lives in California and has a US green card.&nbsp;

According to Hrishi&#39;s social media page, he got engaged to Vinh in mid-2017 and married later in October.&nbsp;

Although his parents were initially against his homosexual affiliation, he successfully convinced them and took their blessings before getting married.&nbsp;

The photo of the couple has made rounds on the internet.

Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, Amarsingh Jadhav first said he did not want to comment, but later added he had ordered an investigation.

Yavatmal native Hrishi Mohankumar Sathawane (40) married Vinh, said to be from Vietnam got married at a hotel just a few steps away from the office of the superintendent of police

A US-based Indian engineer married his gay lover on December 30 in a traditional ceremony at Yavatmal, Maharashtra. The two got married only a few days before the Supreme Court agreed to review criminalisation of homosexuality. Yavatmal native Hrishi Mohankumar Sathawane (40) married Vinh, reportedly from Vietnam, at a hotel just a few steps away from the office of the superintendent of police. Hrishi, who holds a BTech from IIT-Bombay, currently lives in California and has a US green card. According to Hrishi's social media page, he got engaged to Vinh in mid-2017 and married later in October. Although his parents were initially against his homosexual affiliation, he successfully convinced them and took their blessings before getting married. The photo of the couple has made rounds on the internet. Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, Amarsingh Jadhav first said he did not want to comment, but later added he had ordered an investigation.

US-based Indian engineer marries gay lover in Maharashtra

The Supreme Court has decided to &quot;refer&nbsp;to a larger bench&quot; a plea that seeks to decriminalise gay sex.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rJoDCS3oFuA" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The SC bench will be headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra to reconsider and examine the constitutional validity of Section 377.

Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud will also constitute the bench.&nbsp;

The Central government has been nudged by the Supreme Court for a response to a writ petition filed by a group of the LGBT community led by Navtej Singh Johar.&nbsp;

&quot;You can&#39;t put in jail two adults who are involved in consenting unnatural sex,&quot; Johar&#39;s advocate, Arvind Datar noted.&nbsp;

Datar also referred to the 2009 Delhi High Court judgement delivered on a plea of NGO &#39;Naz Foundation&#39; in which the provision was held unconstitutional.

The Delhi High Court had in July 2009 de-criminalised consensual homosexual acts in private saying &ldquo;the section (377) denies a gay person a right to full personhood&hellip;&rdquo;

A two-judge bench of the apex court criminalised gay sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013.

Section 377 of the IPC describes homosexuality as an &#39;unnatural offence&#39; and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court&#39;s move is being lauded and welcomed by people from all across the country.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We need to welcome it. We still have hope from Indian judiciary. We are living in 21st century. All politicians &amp; political parties must break their silence &amp; support individual&#39;s sexuality: Akkai, LGBT Activist on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 <a href="https://t.co/pXWSL7TMTW">pic.twitter.com/pXWSL7TMTW</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950279074345177088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress welcomes Supreme Court&#39;s decision. Everybody has equal right to live life the way they want: All India Mahila Congress President Sushmita Dev on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 
(file pic) <a href="https://t.co/wb91vPH9uQ">pic.twitter.com/wb91vPH9uQ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950280824653414400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A two-judge bench of the apex court criminalised gay sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013

The Supreme Court has decided to "refer to a larger bench" a plea that seeks to decriminalise gay sex. × The SC bench will be headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra to reconsider and examine the constitutional validity of Section 377. Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud will also constitute the bench. The Central government has been nudged by the Supreme Court for a response to a writ petition filed by a group of the LGBT community led by Navtej Singh Johar. "You can't put in jail two adults who are involved in consenting unnatural sex," Johar's advocate, Arvind Datar noted. Datar also referred to the 2009 Delhi High Court judgement delivered on a plea of NGO 'Naz Foundation' in which the provision was held unconstitutional. The Delhi High Court had in July 2009 de-criminalised consensual homosexual acts in private saying “the section (377) denies a gay person a right to full personhood…” A two-judge bench of the apex court criminalised gay sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013. Section 377 of the IPC describes homosexuality as an 'unnatural offence' and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine. Meanwhile, Supreme Court's move is being lauded and welcomed by people from all across the country. We need to welcome it. We still have hope from Indian judiciary. We are living in 21st century. All politicians & political parties must break their silence & support individual's sexuality: Akkai, LGBT Activist on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 pic.twitter.com/pXWSL7TMTW — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018 × Congress welcomes Supreme Court's decision. Everybody has equal right to live life the way they want: All India Mahila Congress President Sushmita Dev on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 (file pic) pic.twitter.com/wb91vPH9uQ — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018 ×

Supreme Court to review 2013 verdict on criminalising gay sex

An Egyptian court on Sunday sentenced 14 men convicted of being homosexuals to three years in jail each for &quot;abnormal&quot; sexual relations, a defence lawyer said.

Ishaq Wadie said the men were released on bail of 5,000 Egyptian pounds ($283, 230 euros) each until an appeals trial.

The trial of three other suspects was delayed over procedural reasons, the lawyer said.

Homosexuality is not expressly outlawed in Egypt, but gays have previously been charged with debauchery in the deeply conservative Muslim society.

In recent months, authorities have cracked down on people who practice so-called &quot;abnormal&quot; sexual relations, which in Egypt means homosexuality, or for inciting debauchery.

The stepped-up measures follow an outdoor concert in Cairo on September 22 by Lebanese band Mashrou&#39; Leila, when the flag representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community was raised.

Thirty-one people have been arrested since the show, 10 directly linked with the event, according to judicial and security officials.

London-based rights watchdog Amnesty International said the number was more than 70 people, some of whom had been subjected to anal examinations.

On November 9, Amnesty condemned a draft bill in the Egyptian parliament that would criminalise homosexuality.

The bill lays jail terms of between one and three years for first time offenders, whether the act takes place in public or a private place. Repeat offenders would receive five years.

&quot;This deeply discriminatory bill would be a huge setback for human rights and another nail in the coffin for sexual rights in Egypt,&quot; said Najia Bounaim, North Africa campaigns director at Amnesty.

Homosexuality is not expressly outlawed in Egypt, but gays have previously been charged with debauchery in the deeply conservative society

An Egyptian court on Sunday sentenced 14 men convicted of being homosexuals to three years in jail each for "abnormal" sexual relations, a defence lawyer said. Ishaq Wadie said the men were released on bail of 5,000 Egyptian pounds ($283, 230 euros) each until an appeals trial. The trial of three other suspects was delayed over procedural reasons, the lawyer said. Homosexuality is not expressly outlawed in Egypt, but gays have previously been charged with debauchery in the deeply conservative Muslim society. In recent months, authorities have cracked down on people who practice so-called "abnormal" sexual relations, which in Egypt means homosexuality, or for inciting debauchery. The stepped-up measures follow an outdoor concert in Cairo on September 22 by Lebanese band Mashrou' Leila, when the flag representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community was raised. Thirty-one people have been arrested since the show, 10 directly linked with the event, according to judicial and security officials. London-based rights watchdog Amnesty International said the number was more than 70 people, some of whom had been subjected to anal examinations. On November 9, Amnesty condemned a draft bill in the Egyptian parliament that would criminalise homosexuality. The bill lays jail terms of between one and three years for first time offenders, whether the act takes place in public or a private place. Repeat offenders would receive five years. "This deeply discriminatory bill would be a huge setback for human rights and another nail in the coffin for sexual rights in Egypt," said Najia Bounaim, North Africa campaigns director at Amnesty.

Egypt jails 14 for homosexuality

Amnesty International on Thursday condemned a draft bill in the Egyptian parliament that would criminalise homosexuality, in what the rights group called an &quot;unprecedented homophobic crackdown&quot;.

The bill lays jail terms of between one and three years for first-time offenders, whether the act takes place in public or a private place. Repeat offenders would receive five years.

&quot;This deeply discriminatory bill would be a huge setback for human rights and another nail in the coffin for sexual rights in Egypt,&quot; said Najia Bounaim, North Africa campaigns director at Amnesty.

Amnesty said that &quot;for more than a month now the Egyptian authorities have waged a vicious crackdown targeting LGBTI people in the country.&quot;

Despite homosexuality not yet being illegal in the North African country, the number of arrests of suspects has been mounting.

The crackdown comes after an open-air concert in Cairo on September 22 by Lebanese band Mashrou&#39; Leila, when the flag representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community was raised.

Thirty-one people have been arrested since the concert, 10 directly linked with the event, according to judicial and security officials.

Amnesty said the number was more than 70 people, some of whom had been subjected to anal examinations.

On November 19, a Cairo court is to rule on 17 defendants held on charges of &quot;sexual debauchery&quot;, the official term often used in Egypt for homosexuality.

The bill lays jail terms of between one and three years for first-time offenders, whether the act takes place in public or private. Repeat offenders would get five years

Amnesty International on Thursday condemned a draft bill in the Egyptian parliament that would criminalise homosexuality, in what the rights group called an "unprecedented homophobic crackdown". The bill lays jail terms of between one and three years for first-time offenders, whether the act takes place in public or a private place. Repeat offenders would receive five years. "This deeply discriminatory bill would be a huge setback for human rights and another nail in the coffin for sexual rights in Egypt," said Najia Bounaim, North Africa campaigns director at Amnesty. Amnesty said that "for more than a month now the Egyptian authorities have waged a vicious crackdown targeting LGBTI people in the country." Despite homosexuality not yet being illegal in the North African country, the number of arrests of suspects has been mounting. The crackdown comes after an open-air concert in Cairo on September 22 by Lebanese band Mashrou' Leila, when the flag representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community was raised. Thirty-one people have been arrested since the concert, 10 directly linked with the event, according to judicial and security officials. Amnesty said the number was more than 70 people, some of whom had been subjected to anal examinations. On November 19, a Cairo court is to rule on 17 defendants held on charges of "sexual debauchery", the official term often used in Egypt for homosexuality.

Egypt bill looks to criminalise homosexuality

When openly gay independent candidate Wataru Ishizaka campaigned for a 2007 Tokyo local election, people snickered at his speeches, but now even Japan&#39;s conservative ruling party mentions gay rights in its platform for this year&#39;s upper house election. 
 
Though the paragraph is deep in the manifesto of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe&#39;s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and refers only to promoting understanding of sexual diversity, even this was unthinkable a decade ago. 
 
By Asian standards, Japanese laws are relatively liberal - homosexual sex has been legal since 1880 - but social attitudes keep the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community largely invisible. 
 
LGBT rights are not covered in Japan&#39;s Equal Opportunity Act and there are no anti-discrimination laws. 
 
But things are changing. 
 
Several municipalities, including two Tokyo districts, now give same-sex partners rights similar to spouses, as do a growing number of companies.&nbsp;On his second attempt in 2011, Ishizawa won the Tokyo district assembly seat, and this time he said there were tears, not titters, when he spoke. 
 
Gaku Hashimoto, an LDP lawmaker in the lower house of Parliament who sits on a committee working for a law on LGBT rights, said winning the hosting rights for the 2020 Summer Olympics had helped bring change, since the Olympic charter mandates equality, including on matters of sexual orientation. 
 
&quot;The LDP has some very conservative aspects, and I believe there weren&#39;t a lot of people aware of this issue, so without this outside pressure, things might not have come this far,&quot; said Hashimoto, son of a former prime minister. 
 
&quot;But at the same time, society has developed ... There&#39;s a lot of debate on the issue, and local governments are taking their own steps.&quot; 
 
Helping society understand LGBT issues and obtaining a social consensus should nevertheless come before anti-discrimination laws, he added. 
 
Critics say the LDP mostly wants to burnish its image overseas before the Olympics, with an eye to luring tourists. 
 
&quot;The LDP and people in the core of government ... if they could get by without dealing with LGBT issues, they would. But there&#39;s the calculation that doing nothing looks bad overseas,&quot; said Akiko Shimizu, associate professor of gender and sexuality studies at Tokyo University. 
 
&quot;In reality they oppose same-sex marriage and don&#39;t clearly talk about laws to forbid discrimination.&quot; 
 
Same-sex marriage remains a distant dream in Japan, where some gays still enter heterosexual marriages of convenience or sport wedding rings as straight camouflage. 
 
&quot;There&#39;s the whole family system ... a father, a mother, children, and the inheriting of assets. Conservatives don&#39;t want to break this system down,&quot; Ishizaka said. 
 
The main opposition party, the centrist Democratic Party, hasn&#39;t weighed in on same-sex marriage either, he added. Its manifesto does mention anti-discrimination measures. 
 
&#39;Spirit of diversity&#39; 
 
Public views remain mixed. A 2015 survey by a research group led by Kazuya Kawaguchi at Hiroshima Shudo University found that while 51 per cent of respondents supported the idea of same-sex marriage, they were less willing to countenance an LGBT relative, friend or colleague. 
 
As many as 53.2 per cent said they were repelled by the idea of a gay male friend. 
 
But even this is an improvement, said Takahiko Morinaga, CEO of the new Japan LGBT Research institute, noting the influence of social media and news events such as the US same-sex marriage ruling and Japan&#39;s winning the Olympics. 
 
&quot;Those of us in the gay community had pretty much given up, feeling strongly that Japan was not a place where you could expect to come out. These events gave us a bit of hope,&quot; he added. 
 
&quot;These things have really brought the global spirit of diversity to the attention of Japanese corporate executives, as well as media and ordinary citizens.&quot; 
 
Panasonic Corp this spring joined a handful of firms that give same-sex partnerships some of the rights of married couples, while others allow same-sex partners family rights for phone bargain schemes and airline mileage. 
 
With LGBT spending estimated at 5.9 trillion yen ($58 billion), others are eyeing the potential of the &quot;pink yen&quot; in Japan&#39;s stagnant economy. 
 
&quot;There are a lot of services that LGBT people want - insurance that includes a same-sex partner, housing, and services connected to ageing,&quot; said Morinaga. 
 
Human resources personnel at Nomura Securities, a pioneer in Japanese LGBT inclusion since it bought US investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008 and adopted its equality policies, say they are getting more inquiries from companies looking to implement diversity policies, including domestic firms eager to recruit and retain talent. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s starting to become a situation where if somebody does it, the others have to fall in line, especially in the same industry,&quot; said Yuki Higashi, Japan head of talent management, diversity and inclusion at Nomura. 
 
Politics might take a little longer to fall in line. 
 
&quot;We&#39;re aware that people say it&#39;s not enough, and that we aren&#39;t going as far as to ban things - but just to get this far, we&#39;ve really had to balance the opinions of many people,&quot; said lawmaker Hashimoto. 
 
(Reuters)&nbsp;

Homosexual sex has been legal in Japan since 1880, but stigma persists and LGBT rights are not covered under the Equal Opportunity Act

When openly gay independent candidate Wataru Ishizaka campaigned for a 2007 Tokyo local election, people snickered at his speeches, but now even Japan's conservative ruling party mentions gay rights in its platform for this year's upper house election. Though the paragraph is deep in the manifesto of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and refers only to promoting understanding of sexual diversity, even this was unthinkable a decade ago. By Asian standards, Japanese laws are relatively liberal - homosexual sex has been legal since 1880 - but social attitudes keep the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community largely invisible. LGBT rights are not covered in Japan's Equal Opportunity Act and there are no anti-discrimination laws. But things are changing. Several municipalities, including two Tokyo districts, now give same-sex partners rights similar to spouses, as do a growing number of companies. On his second attempt in 2011, Ishizawa won the Tokyo district assembly seat, and this time he said there were tears, not titters, when he spoke. Gaku Hashimoto, an LDP lawmaker in the lower house of Parliament who sits on a committee working for a law on LGBT rights, said winning the hosting rights for the 2020 Summer Olympics had helped bring change, since the Olympic charter mandates equality, including on matters of sexual orientation. "The LDP has some very conservative aspects, and I believe there weren't a lot of people aware of this issue, so without this outside pressure, things might not have come this far," said Hashimoto, son of a former prime minister. "But at the same time, society has developed ... There's a lot of debate on the issue, and local governments are taking their own steps." Helping society understand LGBT issues and obtaining a social consensus should nevertheless come before anti-discrimination laws, he added. Critics say the LDP mostly wants to burnish its image overseas before the Olympics, with an eye to luring tourists. "The LDP and people in the core of government ... if they could get by without dealing with LGBT issues, they would. But there's the calculation that doing nothing looks bad overseas," said Akiko Shimizu, associate professor of gender and sexuality studies at Tokyo University. "In reality they oppose same-sex marriage and don't clearly talk about laws to forbid discrimination." Same-sex marriage remains a distant dream in Japan, where some gays still enter heterosexual marriages of convenience or sport wedding rings as straight camouflage. "There's the whole family system ... a father, a mother, children, and the inheriting of assets. Conservatives don't want to break this system down," Ishizaka said. The main opposition party, the centrist Democratic Party, hasn't weighed in on same-sex marriage either, he added. Its manifesto does mention anti-discrimination measures. 'Spirit of diversity' Public views remain mixed. A 2015 survey by a research group led by Kazuya Kawaguchi at Hiroshima Shudo University found that while 51 per cent of respondents supported the idea of same-sex marriage, they were less willing to countenance an LGBT relative, friend or colleague. As many as 53.2 per cent said they were repelled by the idea of a gay male friend. But even this is an improvement, said Takahiko Morinaga, CEO of the new Japan LGBT Research institute, noting the influence of social media and news events such as the US same-sex marriage ruling and Japan's winning the Olympics. "Those of us in the gay community had pretty much given up, feeling strongly that Japan was not a place where you could expect to come out. These events gave us a bit of hope," he added. "These things have really brought the global spirit of diversity to the attention of Japanese corporate executives, as well as media and ordinary citizens." Panasonic Corp this spring joined a handful of firms that give same-sex partnerships some of the rights of married couples, while others allow same-sex partners family rights for phone bargain schemes and airline mileage. With LGBT spending estimated at 5.9 trillion yen ($58 billion), others are eyeing the potential of the "pink yen" in Japan's stagnant economy. "There are a lot of services that LGBT people want - insurance that includes a same-sex partner, housing, and services connected to ageing," said Morinaga. Human resources personnel at Nomura Securities, a pioneer in Japanese LGBT inclusion since it bought US investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008 and adopted its equality policies, say they are getting more inquiries from companies looking to implement diversity policies, including domestic firms eager to recruit and retain talent. "It's starting to become a situation where if somebody does it, the others have to fall in line, especially in the same industry," said Yuki Higashi, Japan head of talent management, diversity and inclusion at Nomura. Politics might take a little longer to fall in line. "We're aware that people say it's not enough, and that we aren't going as far as to ban things - but just to get this far, we've really had to balance the opinions of many people," said lawmaker Hashimoto. (Reuters)

Japan woos LGBT community to revamp global image before hosting Olympics

The apex court in India refused on Wednesday to hear a petition challenging a law criminalising gay sex, a battling in the country&#39;s courts to get the ban overturned. 
 
A number of well-known lesbian, gay and bisexual Indians had argued that Section 377 of India&#39;s penal code, which prohibits &quot;carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal&quot;, undermined their fundamental rights by failing to protect their sexual preferences. 
 
&quot;The Supreme Court refused to hear the matter and asked the petitioners to approach the Chief Justice of India,&quot; Arvind Dattar, a lawyer for one of the petitioners, told Reuters. 
 
India&#39;s Chief Justice is already hearing a separate case to strike down the ban, and the top court has previously argued that only parliament has the power to change Section 377. 
 
The decision is the latest setback India&#39;s gay community has faced in its fight to get a prohibition on homosexual sex overturned ever since the Supreme Court reinstated a colonial-era ban in late 2013.&nbsp;That ban ended a four-year period of decriminalisation that had helped bring homosexuality increasingly out into the open in a deeply conservative society. 
 
Discrimination faced by homosexual communities across the world was thrown into sharp relief again this month after a gunman slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Florida. 
 
Some western countries have pressured India to overturn its ban on gay sex and respect human rights regardless of sexual orientation. 
 
This month, US Ambassador Richard Verma&#39;s residence in New Delhi&#39;s leafy diplomatic quarter was lit in the colours of the rainbow in a gesture of solidarity towards victims of the Orlando massacre. 
 
Pertinently, violation of the Indian law on gay sex can result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years. 
 
(Reuters)&nbsp;

Some Western countries have pressured India to overturn its ban on gay sex and respect human rights regardless of sexual orientation

The apex court in India refused on Wednesday to hear a petition challenging a law criminalising gay sex, a battling in the country's courts to get the ban overturned. A number of well-known lesbian, gay and bisexual Indians had argued that Section 377 of India's penal code, which prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal", undermined their fundamental rights by failing to protect their sexual preferences. "The Supreme Court refused to hear the matter and asked the petitioners to approach the Chief Justice of India," Arvind Dattar, a lawyer for one of the petitioners, told Reuters. India's Chief Justice is already hearing a separate case to strike down the ban, and the top court has previously argued that only parliament has the power to change Section 377. The decision is the latest setback India's gay community has faced in its fight to get a prohibition on homosexual sex overturned ever since the Supreme Court reinstated a colonial-era ban in late 2013. That ban ended a four-year period of decriminalisation that had helped bring homosexuality increasingly out into the open in a deeply conservative society. Discrimination faced by homosexual communities across the world was thrown into sharp relief again this month after a gunman slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Florida. Some western countries have pressured India to overturn its ban on gay sex and respect human rights regardless of sexual orientation. This month, US Ambassador Richard Verma's residence in New Delhi's leafy diplomatic quarter was lit in the colours of the rainbow in a gesture of solidarity towards victims of the Orlando massacre. Pertinently, violation of the Indian law on gay sex can result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years. (Reuters)

India's Supreme Court refuses to hear plea on Sec 377, setback for gay rights movement

Pope Francis said Sunday that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should seek forgiveness from homosexuals for the way they have been treated. 
 
Speaking to reporters aboard the plane taking him back to Rome from Armenia, he also said the Church should ask forgiveness for the way it has treated women, for turning a blind eye to child labour and for &quot;blessing so many weapons&quot; in the past. 
 
In the hour-long freewheeling conversation that has become a trademark of his international travels, Francis was asked if he agreed with recent comments by a German Roman Catholic cardinal that the Church should apologise to gays. 
 
Pope recalls Church teachings&nbsp; 
Francis looked sad when the reporter asked if an apology was made more urgent by the killing of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando, Florida this month. 
 
He recalled Church teachings that homosexuals &quot;should not be discriminated against. They should be respected, accompanied pastorally.&quot; 
 
&quot;I think that the Church not only should apologise ... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by (being forced to) work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons.&quot; 
 
The Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are, and that homosexuals should try to be chaste. 
 
Francis repeated a slightly modified version of the now-famous &quot;Who am I to judge?&quot; comment he made about gays on his first foreign trip after his election in 2013. 
 
&quot;The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?&quot; 
 
&#39;Forgiveness, not apology&#39; &nbsp; 
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that the pope, by saying &quot;has that condition&quot;, did not imply a medical condition but &quot;a person in that situation&quot;. In Italian, the word &quot;condition&quot; can also mean &quot;situation&quot;. 
 
&quot;We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gays), but we must ask for forgiveness, not just apologise! Forgiveness! Lord, it is a word we forget so often!&quot; he said. 
 
Francis has been hailed by many in the gay community for being the most merciful pope towards them in recent history and conservative Catholics have criticised him for making comments they say are ambiguous about sexual morality. 
 
He told reporters on the plane &quot;there are traditions in some countries, some cultures, that have a different mentality about this question (homosexuals)&quot; and there are &quot;some (gay) demonstrations that are too offensive for some&quot;. 
 
But he suggested that those were not grounds for discrimination or marginalisation of gays. 
 
Pope insists on &#39;re-creating&#39; while talking about Brexit 
The pope did not elaborate on what he meant by seeking forgiveness for the Church &quot;having blessed so many weapons&quot;, but it appeared to be a reference to some Churchmen who actively backed wars in the past. 
 
In other parts of the conversation, Francis said he hoped the European Union &nbsp;(EU) would be able to give itself another form after the United Kingdom&#39;s decision to leave. 
 
&quot;There is something that is not working in that bulky union, but let&rsquo;s not throw the baby out with the bath water, let&rsquo;s try to jump-start things, to re-create,&quot; he said. 
 
He also denied reports that former Pope Benedict, who resigned in 2013, was still exercising influence inside the Vatican. 
 
&quot;There is only one pope,&quot; he said. He praised Benedict, 89, for &quot;protecting me, having my back, with his prayers&quot;. 
 
Francis said he had heard that when some Church officials had gone to Benedict to complain that Francis was too liberal, Benedict &quot;sent them packing&quot;. 
 
(Reuters)&nbsp;

Also says Church should ask forgiveness for how it has treated women, child labour and for 'blessing so many weapons in the past'

Pope Francis said Sunday that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should seek forgiveness from homosexuals for the way they have been treated. Speaking to reporters aboard the plane taking him back to Rome from Armenia, he also said the Church should ask forgiveness for the way it has treated women, for turning a blind eye to child labour and for "blessing so many weapons" in the past. In the hour-long freewheeling conversation that has become a trademark of his international travels, Francis was asked if he agreed with recent comments by a German Roman Catholic cardinal that the Church should apologise to gays. Pope recalls Church teachings Francis looked sad when the reporter asked if an apology was made more urgent by the killing of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando, Florida this month. He recalled Church teachings that homosexuals "should not be discriminated against. They should be respected, accompanied pastorally." "I think that the Church not only should apologise ... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by (being forced to) work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons." The Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are, and that homosexuals should try to be chaste. Francis repeated a slightly modified version of the now-famous "Who am I to judge?" comment he made about gays on his first foreign trip after his election in 2013. "The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?" 'Forgiveness, not apology' Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that the pope, by saying "has that condition", did not imply a medical condition but "a person in that situation". In Italian, the word "condition" can also mean "situation". "We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gays), but we must ask for forgiveness, not just apologise! Forgiveness! Lord, it is a word we forget so often!" he said. Francis has been hailed by many in the gay community for being the most merciful pope towards them in recent history and conservative Catholics have criticised him for making comments they say are ambiguous about sexual morality. He told reporters on the plane "there are traditions in some countries, some cultures, that have a different mentality about this question (homosexuals)" and there are "some (gay) demonstrations that are too offensive for some". But he suggested that those were not grounds for discrimination or marginalisation of gays. Pope insists on 're-creating' while talking about Brexit The pope did not elaborate on what he meant by seeking forgiveness for the Church "having blessed so many weapons", but it appeared to be a reference to some Churchmen who actively backed wars in the past. In other parts of the conversation, Francis said he hoped the European Union (EU) would be able to give itself another form after the United Kingdom's decision to leave. "There is something that is not working in that bulky union, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, let’s try to jump-start things, to re-create," he said. He also denied reports that former Pope Benedict, who resigned in 2013, was still exercising influence inside the Vatican. "There is only one pope," he said. He praised Benedict, 89, for "protecting me, having my back, with his prayers". Francis said he had heard that when some Church officials had gone to Benedict to complain that Francis was too liberal, Benedict "sent them packing". (Reuters)

Be a good Christian, ask homosexuals for forgiveness: Pope

homosexuality

Homosexuality, News on Homosexuality, stories on Homosexuality, articles on Homosexuality, Homosexuality stories at Wion, Homosexuality news, Homosexuality latest news