- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,070
- Points
- 0
PUTRAJAYA: A Kuala Lumpur City Hall worker convicted of 22 counts of sodomy wants the Court of Appeal to declare as unconstitutional the provision that criminalised the act.
Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahaman contended that it was biased against the male gender.
The submission was made by Abdul Rahim’s counsel Fahri Azzat in his appeal to set aside the 60-year jail term and 22 strokes of rotan meted out to him by the Shah Alam Sessions Court in 2007.
However, Abdul Rahim — a HIV patient — failed to convince Jus_tices Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar, Datuk Hasan Lah and Datuk Ahmad Maarop who dismissed his appeal and upheld his sentence.
Fahri argued that Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code which make committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature a crime infringed Article 8 (1) and (2) of the Federal Consti-tution, which states that all persons should be treated equally and prohibits discrimination against citizens.
He said a scrutiny of Section 377B clearly showed that the provision only applied to males because it referred to a person introducing his male organ into the anus or mouth of another person.
Fahri said the provision so narrowly define “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” that only males could be charged with such an offence.
“If a woman uses a vibrator to penetrate a man’s anus and she derives sexual pleasure from it, would that not be ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ in the ordinary sense of the word?” he said.
Fahri argued that the section invaded the right to privacy provided under the Federal Consti_tution as it criminalised consensual sexual acts between two persons.
This led Justice Suriyadi to ask: “Are you saying that homosexuals among consenting adults is legal? In other words, what happens in the bedroom is none of the Government’s business?”
Abdul Rahim, 39, pleaded guilty to committing the offences at a flat in Gombak in Selangor between April 18 and May 8, 2007.
Deputy Public Prosecutor V. Shoba submitted that the argument on the constitutionality of the sections was unfounded, noting that the victim was a 15-year-old boy, who, according to the law, was incapable of giving consent to such an act. — Bernama
Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahaman contended that it was biased against the male gender.
The submission was made by Abdul Rahim’s counsel Fahri Azzat in his appeal to set aside the 60-year jail term and 22 strokes of rotan meted out to him by the Shah Alam Sessions Court in 2007.
However, Abdul Rahim — a HIV patient — failed to convince Jus_tices Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar, Datuk Hasan Lah and Datuk Ahmad Maarop who dismissed his appeal and upheld his sentence.
Fahri argued that Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code which make committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature a crime infringed Article 8 (1) and (2) of the Federal Consti-tution, which states that all persons should be treated equally and prohibits discrimination against citizens.
He said a scrutiny of Section 377B clearly showed that the provision only applied to males because it referred to a person introducing his male organ into the anus or mouth of another person.
Fahri said the provision so narrowly define “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” that only males could be charged with such an offence.
“If a woman uses a vibrator to penetrate a man’s anus and she derives sexual pleasure from it, would that not be ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ in the ordinary sense of the word?” he said.
Fahri argued that the section invaded the right to privacy provided under the Federal Consti_tution as it criminalised consensual sexual acts between two persons.
This led Justice Suriyadi to ask: “Are you saying that homosexuals among consenting adults is legal? In other words, what happens in the bedroom is none of the Government’s business?”
Abdul Rahim, 39, pleaded guilty to committing the offences at a flat in Gombak in Selangor between April 18 and May 8, 2007.
Deputy Public Prosecutor V. Shoba submitted that the argument on the constitutionality of the sections was unfounded, noting that the victim was a 15-year-old boy, who, according to the law, was incapable of giving consent to such an act. — Bernama
