Before exploring that issue, let us go through this whats app message received on why Anwar got sent to prison.
Why is Anwar charged and convicted and why Saiful goes free?Ok now ...
Penal Code 377 ‘Unnatural Sex’ Law has seven sections
Of these, four of them (sections 1, 3, 6, and 7) – covering bestiality, non-consensual oral and anal sex, non-consensual vaginal sex by foreign object, and inciting a child to gross indecency,
The three sections that are VOLUNTARY are:
s(2) 377A – Carnal intercourse against the order of natureSexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Penetration is to be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.Anwar was convicted under 377(B)
s(3) 377B – Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be subjected to punishment. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to fine and whipping)
s(6) 377D – Gross indecency
Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. (Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment)
Under sections 377(A) and 377(B) of the Penal Code, anyone who commits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” by inserting the penis into the mouth or anus of another person is liable to whipping and imprisonment of up to 20 years.
Penetration must also be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.
However, the code only affects the male person who is penetrating another person, while the male or female person whose mouth or anus is penetrated will not be subject to any form of penalty.
Therefore, it is the law that says the POKER will be charged and not the POKED - hence Saiful goes free.
This is because the other person cannot force you to actually insert your object into him or her. The action is only possible if you do it and it is within your control whether you want to do it.
WITHIN YOUR CONTROL - this part is key! You control your OBJECT and where it is pointed and where it is going into.
(One way you can look at it is that if a person ask you to stab him with a knife and kill him. If you actually stabbed and killed him, you are still liable for murder even though the person asked you to do it).
By the way, Section 377 gets used quite a lot more than you think. If you google for "Unnatural sex charge or conviction", you will find that there are lots of cases in the past years.
If some horny bloke had got the permission of his female partner to stick his weiner into her mouth but after not brushing her teeth and wash her mouth for two day, she decided to go to GH and made a she goes to the police to make a report, will that mean the poor horny bloke may end up in Sungai Buloh as Anwar's cellmate?
One former politician and lawyer explained, any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature. He explained further that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.
Going back to the message, the poor POKER could end up getting POKED daily for the next 5 years for that 5 minutes of pleasure!
Boss... does this spplies if you POKED is the wife?
ReplyDeleteBonk
This is sexual discrimination against men. Marina Mahathir better stand up and voice this.
ReplyDeleteA women gets cunniligus and no police report from her male partner can there be case against her.
A man gets seduce and blown to smiterens but can get charged if the woman make a police report.
Unfair!!!! :)
Hahahahaha....this is the best explanation ever! Poker hahahahahhahaha
ReplyDeleteanon 8.55pm
ReplyDeletethe penal code covers only 'PENIS inside mouth or back passage'. to address your concern, a new law is unquestionably needed.
Pohon Blogmaster membantu seorang usahawan melayu yang teraniaya ini dengan menyiarkan video beliau di dalam blog tuan.
ReplyDeletehttp://suarabina.blogspot.com/2015/02/keluh-kisah-seorang-peniaga-melayu.html
Hanya Allah akan balas budi baik tuan kerana membantu hamba Allah yang dalam kesusahan.
I wonder if inserting penis into the nose or ear albeit still holes is still considered as against the order of nature that warrants one being charged?
ReplyDeleteOr it will need to be argued in court?
Hehehe ...quite sure no guys would appreciate being charge for that. Embarassing to be known that his penis can fit into ear or nose hostril.
On a serious note, in the west, sexual practise has gone to such weird unnatural practisss such as beastiliaty.
How will our law enforcement deal with such possibility? This human rights would do anything for hedonism.
Is our animal protection act sufficient or do we have one?
The argument of Saiful being a complainant and victim, thus in the interest of justice he should not be charged is a strong argument but on its own it merely becomes a point of view instead of a point of law.
ReplyDeleteThen it occurred to me that Sections 377B and 377C are constructed differently:
377 B - "Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping."
377C - "Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping."
If we read carefully the words used in the sections, then we will notice that section 377C specifically expressed the following words - "...without the consent, or against the will, of the other person,..."
Although both sections refers to "voluntarily" action of committing a carnal intercourse, only one section talks about matters of consent.
Section 377B did not talk about voluntarily commitment of carnal intercourse with consent. It was totally silent on consent.
Could we therefore argue that a charge under Section 377B does not involve matter of consent as it is specifically silent on the matter?
As such, it is irrelevant whether Saiful was a consenting adult who participated in a carnal intercourse. It is irrelevant that consent is insinuated when he brought the KY jelly.
What is relevant is that he was indeed a victim of one man's voluntarily action to commit carnal intercourse on or against him.
So the complainant argument would suffice to show why he was not charged together with Anwar. We don't even have to rely on
Section 90 because consent is irrelevant in the first instance and Christopher's attempt to insinuate an anomaly will go down the drain.
What do others think?
Salam all,
ReplyDeleteThis is the petition that ask U.S. to not to interfere with our judiciary and respect our sovereignty that we found, to counter the Anwar's petition to ask for US' interference.
Do share it out and sign up to support our country's sovereignty. Need 100,000 signatories in one month to counter the Anwar's one.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/respecting-sovereign-nation-malaysia/0bXNLmhg
It is assumed that the possible Poker is in control of his penis but at times the Poker is not in control. It sounds ridiculous, isn't it ironic! Until studies have shown that there is this relationship between the upper head (brain) and the lower head (named Penis), as of now, the penal Code is justified.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there should be stronger law to deter this "penetration" as far as this lower head is concerned.
So, section 337(A)(B) of the Penal Code reads: the holder of the penis who commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature by inserting the penis into the mouth or anus of another person is liable the penis to be chopped off and freedom be granted to the holder.
It does not sound barbaric because the holder gets his everlasting freedom.