ORAL SEX IS NOT A CRIME
-----------------------
With regards to the article "Cop jailed, career over because
of Oral Sex" that appeared in Straits Times dated Friday 07
November 2003,
I would like to raise some personal concerns. Firstly I am shocked
over
such practices of the justice system to intrude and intervene in
the private
sexual activities of consenting partners, who are of or above the
legal
age to indulge in sexual activities.
In my opinion I think most Singaporeans do not even mind
parliament's decision
to award the Cabinet sweeping powers via 'Internal Secruity Act'
for the sake
of National Interest as long as the ruling government do not abuse
them. But should
parliament reserve the authority to dictate on what is allowed and
what is
not allowed in a consensual private sexual activity? Advanced
civilisations in the world
have renounced such laws, so why is our government is still hanging
onto
these Draconian legal methods, especially when we are transforming
into a Metropolitan city.
I am not a lawyer and like me most Singaporeans are not aware of
the laws
that govern our daily ordinary activities. We simply live by the
slogan that
the government knows the best. But this conviction prompted me to
question if
oral sex is really a crime? or is it just accepted as such, all
because the
prosecution said so? If I were to consult a lawyer about this then
I have to fork out my own
funds, however I got a free access to the electronic version of the
constitution and the penal code
over the web site 'http://www.agc.gov.sg' ( that's the Singapore's
Attorney General's website).
One thing I learnt by reading the constitution is that freedom of
speech and expression
is guaranteed by the Constitution Of Singapore as long as it is
within certain legal limitations
that may be allowed by the constitution. So when the female
teenager consensually performed
oral sex on the Cop, she was freely expressing her affection and
love for the Cop and was thus
exercising her constitutional right of expression. Now how could
that be a crime? Definitely
not, unless parliament had imposed any law to bar oral sex as a
form of expression.
Parliament can restrict freedom of speech and expression by the
authority granted to it by the
following constitutional statements :
" Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3)
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech
and expression;
...
(2) Parliament may by law impose
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as
it considers
necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore
or any part
thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or
morality and
restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to
provide
against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any
offence;
... "
However this authority had not been executed to restrict oral sex
as a freedom of expression
as no law had been passed to explicitly restrict oral sex or sexual
stimulation by oral means.
Even if parliament were to pass such laws, these laws could be
invalidated if it could be proven
that such laws had been passed without the majority of parliament's
consideration that
such laws were necessary or expedient. E.g. Majority in parliament
may not have considered or
could have considered against such laws, but voted for the laws any
way under the instructions of
party leadership. Even if nobody had challenged such laws, it is
not impossible to legally challenge.
Since private oral sex as a form of expression between two
consensual partners cannot cause any damage
to national security, friendliness between countries, public order,
privileges of parliament,
or be translated as contempt of court or an act to incite offence,
it therefore could be easily concluded
that parliament can only introduce law to restrict oral sex on the
grounds of morality as provided for by
the constitution.
But the question is , is it moral or even constitutionally legal
for parliament to
enact and impose laws to restrict oral sex as a form of expression
between two consensual sex partners
on the grounds of morality if parliament during such enactment had
permanently or temporarily had lost its
sense of morality. E.g. Cigarettes can cause health problems and
even death to consumers. Alcoholic drinks can cause
law and order problems and even health complications or even death
via or to consumers. In a way consuming alcohol
and smoking cigarettes is immoral but are allowed by parliament.
Prostitution is also immoral but is allowed
by parliament. Is private oral sex more immoral than prostitution?
By allowing prostitution in the state, parliament had
demonstrated great tolerence towards a great immorallity as long as
it is practiced within controlled environment.
So in the light of such tolerence how could parliament justify the
imposition of laws restricting oral sex in the
name of marallity when greater immoralities are allowed under the
law. But that is not a issue yet because parliament
has not enacted any law to restrict private oral sex.
Since oral sex is a form of expression that had not been explicitly
restricted by parliament, then
it is not a crime. However there is a clause in another law ,
called the Penal Code, which say :
" Unnatural offences.
377. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order
of nature with any man,
woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse
necessary to the
offence described in this section.
Outrages on decency.
377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets
the commission of,
or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male
person of, any act
of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with
imprisonment
for a term which may extend to 2 years. "
As seen from the above, the law clearly states that "carnal
intercourse against the order of nature" is an offence.
The law did not say that oral sex is an offence. The law did not
even say that oral sex can be interpretted as
carnal intercourse against the order nature. If parliament had
wanted oral sex to be a crime then the law should
read that oral sex is a crime. The law is not even seeking to
protect nature! Clause 377A clearly states that
male homosexual activities are criminal offences. Homosexuality is
not only found in humanity, but is also found
in other spieces and primates, which makes it natural. However
natural is not sufficient and acceptable to parliament
and it has clearly branded homosexuality as a crime. So parliament
is capable of creating simple and clear laws
to outlaw anything it wants to, and the fact that it did not outlaw
oral sex is evident enough that oral sex is not
a crime by law. Only the prosecution says that oral sex is a carnal
intercourse that is against the order of nature,
and thus had secured the conviction of the cop.
Now every body knows that oral sex is carnal intercourse, but the
important question is, is it against the order
of nature? If the prosecution insists that it is, then the onus is
on the prosecution to prove that carnal intercourse
is against the order of nature. Since the prosecution had not
proved beyond resonable doubts that oral sex is carnal
intercourse against the order of nature, the conviction of the cop
is not legal.
The problem is that the prosecution assumed that oral sex is carnal
intercourse that is not in line with
the order of nature, and it had also assumed that anything that is
not in line with the order of nature
should be against the order of nature.
But the fact is, oral sex which is a carnal intercourse is not
agaisnt the order of nature, but infact
it is supplementing or even complementing the order of nature and
sometimes it is neutral but never against the order
of nature and sometimes it is the order of nature. The public
prosectors seem to have George Bush kind of attitude :
"If you are not with us then you are against us!". Dear prosecutors
please wake up, we are not in America. It seems to
appear that the public prosecutors had either woken up in the wrong
side of the globe or had woken up in the
wrong side of the millenium.
Before I go further lets look at the meaning of carnal intercourse.
'Carnal' means of the flash, and 'intercourse'
means one object penetrating another object. So 'carnal
intercourse' means flash penetrating flash. So if you put
your finger into your partner's or your own mouth, nose or ears it
constitutes carnal intercourse. If you put any part of
yours into any part of your partner's it constitutes carnal
intercourse. 'Carnal intercourse' has such a wide range of
meanings, but the law is only interested on those that are against
the order of nature. So it is vital to know what is the
"order of nature"?
The "order of nature" is the sequence or arrangement of natural
things that are related to each other.
Scientists and researchers believed that things in nature are
linked by certain relation and can be
naturally arranged or sequenced according to these relations. So
they observed and documented what they
observed in an attempt to explain the order of nature. The question
is, is their observation
and documentation complete?
The "order of nature" is a field of science and not a field of
artificial man made laws. In science it is always
agreed that all laws discovered are true to the extend of the
observation that led to their discovery.
True does not mean complete. Which means future discoveries may
extend or expand the current laws. For
example, Newton's laws of motion can be used to explain the motions
of large objects, but they cannot be used to
explain the motions of very very small particles. So new equations
in quantum physics were developed to study
the motion of small particles. This does mean Newton was wrong, but
it only means Netwon's laws were true but were
not complete. Likewise the documented observations of the order of
nature may be true, but are not complete
and can be extended and expanded with new discoveries.
When discussing the "orders of nature" we must understand that we
are talking about nature, something that is constantly
changing. Except for two things, nothing is constant in the
Universe. 1) Change is always constant.
2) The total mass of the Universe is always constant. Of course
this claim can be subjected to expansion and extension.
So if nature is changing all the time, is it justifiable to claim
that the "order of nature" is constant or to force us
all to admit and submit to that one version of interpretation of
the "order of nature" that is offered by the prosecution.
Of course when talking about "order of nature", the most a-priori
(rationally assumed) and prima facia (obvious)
"order of nature" would be that that was observed in terms of
pro-creation. Yes, if you look at "order of nature" in
terms of procreation, you would observe that man and woman can be
arranged in sequence by their sexual organs. Which
means "order of nature" was observed in the view of a possible
purpose that such order may work towards to achieve.
Pro-creation lead to the continuation of life, which is the purpose
of pro-creation. So are there other purposes in nature?
Why should all mentions of "order of nature" should be viewed in
terms of Pro-Creation. How about "order of nature" in
terms of Symbiosis and Co-Existence. How about "order of nature" in
terms of Natural Selection. How about "order of nature"
in terms of genetics. How about "order of nature" in terms of
Evolution. The list may go on.
When I was young, may be 11-years old or so, women began to look
attractive. I naturally felt attraction towards women.
How could I have developed such an instinct or behaviour. One might
explain that my observation of the world could
have affected me. But is it possible that the code for such
behaviour was naturally imprinted within my genes. Now I feel
that I need to sexually entertain my girl friend to keep her
engaged in the relationship, and such relationship gives me
emotional security. So if I were to perform oral sex with her to
gain emotional security, could it be the result of a
genetical code? If it is, would not that make oral sex part of the
"order of nature" at a different level? Can the
prosecution prove that it is impossible beyond all reasonable
doubts? Do they really understand the mysteries of nature and
the codes of the genes. Are they that GOOD?
Natural Selection, Evolution and other factors can all change the
relations between natural things. So we all have to
keep an open mind as far as nature is concerned. In terms of nature
it can be openly concluded that oral sex
is not against the "order of nature".
If the justice system still insists that oral sex is a carnal
intercourse that is against the order of nature
then let's view the situation from another angle. For a moment let
us all assume that oral sex is a crime.
Now think about condoms and physically applied contraceptives. Are
these things natural? No they are not.
Though sexual intercourse is carnal intercourse that is not against
the order of nature, sexual intercourse with the
aid of condoms or applied contraceptive in definitely carnal
intercourse against the order of nature.
There are millions of condoms and contraceptives sold in Singapore
every year. That means there are millions of sexual
intercourses with the aid of condoms and contraceptive that are
being executed every year. Which translates that million of
carnal intercourses against the order of nature is being committed
in singapore every year. So how many people had
been brough to justice so far by the prosecution? Well the answer
in none. Why the prosecution chooses to ignore
certain group of criminals and seek to convict other groups of
criminals who violate the same law? Is the public prosecutor
negligent to ignore certain group of criminals? If so, is the
prosecutor's department directly protecting certain groups
of criminals. If so, is it legal and constitutional to do so? It is
clearly written in the constitution that :
Equal protection
12. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the
equal protection of
the law.
From what I see, the conviction of the cop is unconstitutional and
therefore be overturned citing reasons that
the prosection's actions are in violation of the
constitution.
Now should the court of law wait for defence to appeal or should it
pro-actively free the cop in the interest of JUSTICE!
That is of course is a matter that had to decided by the
electorate, the elected and those appointed by the elected.
This article is not written to challenge or harm the authority of
the democratically established government,
and I truely regret and apologise if I did. In the interest of
SURVIVAL I now declare that I never wrote this article
and therefore you never read this article. Adios.
Yours Sincerely
___________________
George Fernandez
e-mail: [email protected]
.
