Homosexuality in Commonwealth Countries

[yorksrob]

With Singapore about to de-criminalise sex between a man and another man, I will be celebrating greater personal liberty in states far away from these shores.

However, every bulletin, certainly on the BBC seems to choose to emphasise that the original legislation criminalising homosexuality in these countries was laid on their statute books during the colonial period.

So, are we as Britons expected to self-flagelate and apologise for the fact that these countries have chosen not to de-criminalise homosexuality during the entire 50-60 years that these countries have been independent, or is it about time these countries took responsibility for their own governance over the past sixty or so years.

 

[Scotrail12]

Yes, we were responsible for the actions of the Commonwealth in that time.

No, we are not responsible for the failure of these countries to evolve to modern day thinking.

Quite simple.

 

[AlterEgo]

In the Far East, the colonial laws were very much in place to stop British expats and civil servants from, ahem, "fraternising" with "exotic" foreign men.

Yes, the British put the laws there, but Singapore has been fiercely independent since before Sergeant Pepper was released so it's entirely their choice.

 

[TwoYellas]

No I don't believe they should 'self-flagellate' for that. But just acknowledge and teach the famines, murder, rape, concentration camps and theft that occurred, affecting millions. Which good people in former colonising nations are now beginning to do which is a positive.

 

[duncanp]

So, are we as Britons expected to self-flagelate and apologise for the fact that these countries have chosen not to de-criminalise homosexuality during the entire 50-60 years that these countries have been independent, or is it about time these countries took responsibility for their own governance over the past sixty or so years.

Absolutely NOT.

It gets right up my nose when people like Tom Daley say that attitudes to homosexuality in those Commonweath countries where it is still illegal are a legacy of the British Empire.

Those countries are independent, and as such should take responsibility for their own laws.

The fact the homosexuality it still illegal in those countries says more about present day attitudes in their societies rather than anything about the British Empire.

 

[birchesgreen]

The fact the homosexuality it still illegal in those countries says more about present day attitudes in their societies rather than anything about the British Empire.

I believe so, considering its been over 50 years since it was decriminalised here if there was such a British colonial influence on their laws then you'd think it would have been decriminalised there a long time ago.

 

[westv]

It's just an excuse for backward legislation.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's just an excuse for backward legislation.

Of course it is.

And it's racist and patronising towards independent African, West Indian and Far Eastern former colonies. Our oldest colony, the United States, is accepted as being very much free from colonial influence, and any anti-gay laws it has are its own problem and reflective of attitudes there. Ireland only decriminalised gay sex in 1993 and had to put gay marriage to a referendum as recently as 2015. Britain put in place anti-LGBT laws in Ireland but nobody in Britain thought Ireland's historically anti-gay attitudes were anything other than a result of conservative Catholicism. Did anyone here, on the repeal of the ban on gay sex in Ireland, say "well I'm glad Ireland is finally able to decide its own laws in 1993, thank God"? No. Abortion's still illegal *outright and in all cases* in Malta, the penal code having originally been written under Imperial rule. Is that still Britain's fault? No.

These attitudes of "still a bit colonial in mindset, still psychologically under the British yoke, for shame!" are directed at non-white former colonies. It's actually one of the most pervasive forms of racism because people like Daley absolutely do not realise they're doing it and he's held up as one of The Good People.

Daley should go to the Commonwealth country of Pakistan and ask why you can't live life freely as a gay person there. I bet nobody cities "legacy laws" as a reason.

 

[duncanp]

Daley should go to the Commonwealth country of Pakistan and ask why you can't live life freely as a gay person there. I bet nobody cities "legacy laws" as a reason.

It always amuses me to watch demonstrations protesting against Israel.

Invariably there is a banner with words along the lines of "...LGBTQ+ People Support The Palestinians..."

What is conveniently glossed over is that homosexuality is illegal in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and one of the only countries in that region where it is legal is, er, nasty old Israel.

 

[yorksrob]

Absolutely NOT.

It gets right up my nose when people like Tom Daley say that attitudes to homosexuality in those Commonweath countries where it is still illegal are a legacy of the British Empire.

Those countries are independent, and as such should take responsibility for their own laws.

The fact the homosexuality it still illegal in those countries says more about present day attitudes in their societies rather than anything about the British Empire.

This is pretty much my take on it. I don't doubt that there are some economic and structural problems which are a legacy of empire, however no one has been forcing these countries to keep these laws over the past fifty years.

"Colonialism" seems to have become a catch-all excuse for bad government in some countries. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if it was being used as a distraction by current governments to avoid change.

I very much like Tom Daley, although I believe he may be wrong in this instance. I'm quite suspicious of the BBC's motives in promoting this narrative.

 

[Scotrail12]

Tom Daley should really count his lucky stars that he's from a country like the UK and can be as publicly open as he is, not to mention both married and with a kid.

Even in other parts of Europe, it's harder (e.g. Italy), never mind going into Asia or Africa.

 

[najaB]

So, are we as Britons expected to self-flagelate and apologise for the fact that these countries have chosen not to de-criminalise homosexuality during the entire 50-60 years that these countries have been independent, or is it about time these countries took responsibility for their own governance over the past sixty or so years.

Keep in mind that in a fair number of Commonwealth countries, the Queen is still Head of State and so we do bear some responsibility for not helping guide the direction of legislation.

In others, the laws are a legacy of colonial era legislation that has never been removed, even if no prosecutions have been brought for a long time, meaning that the BBC description is a matter of fact.

Final point - the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised private, consensual homosexual acts between adults was passed in 1967, however the choice was made to limit the extent of the legislation to the England and Wales rather than extending it throughout the remaining parts of the British Empire.

 

[westv]

Keep in mind that in a fair number of Commonwealth countries, the Queen is still Head of State and so we do bear some responsibility for not helping guide the direction of legislation.

In others, the laws are a legacy of colonial era legislation that has never been removed, even if no prosecutions have been brought for a long time, meaning that the BBC description is a matter of fact.

Final point - the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised private, consensual homosexual acts between adults was passed in 1967, however the choice was made to limit the extent of the legislation to the England and Wales rather than extending it throughout the remaining parts of the British Empire.

And if we had "guided the direction" or "extended it" Britain would have been accused of interfering in independent countries.

 

[duncanp]

And if we had "guided the direction" or "extended it" Britain would have been accused of interfering in independent countries.

Yes, whatever happens, it is always Britain's fault.

 

[najaB]

And if we had "guided the direction" or "extended it" Britain would have been accused of interfering in independent countries.

Well, they wouldn't have been independent countries at the time of any extension to member states of the Empire, and we guide the direction of law and culture all the time - ever heard of the British Council?

 

[RT4038]

Well, they wouldn't have been independent countries at the time of any extension to member states of the Empire, and we guide the direction of law and culture all the time - ever heard of the British Council?

The British Council can only influence, and it is not much at that.

 

[yorksrob]

Keep in mind that in a fair number of Commonwealth countries, the Queen is still Head of State and so we do bear some responsibility for not helping guide the direction of legislation.

In others, the laws are a legacy of colonial era legislation that has never been removed, even if no prosecutions have been brought for a long time, meaning that the BBC description is a matter of fact.

Final point - the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised private, consensual homosexual acts between adults was passed in 1967, however the choice was made to limit the extent of the legislation to the England and Wales rather than extending it throughout the remaining parts of the British Empire.

The Queen is a constitutional monarch of those countries, which means that it is for the Governments of those countries to present legislation.

A good number of those countries (a majority would have been independent by 1967. The fact remains that even those countries which have become independent since then, have had ample opportunity to repeal such laws. The fact that they haven't is entirely a matter of their domestic policy.

 

[najaB]

The British Council can only influence, and it is not much at that.

Indeed. Which is exactly what I said.

 

[AlterEgo]

The British Council can only influence, and it is not much at that.

The British Council is a quasi-intelligence organisation and has been for some time. It does have a lot more influence than people think.

 

[HullRailMan]

In terms of the reporting, it’s part of one of the BBCs favourite agendas at the moment , namely bashing Britain and focussing only on the negative historical events. Tom Daley ticks their second agenda box which is identity politics, hence why every story that relates to homosexuality features the term LGBT (and even more letters sometimes) even though the ‘T’ is completely out of place given that gender identity has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Clearly there is a colonial legacy here, but, as has been stated already, most independent commonwealth countries were hardly chomping at the bit to repeal these laws. Blaming Britain for a law in a country that has been independent for decades is as nonsensical as expecting them to thank us today for introducing the English language.

in a twist of irony, people like Daley are actually engaged in a form of modern day colonialism where they are seeking to impose their western liberal values on countries they see as being ‘behind the times’. Clearly I would hope no gay person anywhere in the world would face legal consequences for being who they are, but is it appropriate for events like the Commonwealth Games to be used as a means to highlight and even punish countries that don’t fit the liberal view of how a state should be? People can campaign and highlight what they see to be an injustice, but I’m uneasy about the west moralising about and seeking to influence the choices of democratic states, as if we are somehow morally superior.

Finally, I can’t help but feel that Daley is just engaged in a spot of career enhancement with an eye on his future once the diving dries up. Waving a flag in Birmingham to show what he a good person he is is hardly challenging; let’s see if does the same in Tehran or Islamabad.

 

[Falcon1200]

But just acknowledge and teach the famines, murder, rape, concentration camps and theft that occurred, affecting millions. Which good people in former colonising nations are now beginning to do which is a positive.

As long as it is also acknowledged and taught that bad things such as slavery were not perpetrated solely by the British Empire, and that famine, rape, murder etc existed long before the comparatively short period of colonisation, and of course still exist today.

 

[RT4038]

As long as it is also acknowledged and taught that bad things such as slavery were not perpetrated solely by the British Empire, and that famine, rape, murder etc existed long before the comparatively short period of colonisation, and of course still exist today.

and that they are in no way responsible for it, or should have any guilt.

 

[duncanp]

and that they are in no way responsible for it, or should have any guilt.

This is what the Britain Bashing Corporation have done, by using Tom Daley to perpetuate the myth that the present day laws against homosexuality in those Commonwealth countries where it is still illegal are a legacy of British colonialism.

 

[Starmill]

With Singapore about to de-criminalise sex between a man and another man, I will be celebrating greater personal liberty in states far away from these shores.

However, every bulletin, certainly on the BBC seems to choose to emphasise that the original legislation criminalising homosexuality in these countries was laid on their statute books during the colonial period.

So, are we as Britons expected to self-flagelate and apologise for the fact that these countries have chosen not to de-criminalise homosexuality during the entire 50-60 years that these countries have been independent, or is it about time these countries took responsibility for their own governance over the past sixty or so years.

I don't think that's the intention behind the reporting whatsoever. I certainly haven't interpreted any BBC reports on the subject in this way.

What I have however understood from them is that there's quite rightly a renewed focus on the role of the UK and its foreign policy today in regards to this sort of outdated and damaging law. I don't think anyone wants "self-flagillation", nor do I think it would help. But I also think it's very important for the UK and commonwealth to take a much stronger line against e.g. Ghana where living your life in peace if you're homosexual has recently become more difficult. The current system means that we give a tacit approval to this bigotry, and we fail to defend equality campaigners in Ghana.

 

[TwoYellas]

As long as it is also acknowledged and taught that bad things such as slavery were not perpetrated solely by the British Empire, and that famine, rape, murder etc existed long before the comparatively short period of colonisation, and of course still exist today.

Yes the truth should be told about the most vicious system of slavery in human history and other events, no matter who perpetrated them. No ones saying bad things were only perpretated by one empire. Thats sounds like a paranoid slightly conceited argument which doesn't help advance progress.

Colonisation in general is evil; different countries are now acknowledging this around the world (but every country will have apologists saying 'it weren't only us'). As I said it should be taught and acknowledged everywhere honestly. Such as the Holocaust is taught in Germany.

And I also agree that the truth should be told about crimes that are taking place right now, no matter where in the world - again as sincerely as possible.

I'll leave it there as don't want this to stray off topic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Keep in mind that in a fair number of Commonwealth countries, the Queen is still Head of State.

Is that not just a titular role these days? When was the last time that the Queen issued an edict against a Commonwealth country, with the implied threat of enforcement if not obeyed?

 

[najaB]

Is that not just a titular role these days? When was the last time that the Queen issued an edict against a Commonwealth country, with the implied threat of enforcement if not obeyed?

It's no more or less titular than it is in the UK. The point I was making though is that we can't completely divorce ourselves of what happens in those countries with which we still share a head of state.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's no more or less titular than it is in the UK. The point I was making though is that we can't completely divorce ourselves of what happens in those countries with which we still share a head of state.

I never hear this analogy about Canada, New Zealand, or Australia. This is backdoor paternalism.

The Queen of Canada is a separate entity to the Queen of the United Kingdom even if it is the same person. It is no less disingenuous to suggest Canada, whose sovereign is the same as the UK's, is in any way responsible for British social policy.

 

[najaB]

It is no less disingenuous to suggest Canada, whose sovereign is the same as the UK's, is in any way responsible for British social policy.

See, the thing is, and I know this might come as a shock, but (dramatic pause) - that's actually the whole point of the Commonwealth! As outlined in the Commonwealth Charter:

Affirming that the special strength of the Commonwealth lies in the combination of our diversity and our shared inheritance in language, culture and the rule of law; and bound together by shared history and tradition; by respect for all states and peoples; by shared values and principles and by concern for the vulnerable,

Those shared values and principles work in both directions, and I would expect people in Canada or any other Commonwealth country to be just as critical of things that the UK does as they would be of any other Commonwealth nation.

 

[AlterEgo]

See, the thing is, and I know this might come as a shock, but (dramatic pause) - that's actually the whole point of the Commonwealth! As outlined in the Commonwealth Charter:

Those shared values and principles work in both directions, and I would expect people in Canada or any other Commonwealth country to be just as critical of things that the UK does as they would be of any other Commonwealth nation.

Yes but that doesn't mean they are responsible or can't divorce themselves from British sensibilities. Of course they can criticise - in fact, that's good! - but that isn't the same. The point of the Commonwealth isn't to pool moral responsibility for social policy.

And that isn't the same point you were making anyway - you were on about a shared head of state. Many Commonwealth countries do not have the Queen as their head of state.