India re-instates colonial law to criminalize homosexuality. Blame the British!

[Sheilbh]

I don't see the problem with the article.  Seems like common sense to me.

[Queequeg]

Neither China nor Saudi Arabia, nor Ethiopia, were ever colonized, all either have or at one point had repressive legislation.

[Capetan Mihali]

Sorry, I won't blame the victim.

[Queequeg]

 

[Gups]

The article is OK is anodyne. The headline is pretty crap and doesn'r reqlly reflect teh article, but then sub-editors don't like actually reading stuff.

[Sheilbh]

Neither China nor Saudi Arabia, nor Ethiopia, were ever colonized, all either have or at one point had repressive legislation.

So?

It's not just the British Empire's legacy, but the article says as much.

[Valmy]

I don't see the problem with the article.  Seems like common sense to me.

Color me unimpressed.  It weakens its own argument by finding another thing alot of those countries had in common and I was not under the impression the British were out enforcing sex laws on the populace.  I bet those laws were mostly to apply to local whites who moved in.

Now maybe I am wrong but since there were always such a tiny number of Brits in most of those countries I have a hard time believing they were that hands on controlling the local population's personal lives.  But maybe I am wrong, and the British were twisting the local leader's arms and making them persecute gays. 

I mean the fact other non-former British colonies in the neighborhood also have similar laws makes that position a little weak no?  The common sense part to me is simply that the British Empire was huge, so lots of countries are former British Colonies.

[Queequeg]

Neither China nor Saudi Arabia, nor Ethiopia, were ever colonized, all either have or at one point had repressive legislation.

So?

It's not just the British Empire's legacy, but the article says as much.

If a nation was never colonized and is currently strengthening antisodomy legislation doesn't that call the causation in to question?

[Sheilbh]

If you argue that Empire is the only source of sodomy laws, then yes. But no one is.

On the other hand there are 80 countries that criminalise homosexuality. Over half of those laws originate on colonial penal codes. Pointing to the link isn't absurd, irrational anti-colonialism.

Though I'm not entirely sure what would qualify as irrational anti-colonialism.

[Malthus]

If you argue that Empire is the only source of sodomy laws, then yes. But no one is.

On the other hand there are 80 countries that criminalise homosexuality. Over half of those laws originate on colonial penal codes. Pointing to the link isn't absurd, irrational anti-colonialism.

Though I'm not entirely sure what would qualify as irrational anti-colonialism.

The issue though is that there isn't a specific correlation between imperial status and anti-homosexual laws. In the time period in which colonialism was a fact of life, there was a near-universal belief among colonizers and colonized alike that gayness was bad and ought to be legally proscribed. Since the end of colonization, countries formerly within the Empire have gone different ways on the topic - former imperial bits like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have very liberal and progressive approaches.

In short, there is nothing to indicate that being part of the British Empire, or not, made much of a difference in the matter. Would Indian have had anti-gay legislation if it had never been part of the Empire? Would Canada have had anti-gay legislation if it had never been part of the Empire? I'd suggest that the answers have more to do with local concerns than former imperial status.

[Neil]

If you argue that Empire is the only source of sodomy laws, then yes. But no one is.

On the other hand there are 80 countries that criminalise homosexuality. Over half of those laws originate on colonial penal codes. Pointing to the link isn't absurd, irrational anti-colonialism.

Though I'm not entirely sure what would qualify as irrational anti-colonialism.

So you're saying that the article is pointing out that the legacy of the British Empire is not anti-gay laws, but rather the rule of law?  I don't agree.

Besides, any anti-colonialism is irrational.

[Valmy]

On the other hand there are 80 countries that criminalise homosexuality. Over half of those laws originate on colonial penal codes. Pointing to the link isn't absurd, irrational anti-colonialism.

Though I'm not entirely sure what would qualify as irrational anti-colonialism.

Colonialism is a pretty big and complicated topic with lots of regional variations so it is pretty easy to make big irrational generalizations about it, especially since it is very recent and there are still lots of strong emotions about it.  It might also be demanding we give independence to territories that do not want it just because.  Or trying to find the evil people and the good people, which I find silly.

Anyway I never said it was irrational or absurd I simply said I found it unconvincing. 

If you argue that Empire is the only source of sodomy laws, then yes. But no one is.

It is not claiming that, it is claiming the British Empire in particular is.  Which, again, I found unconvincing due to how that Empire functioned.  It tended to be hands off and rule through local elites and I found it unlikely they would have dictated such personal laws.  I hypothesized that these laws strike me as ones mostly applying to the British themselves when operating in those countries.  Am I wrong here?

[Razgovory]

We have met the enemy, and he is us


What irrational anti-colonial garbage that article is.  Obama George Washington would be proud.

[The Brain]

The Atlantic?!? 

[grumbler]

I don't see the problem with the article.  Seems like common sense to me.

Seems like common bullshit to me.  What India has done has little or nothing to do with being a former British colony.  As the article itself observes, many of the countries with such laws are not former British colonies, and many former British colonies don't have such laws.  There are a number of things with which one can correlate anti-gay statutes, but being a former British colony isn't one of them.