An Economist article on gay rights in Singapore. M. Ravi, a human-rights lawyer representing the challengers, had argued that Section 377(a) arbitrarily distinguished between gay men and women, leaving the former open to incarceration and the latter untouched, but his argument also held no weight for the court. It cited an earlier ruling that validated that distinction because female homosexual acts “were either less prevalent or perceived to be less repugnant than male homosexual conduct”.
Your information will be kept securely and as data privacy laws
will be adhered to, no commercial spamming will occur.
Your information will be kept securely
and as data privacy laws will be adhered
to, no commercial spamming will occur.