Talk:Section 377A (Singapore)

message: Named , we had an entire section that read as follows:
An analysis of the origin of British laws that sought to prohibit buggery and their evolution into Section 377 is found in an academic paper entitled 377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia by Professor Douglas E. Sanders at Thailand's Chulalongkorn University."377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia", Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Douglas E. Sanders, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia; LL.M. Professor, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; Academic Committee Member, Doctoral Program in Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol University, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2009
In summary, the British anti-buggery law was enacted in 1534, taking over from ecclesiastical law. The wording used, which included "abominable" (taken from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament), "buggery" (which, by the 13th century, had become associated with sodomy), and "vice", confirms its religious character. It was formulated in the context of King Henry VIII's break from papal authority to establish the Anglican church. Its purpose was to justify the seizure of Catholic monasteries and the confiscation of their other wealthy properties. The pretext was the alleged sexual immorality of those in the religious vocation. Without this anti-Catholic agenda, it seems unlikely that it would have been enacted.
Codification of law, particularly criminal law, became a major reform project in Britain in the 19th century, pushed by Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians. Codes were well-suited to British colonialism, providing a single, orderly written version of areas of law - easy to enact for a colony.
I have deleted it: its connection to the current Singaporean legislation appears tenuous at best and like original research at worst.  AGK ■ 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that we should do something about the chatter relating to earlier British Empire laws (in 1800s India and such), but it's not as obviously irrelevant as the stuff about Henry VIII was so I shall leave some time for comments.  AGK ■ 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This deletion was not warranted especially in light of the 28 Nov 2022 debate in Parliament on the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, where the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. K. Shanmugam) began his speech with much detail and emphasis on the role that the ecclesiastical roots of s377A under Henry VIII play in showing that s377A was not created for any of the purposes or objectives mentioned in the present day's arguments in favour of retaining s377A. Bcmh (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

text: On a related matter, if the chatter relating to earlier British Empire laws is referring to the Labouchere Amendment, then the deletion was also not warranted in light of the 28 Nov 2022 debate in Parliament on the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, where the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. K. Shanmugam) began his speech with much detail and emphasis on the role that the Labouchere Amendment plays in showing that s377A was not created for any of the purposes or objectives mentioned in the present day's arguments in favour of retaining s377A. Bcmh (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  We had an entire section about Henry the 8th?! 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to Section 377A (Singapore) per consensus below. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) →  – The extensive disambiguation of this article's title seems undue, as there are no other articles on Sections with this code. I propose it to be moved to the much simpler title of Section 377A. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: @Maplestrip I thought of 'the Penal Code (Singapore)' as a natural primary topic of the subtopic, Section 377A though (WP:CONSUB). I have no preference either way since WP:SHORTFORM allows for it. You may wish to format this into a RM request so that it get listed at WP:RMC as well for the wider editor community to help determine if the article should be moved. – robertsky (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Comment: I would propose Section 377A (Singapore) instead. Malaysia also has Section 377A with the same law from British rule. Seloloving (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: *337A of Malaysia is not covered on Wikipedia, so no disambiguation between the two is necessary. If there were a Wikipedia article covering "Section 377A" of another country, I would agree that a disambiguation would be necessary. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *There may not be a WP article on the Malaysian version of 377A right now, but somebody might (and probably should) write one. I support Seloloving's proposal, "Section 377A (Singapore)". -- Alarics (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Comment I tend to prefer the current title, in that I would question whether Section 377A is, on its own, sufficiently recognizable, even to someone with some familiarity with the topic. Even for legislative provisions with which I am very familiar, I would find it hard to recognize them completely devoid of the usual context of act and jurisdiction.--Trystan (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 August 2022