Pride and Prejudice – Third World Island Version
By: Dr F E Dias
[The reasoning proposed to provide equality to LGBTQIA+ behaviour and enculturation have been presented. Now we turn to constitutions and appeal to common sense.]
Morality
It was admitted that “behaving in an indecent manner in public” might be “morally repugnant”, and “against the social and cultural ethic of the country” – but since such repugnance is found not to offend the provisions of the constitution, it needs to be “left at the doorstep of the legislature”. Even if the immorality of sodomy was accepted, the rejection of the applicability of morality in Sri Lankan law and its professed absence in the constitution is an error found acceptable.
Justice of the US Supreme Court Antonin Scalia has stated that “legislations are permitted to legislate with regard to morality rather than be confined to preventing demonstrable harms” and that “the law is constantly based on notions of morality”1. Andrew Greenwell reminds that “the political community is ordered to the promotion of the common good.”2 In proffering advantage to special interest groups via the grant of false rights that provide and promote preferential protection, governments fall into the trap of promoting the right over the good. Without morality, law becomes divorced from justice. Indeed, uprooted from its basis in virtue, law loses its purpose.
Considering that a critical contemporary question in the philosophy of law concerns the relationship between law and morality, subsequent to the rise of legal positivism and its suppression of natural law theory, it is presumptuous pretentious pompous and prideful, even foolish, to smugly proclaim epithets such as “law impinges upon human dignity in criminalizing offences to safeguard morality” or “the aim of enforcing morality in respect to private acts offends human dignity”.
Victimhood
“Section 365A has a ‘chilling effect’ on an individual’s wellbeing, and even though such individual is subject to discrimination, seeking redress is nearly impossible because any disclosure of such discrimination based on sexual orientation can result in prosecution”3, according to a counsel for an activist.
The catastrophic decision in Roe v Wade was based on lies. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) was not raped, and did not abort her child, fabricated data was disseminated regarding the prevalence of abortions and maternal deaths in addition to the false assertion that the child crushed dismembered and aborted was not a human being4. Dr Bernard Nathanson, a leading proponent for the decriminalisation of abortion later admitted to strategies for persuading the media that the cause for permissive abortion was a “liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one”. Abortion today continues to kill babies, and their mothers5
Harassment, humiliation, maltreatment of anybody and actual or alleged victimhood is unwelcome, but additional legal protection for LGBTQIA+ is unnecessary since the prevailing laws apply to all, and their proper enforcement would be key. Neither should any citizen be subject to forced anal and vaginal examinations, although diseases in these regions are prevalent pursuant to the abuse of such regions, and the concerns of health care workers exposed to risk in the service of those who choose risky behaviour need to be heard.
Preventing harassment of terrorists and fraudsters does not require the sanction of terrorism and fraud. “Being hated” if this be the case won’t transform to “being loved” just that gross indecency or insanity is provided legal protection. Furthermore, if the problem is that a person may be arrested on suspicion of an offence, the solution is amending the Criminal Procedure Act, not decriminalising crime.
Constitutionality
The opening declaration of the Sri Lankan Constitution is entitled with the Sanskit Svasti which invokes a blessing on people and the land - and is a declaration of faith in the source of blessings. This suggests that morals matter in legislating for this nation. Upholding the common good is presupposed within as well, albeit in the context of distribution of material goods, thus confirming that mere libertarian amoral legal positivism does not define the legislative system.
Section 15.7 of the Constitution, perhaps written in invisible ink, outlines the restrictions on fundamental rights, thus: “The exercise and operation of all the fundamental rights declared and recognized by Articles 12, 13(1), 13(2) and 14 shall be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law in the interests of national security, public order and the protection of public health or morality, or for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others, or of meeting the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society.”6
The Constitution also provides that “Existing written law and unwritten law to continue in force”, and to argue that it is not unwritten law that a man is not a woman, or that the law may not legislate that a woman is an octopus, would be a “stiff burden” – and indeed an unnecessary one until the lunacy of the present moment. Likewise, it is unwritten law that sexual activity in public “disturbs public peace”, that the anus is not a sex organ, and that abominable sexual activity is abominable.
Moreover, article 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, states that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”7, and protection is denied when any assortment of groupings engaging in unnatural sexual behaviour, caricaturing the family and denigrating marriage are provided “equal rights”.
Even the European Convention of Human Rights, after declaring freedom of expression, provides in article 10.2 that “the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to... restrictions or penalties..., in the interests of national security... or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals...” The physical psychological and social damage on account of double mastectomies, castrations, and leuprolide on top of transgender-affirmation “care” cannot be discounted in the arguments glorifying liberty and dignity, nor can grave depravity serve the common good or protect morals.
Endorsing the celebration of homosexual sadomasochism does not protect public morality; encouraging behaviour proven to intensify the spread of STDs such as monkeypox among others, and even the “gay bowel syndrome” cannot protect public health; fellatio in the children’s parks would not protect public order; and rights to urine sex or piss play in the barracks would hardly contribute to enhancing national security. Repeal of section 365 and 365A is indubitably “violative other citizen’s rights” and disrespects and disregards the rights and freedoms of the non-consenting public.
Scandalising children not only with displays of turpitude, but the corruption of their education, entertainment and society via the normalisation of depravity is a grave harm to children who cannot consent to having their innocence thus corrupted; indignifying marriage by granting equality to degenerate sexual behaviour against the order of nature is outrageous - and it would follow that it is legal to use toilet tissue for trade instead what is issued from the mint since the counterfeit is deemed equal to the authentic.
The purpose of this work is primarily to expose the legal gobbledygook, rather than outline the personal and social damage that the promotion of LGBTQIA+ culture will entail, and yet an honest and reasonable person will be “highly burdened” to demonstrate that the sanctioning of public sodomy is constitutional.
Ratiocination
If the multichromatic offensive was simply a matter of decriminalising already ubiquitous and unhindered private sodomy, the UN and its local minions would not bother with their campaign, nor part with their dollars - and Biden wouldn’t threaten Uganda.8
The objective of the bill seeking to repeal sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code is to legalise grossly indecent behaviour inclusive of unnatural carnal intercourse, and to permit the expression of a myriad sexual orientations, in public. Privileged legal protection and equality thus acquired, by anyone who subjectively and fluidly adopts a letteral sodomic identity, and for the ideology it propagates, will enable and protect with impunity the perpetrators of the scandalisation of society and in particular of unconsenting vulnerable susceptible children.
The equality of every perversity under the sun on which the legislative change is dubiously founded, would parody the self-evident complementarity between a man and a woman and denigrate marriage which is the only meaningful context for sexual expression and bodily union.
The ultimate misanthropic aim of the puppet masters is the transmogrification of culture through increased infiltration and manipulation of media channels, educational curricula, legislation and every facet of society to decimate all that remains of wholesome values, to promote libertinism and thus to weaken, disorient and make more dependent a nation that is already in decline – morally, demographically, economically and socially.
It is imperative to awake to the reality and ensure that the pandering to activists and the counterfactual pondering of jurists, the flaffing of alleged victims and the enlightened fluffing of the intelligentsia, do not divert attention from the larger objective of this impending legislative change – which is the destruction of the natural family and eradication of familial piety – the very fabric and foundation of civilisation, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society.
The will of judges may decide cases on account of conviction or currency, with volumes of sententious reasonings and references received and incorporated for sufficiently confusing complexity. And yet it is a biological reality that a woman is not a buffalo – furry or feathered, and she would need counselling or psychiatric treatment rather than testosterone if the feeling persists, and it is wrong to affirm and provide a legal certificate to a foot soldier who believes he is Napoleon. Law and policies must be rooted in material realities, not removed from it. Gross indecency is undignified, and marital acts belong in marriage, and indecency in public is disgraceful.
Silence is assent and indifference is approval. The envy of broken adults seeks to corrupt the beautiful souls of children. History will judge the fashions of today, where the rainbow has been attributed with abomination. Will you remain on the wrong side of history as Sri Lanka makes its Faustian contract and sells its soul to the father of lies, who fell like lightning on account of his pride?
Dr Eshan Dias
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGA7Vr4Lkag – chilling out
(6) https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf (accessed 7th June 2023).
Comentarios