Sjoe, but I’m dizzy! After spending some time tracking down the latest set of amendments to our sexual offences laws — the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act — I made a serious mistake: I started to read it. It had taken me a while to find the document because it has yet to be listed on the government information website as a 2007 statute. Instead, it’s listed as a Bill from … wait for it … 2003! Yebo, our latest law is the enactment of Bill B 50D — 2003. Apparently the wheels of (the) justice (portfolio committee) do move quite slowly.
But back to my mistake.
In a previous piece on gay marriage, I wrote that “some of the outstanding [lesbian and gay legal] issues — such as an equal age of consent and a gender-neutral definition of rape — are shortly to be effected when amendments to our sexual offences laws come into force.” Those provisions, among others, came into force on Sunday. So, other than a few problems with the Civil Union Act and the absence of domestic partnership legislation (a Bill is to be tabled in Parliament in 2008), the pink legislative agenda is done. But that’s not why I’m dizzy.
Nope, it’s the crazy language and — in certain circumstances — the broad overreach that got to me. Granted, the drafters of the new law probably did not anticipate that losers like me would be diligently doing homework on a long weekend. (For the record, I did not work on Saturday night!) Nor could they possibly have anticipated that any decent person would have the bad manners to discuss bestiality in public. But then, I’ve been underestimated before.
Consider section 13:
A person (“A”) who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act —
(a) which causes penetration to any extent whatsoever by the genital organs of —
(i) A into or beyond the mouth, genital organs or anus of an animal; or
(ii) an animal into or beyond the mouth, genital organs or anus of A; or
(b) of masturbation of an animal, unless such act is committed for scientific reasons or breeding purposes, or of masturbation with an animal,
is guilty of the offence of bestiality.
So what is, in fact, prohibited by this choice provision? First, you can’t put your bits, even surgically constructed ones, into a live animal’s mouth, bottom or bits. Second, you can’t put a live animal’s bits — but apparently not any other part of the animal — into your mouth, bottom or bits. Third, you can’t jerk a live animal off, nor can you jerk off with an animal. (Hey Rover, check the *&*$*##^% on that #@%^%#$^!) Of course, you’re still entitled to masturbate an animal for scientific reasons or breeding purposes. Sjoe indeed!
Now I don’t want to be misunderstood, something that unfortunately happens far too frequently. Many aspects of the new law, horrible drafting aside, are to be welcomed. The new definition of rape, for example, goes way beyond the simplistic penis-vagina paradigm of the now-repealed common law. A whole series of new sexual offences against children — such as sexual exploitation, sexual grooming and compelling children to watch sexual acts for one’s sexual gratification — have been enacted. And despite certain problematic limitations, the statute expressly recognises the right of survivors of rape and other forms of sexual assault to access post-exposure prophylaxis services to reduce the risk of HIV transmission.
Really, why the silly focus on those who choose to have sex with animals? (Rightly, the law criminalises the use of animals and animal parts in non-consensual sexual acts with other people.) But if you’re going that route, why exclude a whole range of nasty, nasty practices that some buggers get up to? If regulatory overkill is your passion, then — pardon the pun — why not go the whole hog? Why not overburden an already straining criminal justice system with cases involving non-consenting gerbils? Why not contribute further to prison overcrowding?
We’ve come a long way as a country. On Sunday, delegates in Polokwane publicly called Terror Lekota to order. Soon they will start voting, hopefully sending a strong message to leaders not to take support for granted. Tomorrow, who knows? And while all of this happens, more history continues to be made, such as with Sunday’s repeal of some of our last remaining discriminatory laws. It’s just such a pity that Parliament went overboard.
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
