"Extensively updated 10:30am, 20 July.
Taking notes as I read, Act 792, Sexual Offenses Against Children 2017, gazetted July 2017:
- I.2.1 : the act applies to any sub-18-year-old [x-ref: Child Act 2001's definition of a child]; the item of note for public interest then is, in combination with [ IV.14 : physical sexual assault on a child ]... it doesn't matter if [either one or both] intimate partners is/are above the age of consent [see * footnote], AND fully consenting to intimacy... nevertheless, each counterparty to a sub-18yo becomes guilty of physical sexual assault on a child... *;
- II.4.a : child pornography includes written media. Basically writing sentences describing [real or fictional] [children or adults that appear to be children] [doing or pretending to be doing] [the display of body parts, masturbating, etc.] - this part appears rather conservative: technically, for example libraries and bookstores in Malaysia CURRENTLY contain all of these elements in collections of classical and contemporary texts; the scope of the statute begs to be called an attempt to police conversations in general;
- III.11 : communications are banned with sub-18yos, on sexual topics, directly or indirectly [excepted functions: medicine, education, science] [NON-excepted functions: humour, discussion of art or any media, discussion of lifestyle preference, discussions of logistics, discussion of current affairs... unless you count all chats about news and TV shows to be "educational," which cannot be the case because then any speech is also then "educational," by virtue of transferring any information at all.] The language here is so broad such as to allow, it would seem, criminalisation of speech to a broad audience [e.g. in artistic performance, in discussion groups, in matters of project operations, or administrative bureaucracy] on any subject "related to," sex. This, in my opinion, is very loose legalese.;
- VII.24 : requires extensive further reading on the Criminal Procedure Code. Will do later.;
These four items seemed particularly unusual. The rest did not raise any flags upon reading.
-
* Footnote:
... not amounting to rape, which is defined in the Penal Code, Act 574, Section 375, such that
- [375, women may not commit rape], and that
- [375, only men may "rape" (women cannot); only women may be "raped" (men cannot, so there is effectively no "age of consent for men" in this section, i.e. it APPEARS that NO CONSENT IS REQUIRED FROM THE MALE for an adult female to have sex with a male of any age)], whereas
- [women or men may commit "gang rape", 375B, and again only women may be "gang raped"], whereas
- [377A, (anyone putting anyone's dick) in (anyone's mouth or anyone's anus) is "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", and can therefore qualify as rape only if it is M offending F], whereas
- [375 qualification: there is no rape in marriage], whereas
- [375A, a husband may be criminalised if he "(causes {hurt, fear of death, fear of hurt} to {anyone}) in order to (have sexual intercourse with his wife)"... whereas yet again, the wife is not guilty of the same offense if she does it to her husband, so presumably she would be charged with a different law if she forced her husband to have sex]
- [376A.2.b, this one is especially weird: any M below 13yo, or any F below 16yo, cannot be guilty of incest even when they are the inciting party in the act of incest...
- - so a 12.999yo M can initiate and have sex with his 16yo sister against her consent, and he would be (guilty of rape) but (not incest)... and
- - a 15.999yo F can initiate sex with her 13yo brother, and whether he consents or not, she would be {not guilty of rape, not guilty of incest} whereas HE WOULD be (guilty of incest, and statutory rape) ]
Phew. What fuckery. 😂😐"
