ROK court again upholds criminalization of consensual gay sex

Amnesty International has issued this statement concerning the latest ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea on same-sex consensual sex between soldiers. Excerpt:

Responding to the Constitutional Court of Korea’s decision to uphold for the fourth time Article 92-6 of the 61-year-old Military Criminal Act, which criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual acts in the military constitution, Amnesty International’s East Asia Researcher Boram Jang said: 

“This continued endorsement for the criminalization of consensual same-sex acts within the Korean military is a distressing setback in the decades-long struggle for equality in the country. This ruling underscores the widespread prejudice experienced by LGBTI people in South Korea and the government’s lack of action to prevent harm and ensure equality which is their human rights responsibility.  

“Article 92-6 has institutionalized discrimination, reinforced systematic disadvantages faced by LGBTI people and risked inciting or justifying violence against them, both inside the military and in everyday life. It has no place in Korean society and should be scrapped immediately. 

“We renew our calls for South Korean lawmakers to repeal Article 92-6 of the military code now as the next step towards ending the pervasive stigmatization faced by LGBTI people in the country.”

Another view on Pakistan's military courts case

The News International has this op-ed by Dr. Farrukh Saleem, seeking to justify Pakistan's wish to use military courts to prosecute civilians. Excerpt:

Here’s a partial list of countries that have tried civilians in military courts: United States, Egypt, China, Turkey, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, Thailand, South Korea, Philippines, Iran, Syria, Russia, Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Why are civilians brought before military courts? There are several reasons for this. One scenario arises when a civilian is accused of a crime closely connected to or having an impact on the military. This category encompasses offences like assaulting military personnel or property, espionage, and treason. Another situation arises in the face of a national security crisis or emergency, where the government may believe that military courts are better suited to swiftly and efficiently address the case.

Pakistan has established a comprehensive legal framework that regulates the military justice system, with a strong commitment to upholding ‘legal principles’ and respecting ‘human rights’. Within this framework, there are robust safeguards in place to protect the rights of civilians who may be accused in military courts. This framework also unequivocally upholds the fundamental principle of 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty.' Civilians are ensured the right to legal representation, thus guaranteeing their ability to effectively present their defense. Furthermore, a well-defined mechanism for the appeal of military court decisions exists, providing an avenue to meticulously review the fairness of the trial and the legality of the verdict.

Two key conclusions can be drawn. First, the establishment of ‘special courts’ is not an unusual occurrence; it is a well-established practice in both developing and developed nations. Second, military courts have demonstrated the ability to adhere to the principles of ‘due process’ and international ‘human rights.’

Persuaded? 

Extension of time denied

Turning to the merits of the appeal, I note that the appellant did not present any evidence or a memorandum setting out the merits of the appeal. It is not the Court’s role to “guess” or “seek out” the merits of a case (Roberge; R. v. R.E.M., 2011 NSCA 8 (CanLII), 299 NSR (2d) 258, para. 39; R. v. D.P.B., 2002 NSCA 55 (CanLII), 2002 NSCA 55; R. v. Pettigrew, 1996 NSCA 17 (CanLII), 149 NSR (2d) 303).

Quote of the day from Houde v. H.M. The King, 2023 CMAC 10 (Oct. 24, 2023) (Bell, C.J.)

In contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not require the accused to identify any appellate issue.

Government to appeal Pakistan Supreme Court decision

The government of Pakistan is reportedly going to appeal Monday's decision in the military courts case to a larger bench. Dawn asks why in this editorial.

Oct. 25 is St. Crispin's Day

Mark Rylance gives the "band of brothers" speech here.