California-based artist Mark Thaler, who created the decorations, appears to have now removed them from sale. He had initially told the newspaper he would consider removing them out of respect for his fellow humans .
Russian MPs have sent a letter of complaint to the country's internet censors and state 'consumer protection' agencies asserting that FIFA 17 may be in violation of Russia's 2013 gay propaganda law that claims the presence of positive
homosexual material in media will do harm to children's health and development.
In this case, it was games publisher EA giving out a free rainbow calcio kit that led to Communist MPs sending the letter. EA gave away the digital item in support of the Rainbow Laces campaign meant to combat homophobia, biphobia and transphobia
in the sport.
According to The Guardian , MP Valery Rashkin says the family-friendly-rated game needs to be investigated by the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications to ensure it is in
compliance with the 2013 law.
Canada's government will belatedly present legislation next week that removes a ban on engaging in anal sex.
The government is a little coy over the word 'anal' and has titled the bill: An Act related to the repeal of section 159 of the Criminal Code.
Section 159 states that:
Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The law makes an exception for heterosexual married couples and for any two persons over the age of 18 who consent and do so in a private space. The law applies, however, if more than two persons engage in anal sex or if another person watches.
And the police are continuing to enforce this provision. Between 2008 and 2014 in Ontario, 22 people were charged with anal intercourse under Section 159. Two of those were youth. More than half of those charged in Quebec were youth.
Repealing section 159 has been an ongoing request by members of the LGBTQ community for years.
Judges in federal, Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and Nova Scotia appellate courts have all ruled that section 159 is unconstitutional.
In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in struck down laws prohibiting anal and oral sex. However this has not prevented the state of Mississippi from disgracefully continuing to persecute those who partake in anal and oral
Although anal and oral sex is no longer illegal, Mississippi still has laws on its books requiring transgressors to register as sex offenders. And f you think that this is just some weird anachronism, that couldn't possibly still be enforced,
then think again. Five victims of this law have filed a class action against Mississippi.
They are suing Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and others in the state's administration and investigatory agencies for:
Continu[ing] to enforce its criminal statute prohibiting sodomy, titled Unnatural Intercourse, Miss. Code Ann. §97-29-59, by requiring people convicted of Unnatural Intercourse to register as sex offenders and follow myriad, onerous
prescriptions on their everyday life pursuant to Mississippi's sex offender registry law, Miss. Code Ann. §45-33-21 et seq ... Mississippi also requires individuals convicted of violating sodomy prohibitions in other jurisdictions (whether or
not those prohibitions are registerable offenses in the original jurisdiction) to comply with Mississippi's registration law.
The suit goes on to detail the indignities those branded as sodomites must go through to comply with Mississippi's criminal code, including having their photos and personal information displayed on publicly accessible sex offender
websites, file changes of address with the state, being forced to disclose all online user names and identities not only to the state but to potential employers, as well as the names and addresses of employers and schools attended--and being
barred from certain areas such as campgrounds and beaches where young children may be present.
The reason the five plaintiffs have filed their suit as a class action is, according to the Complaint, that:
The putative class is so numerous as to render joinder impractical. There are dozens of individuals statewise who must register as sex offenders solely or in part because of a conviction for Unnatural Intercourse or a conviction considered to be
an out-of-state equivalent.
Ka Bodyscapes is a 2016 India / USA gay drama by Jayan Cherian.
Starring Adhithi, Tinto Arayani and Arundhathi.
Three young people, Haris, a gay painter; Vishnu, a rural kabaddi player and their friend Sia, an activist who refuse to conform to dominant norms of femininity, struggle to find space and happiness in a conservative Indian City.
A revising committee of the CBFC banned the film in July 2016 citing:
The revising committee felt that the entire content of the Malayalam feature film Ka Bodyscapes is ridiculing, insulting and humiliating Hindu religion, in particular portraying Hindu Gods in poor light. Derogatory words are used against women.
The Hindu God 'Hanuman' is shown as coming in the books titled 'I am Gay' and other homosexual books. The film has also references to lady masturbating, highlighting 'gay' by many 'gay' posters. The film offends human sensibilities by vulgarity,
obscenity and depravity.
The film makers have been contesting the ban in court and appear to have made progress. The Kerala High Court has set aside the recommendation of the revising committee of India's Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to ban the public
screening of Malayalam film KA Bodyscapes , produced and directed by the New York-based filmmaker Jayan Cherian.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar also directed the revising committee to make clearer the reasons for banning the screening of the film with specific reference to the theme of the film and relevant guidelines. The court added that if the objection
concerned only the depiction of the Hindu God Hanuman and the reference to masturbation of women and homosexuality, there was no need to ban the exhibition of the film, as the scenes could be deleted or modified.