● <B> There is a select committee on the Sexual Offences Bill at the moment and MPs are debating whether sodomy should be legalized or not. But over and above what MPs think, isn?t the law as it is (making an offence of sodomy) a violation of the freedom of the individual? </B>

(Laughs?) There are two schools of thought ? one of them is of the opinion that a person?s freedom should be boundless ? whether in fact it should go to the extent that that person should be allowed to take drugs on the premise that whatever substance he is injecting, is being injected in his body. And that any harm he is causing is his alone. This shows that every freedom has its limitations and that there is a line that shouldn?t be crossed.

I think the whole sodomy issue should be put in its right perspective ? I don?t believe it should be an issue when it is practiced between two consenting adults. As for sodomy performed against the will of a person, it should be viewed the way a sexual act without consent is viewed- as an offence.

● <B> That?s my point? the Criminal Code as it is prohibits the act of sodomy even between consenting adults. What?s your take on that? </B>

True. But one must understand that this particular law dates back to 1838.

● <B> Then surely, it?s high time that it was changed? </B>

Yes and no. This debate is an ongoing one and cannot be summarized in a few lines. I agree that the human being should be free to enjoy his body and to do with it as he thinks fit, but I think one should take society into consideration when taking a decision about any ?right?, because whatever one does, affects the environment and the society we live in.

● <B> Are you talking about religion? </B>

Yes, religion could be part of it, but not just that. I would like to go back to my initial example. If we go by the principle that a person is free to do to himself what he wants and we allow him to take drugs, what about the effects this will have on society as a whole? On public health?

● <B> Yes but we?re not talking about drugs. What difference would it make to you and I if two people were practicing buggery in the privacy of their home? </B>

Indeed, it wouldn?t affect society if the acts were voluntary.

● <B> And in a secular state like ours, should we still worry about what religion says? </B>

Of course not. And this brings us back to a more fundamental point? abortion is still illegal ? unfortunately ? because there have been innumerable religious lobbies so that abortion is not legalized. And that?s not right, not in a secular state. Secularity means that we all respect the beliefs of others but that no one should impose his beliefs on others. So, I think it is a terrible thing that abortion hasn?t been legalized ? that a woman cannot decide for herself what to do with her body ? because some people feel this offends their religious beliefs. Yes, you do have a point; these go against the principles of a secular state.

● <B> What should be the role of the judiciary in all of this? </B>

I don?t think the judiciary has much of a say. Its role is to interpret the laws, not to make them. If the laws aren?t clear and there?s some confusion, then it will be up to them to tell us what the right interpretation should be. But in that case, I believe the laws are quite clear.

● <B> Yes, but in the US, the Supreme Court did pronounce itself in a judgment on the constitutionality of the anti-abortion laws, saying that not allowing a woman to abort was going against her constitutional right to privacy. Why can?t the court in Mauritius do the same thing and pronounce itself for or against legalizing sodomy or abortion? </B>

I think the context is different. And we shouldn?t forget that American jurisprudence is not binding on our laws. And the jurisprudence that is binding does not necessarily support this view.