"If you work harder, you will get luckier" per Anita Sarawak dictum.

European Convention on Human Rights : Article 8 - Privacy

Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. This may be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises positive obligations: whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced father to his child).

privacy issue is always eyes catching. from time to time the issue will be put forward to the public in order to gain awareness, but the result is always in vain. after a few articles aired in the column, then anon will return to peace. no one is bother about the issue, everyone is too busy to earn a living, who cares about privacy anyway. only those make a living with the title will try to heat up the issue, the remain is put to rest.

what interesting is the body measurement, the size, the patterns and styles applied, the brand, the venue, the arrangement and design, the skills and so on. later, when time lapsed, everything is grounded. it is just a topic of the day, that's all. no one will scrutinize the issue, morally and legally. how you adjudicate "moral" in the first place? is there a yardstick to number the "moral"? or can you value "moral" with any alphabet or symbol or number? from the scale 1 to 10? or a to z?

Legally, oral sex, sodomy, sadomasochism are strictly prohibited. take one example,the provision by Sexual Offences Act,

* Statute: Section 377 of the Malaysian Penal Code: Unnatural Offences
* Penalty: 20 years/caning and fine
* Restrictions: None

Unnatural Offences 377. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine or whipping.

Section 377a. Outrages on decency. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

i wonder if this law were to implement in other countries where the prostitution is legal, then how is the prostitute to run her business?

anyway, i am not interested to make a turkey talk on that issue, but what is buggering my mind is, in your own private suite bedroom, after you shut the door and curtain and whatever pit and hole, whatever you do inside the room, will it consider as "private" and do you deserve the "privacy" of your own sweet moment?

assuming that you were very unlucky (or lucky?) to let a peeping tom to spy on you and later he accidentally "publish" your "accidental accident" photos, so is he "accidentally" "infringe" your "private" "privacy" or he is merely "accidentally" protecting "public policy"?

the questions are:
(i) should you be punished in the eye of law, for what you had done in your PRIVATE room?
(ii) should the peeping tom be punished because he had infringed your PRIVACY?
(iii) should the media be punished too because indirectly they infringed your PRIVACY as well?

or

(i) should you be released even your acts were against the law?
(ii) should the peeping tom be released and become a hero because of his "accidentally" disclosure, alert the society that such "acts" are against the law?
(iii) should the media gain the credit because they succeeded to gain public awareness?

what say you?

am i liable under the statue if i sleep naked, because i expose my body and private part (different section of statute)? i am in my own sweet room, i shut all the doors, windows, pits, holes, apertures, abyss, brig, opening, gap (whatever you name), and only allow air to ooze in and ooze out, but some how the peeping hero manage to snap or film the incident, so should i be liable because i intentionally (to undress) and did the prohibited act (exposes my body) even in my private room after the disclosure to public?

section 377a is very vague. how to define "gross indecency"? assault and battery are easy to establish, but "gross indecency"? how to distinguish "gross indecency" from "molest" and "harassment", by using "consent" from Brown principle? how "gross" is "gross"? applying Adomako principles? or intention by Woolin / Nedrick? assuming a patient go for medical check up and later sue the doctor for "gross indecency" because the doctor examine his private part, so how? you may argue it is merely a medical procedure, but what if the doctor is gay and he did has the intention to indecent with the patient, then how to prove beyond reasonable doubt? what if the patient himself is gay too?

a simple touch can amount to battery, a simple word said or thing done is amount to provocation. the section mentioned about "male", but can you find any word term as "female"? is the provision suggested that ONLY will be liable to "gross indecency" but not "female"? isn't this is sexual bias? Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights is regarding sexes discrimination, isn't it is very obvious?

Should we have Privacy Act under Statutory provision? is it the time to enact the law?

basically i have no say for what you did in your private room. that is your privacy and your private life. you want to have how many mistress is your business, as long as both (or all) of you are happy, my concern is only whether you can run your job as you been delegated to do, effectively and efficiently. you may sound as a bell and conducting gang bang in your room, that is your business after all. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. everyone is voluntarily to do so. i have no say.

morally you are absolutely guilty, whether the test is objective or subjective. legally, i don't know. i am not legal expert. your circus show or acrobatic performance in your private room is the topic of the day. the performance is illegal, no doubt. the catch here is, you are in your own private room, do you deserve "privacy"? no one will know until the hero publishes the photos.

if you were convicted with the verdict of guilty, then this will become the precedent. so long as you did the acrobatic performance in your PRIVATE room (or else where), you will held liable. where is our privacy rights then? you didn't victimize anyone, you didn't violate the public order, you didn't infringe anyone rights, you didn't disturb the surrounding harmony and definitely no one will know that you were such talented until the photos were disclosed.

contradictorily, if you were to set free, then more people will learn to do the stunts plus the trick and so long as it is PRIVATELY conducted. this is against the public policy then. where is the gravity that the law should weigh? where is the pivot point of balance? by doing so, it will create a laguna in the law itself.

Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights entrenched that everyone deserve to have a fair trial. any dispute that arises should be brought before the court of justice, NOT the court of media. some people tends to act as a judge to adjudicate the case, and return the verdict base on their own conscience and knowledge. they presuming they have the rights to exercise the right to trial and to convict then to sentence. they use the pinfeather to dictate the judgment in their own legal tome. there is no stare decisis to follow, either vertically or horizontally. the decision is totally unbind, so the genius will make the bona fide in himself and the mala fide to public.

the obiter dictum will later be magnified and manipulate by some swamies to augment free popularity. of course these are the gurus who are literally outstanding, they are definitely the master in Golden Rules and mischief rules. compare to the rest is just monkey see, monkey do.

everyone should has his own stances, to protect privacy and uphold public policy. conscience should be the moat of morality. infringing others privacy is depriving his rights, and immoral too. this kind of sycophant should be sentenced to imprisonment, and the victim that performed the stunts in his circus stage should be judged by his own conscience, but the illegal acting should leave to the court to adjudicate. no one should acts as judge in the matter.

everything have to be done in the court of justice, not the court of yourself.

no one is above and over the law. before the law, everyone is equal. no one should enjoy special right to deprive others privacy.

this is merely a fiction. i have no intention to raise any legal argument or offended or pinpointing anyone or any issue. i do enjoy rights to echo my fictitious fantasy, right?