With regards to the comments by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, president of Perkasa, Ibrahim Ali, Tok Guru of PAS, Nik Aziz, Ketua Dewan Muslimat PAS, Siti Zailah, Selangor Exco, Hasan Ali, I humbly submitted that all their views are erroneous.
The evening move by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Khalid Abu Bakar to ban the Sexualiti Merdeka festival is another insult to the community. Sexualiti Merdeka is an organising committee that wishes to address the concerns of LGBTs’ in Malaysia.
The festival was held the past three years without any fuss. This year, however, more than 25 police reports were lodged against the event.
And he police started an investigation into the event pursuant to s.27A(1)(C) of Police Act 1967, whether the Sexualiti Merdeka festival amounted to “an activity likely to be prejudicial to the interest and security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to excite a disturbance of the peace” and s. 298A(1) of Penal Code, whether Sexualiti Merdeka organising committee had caused, among others, disharmony between groups of people of the same or different religions on the grounds of religion.
The effect of s.27A(1)(C) is that the police will stop the event and disperse the crowds. However, if the crowd refuses to disperse, the people who remain on the scene are liable to an offence punishable with a fine and imprisonment. On the other hand, the effect of s.298A(1) is the person(s) will be punished by imprisonment if one is convicted of the offence.
Having had an idea of the possible legal consequences, I salute and embrace the courage by the director of Sexualiti Merdeka, Pang Khee Teik, on his bold and firm stand in organising such event each year.
Sexualiti Merdeka believes in three main aims: 1 Everyone in Malaysia deserves to be free from discrimination, harassment and violence for their sexuality and gender identities; 2 In being responsible for their own bodies and; 3 freedom to love and freedom to be LGBTIPA.
The first aim is in line with article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution. However, the problem lies in the religious argument thrown by the abovementioned people. Bear in mind, in taking their words for discussion, I am not saying that I agree to such debates under the premise that religious arguments are valid in the first instance.
There is another way of wading through this argument, which is to insist that Malaysia is a state which practices absolute secularism, as such, no religious arguments shall be brought within the context.
I am astonished by the difference of understanding in relation to the constitutionality of LGBTs’ rights between theirs and mine. Furthermore, I must clarify that I disagree with their views which possibly lie on the political agendas and religious texts.
Firstly, the DPM has stated that “we are a free country but there are limits.” Such “limits” are again, not a constitutional limit, as spelt out in the case of Lee Kwan Woh, where the limitation of a fundamental rights must be read narrowly whilst the right to assembly and freedom to expression of LGBTs must be interpreted in the prismatic approach.
However, I could not be sure what understanding our DPM has in relation to the idea of “limits”. Reading his statement that “Malaysians also have religion and cultural values”, suggests that the limits are parameters set by our religions and cultural values.
Perkasa seems to take a similar argument, that the event is not in accordance with any of the religions and fighting for human rights is to demoralise and distort our future leader’s thinking.
In addition to that, they alleged that Ambiga, president of Bersih 2.0 is viewed like common criminal because she did not respect the Federal Constitution and thus instigated the anger of Malay community.
From these kinds of myopic views, it appears that there are two sides to the arguments: 1 All religions are against LGBTs and; 2 Ambiga has offended the Malay community by being the officiator of the festival.
Any reasonable person would know that Perkasa is sabotaging Ambiga in any of her moves in public and defensively protecting the rights of Malays in almost every single aspect touching on the issues of Malay race and Islam.
The three other political figures, Tok Guru Nik Aziz, Siti Zailah, Hasan Ali have employed similar religious arguments in their dissenting views to Sexualiti Merdeka. Their words seem to question whether this event is approved by the God.
The reason for their disproval is based on verses in the Quran and Sha’riah law. I shall not dwell into the deeper arguments relating to this. After all, all dissenting arguments are basically based on two premises: 1 LGBTs, LGBT’s sexual acts are not permissible in our society based on the Quran and; 2 LGBTs’ rights, homosexuality is imported from Western society and our cultural values do not condone such practices.
For the first argument, we shall leave to profound, progressive, liberal ustazs to interpret the verses in the al-Quran. If LGBTs are not allowed in this society, what should be the next step? To stone them to death or to rehabilitate them as in the sissy boot camps in Terengganu?
Should we accept them for who they are to reduce their suffering? From a humanity standpoint, should any human being condemn LGBTs for reason that they are sinners as in the bible? Or should we start listening to what they have to say before condemning them?
For the second argument, we have heard it more than zillion times that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” brought into our oriental values. Is the historical background of such allegations researched and truthful?
Is it because our society’s oppression towards silencing the voices of minorities scares LGBTs off from the public scenario, hidden in their closet? Besides, talking about social morality, does it mean popular morality set by the majority of the state is upheld, and prevails over the constitutional morality enshrined under Part II of our Federal Constitution or what standard of morality should we set then?
I advise all to ponder on these issues. Religious issues in Malaysia have not been conciliatory to the identities of LGBTs except for Buddhism, where compassion must be shown towards all human beings regardless of their gender or sexuality.
The ultimate question is: “What are the core values of a religion in relation to LGBTs?”
No comments:
Post a Comment