The right to have rights
Posted: November 28, 2011 Filed under: Last Week's News 2 Comments »Last week I wrote about Sexualiti Merdeka and the debates that have gone on since about the rights of homosexuals in this conservative country. The issue was not only regarding whether homosexuals did have rights, but also the legality of the event itself, and whether the organisers had the right to hold such an event in the public arena.
We see this becoming more and more frequent. Since the first Bersih Rally in 2007, right before GE12, the rights of Malaysians to hold peaceful rallies and assemblies have been, at best, ambiguous. Candlelight vigils have seen heavy police presence, organisers of intended assemblies have met with much resistance in terms of getting the required permits, and the latest Bersih 2.0 rally saw a heavy clampdown of the entire city centre coupled with teargas and water cannons.
More recently, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak announced that the much abhorred Internal Security Act (ISA) would be repealed, but not before a couple of other Acts are enacted to take its place so that national security is not threatened. Enter the Peaceful Assembly Bill, which was tabled in Parliament last week.
One cannot help but wonder about the true purpose of this bill. As many have already said, the right to assemble peaceably and without arms is protected under the Federal Constitution. What this Bill intends to do, the way I see it, is to put shackles and cuffs as mandatory add-ons to this right of peaceful assembly.
Several parts of the Bill were changed, according to Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Aziz said, in response to public outcry about the Bill being oppressive and even regressive. Many compared the 30-day advanced notice condition in the proposed Bill, with Myanmar’s most recently passed law which only required a 5-day notice. 30 days has now been shortened to 10 days.
Still, many other aspects of the proposed Bill leave a bad taste in the mouths of those who thirst for a country that respects the rights of its citizens, and those who hunger for more democratic space. Last Saturday, about 300 of such people gathered at KLCC for a half-hour protest against the Bill.
Dressed in yellow, presumably in support of the Bersih movement (as they have since urged supporters to don yellow every Saturday), they carried with them yellow balloons and placards – one of which read “Walking is a right, not a privilege”. Again and again, we come back to the issue of rights.
Gladly, the protest was without incident. Perhaps this is an indication to the authorities that Malaysians are responsible enough to hold and organise public gatherings without upsetting other people, or causing havoc. No need for heavy police presence, no need for scary teargas and water cannons. Once Malaysians have assembled and had their say, they will go as they came – peacefully.
The third and final reading of the Peaceful Assembly Bill is tomorrow, and according to Nazri, it “will be debated and be passed…” But the public protest is not yet over. The Malaysian Bar Council has taken on this issue and, without mincing words, has called this an “objectionable Bill… which effectively robs the rakyat of our constitutional right to freedom of assembly.”
There will be a Lawyer’s Walk tomorrow, a Walk for Freedom 2011, in response to the government’s seeming insistence on tabling and passing this as law. Whether the walk will amount to anything remains to be seen, but having said that, it is difficult not to support the initiative, as the President of the Malaysian Bar has so adequately put it: “It is not a piece of legislation which we, as lawyers, can watch enter our statute books without standing up against it. It is not a piece of legislation which we want future generations to inherit, without us walking, and spending every ounce of our energy to oppose.”
Unconstitutional to be homosexual?
Posted: November 22, 2011 Filed under: Society Leave a comment »Since Sexualiti Merdeka was organised and celebrated earlier this month, homosexuality has been a very hot topic. The event was talked about when the police declared Sexualiti Merdeka unlawful, and went on to ban it entirely, and later even questioned the organisers, despite Sexualiti Merdeka having been in existence since 2008, with no glitches.
It was talked about again when Marina Mahathir came out to defend the organisers, guns a-blazing, saying that Sexualiti Merdeka is about educating the public and especially those who are homosexuals about their rights. Mainstream media reporters were given warnings not to call the Sexualiti Merdeka a “free sex” event, or face the possibility of prosecution.
There is no shortage of articles and comments about homosexuality and whether or not it is acceptable. In Malaysia, one’s sexuality is slowly but surely becoming an issue that people talk about. Whether the opinions are for or against, we cannot deny that this issue is finally being talked about openly, which surely can’t be a bad thing altogether.
Some say that homosexual or not, one’s sexual preference should not be made an issue. After all, what your neighbour does in bed should not concern you. Others argue that homosexuality would spell the end of society and the family unit as we know it. We know religion is no stranger to this ageless debate, where people generously pepper their opinions with quotations and interpretations from holy books.
Now, though, instead of taking a religious standpoint, we have a federal minister coming at the issue from the side of law. He says that being homosexual is “unconstitutional”.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom was quoted to have said, “In reality, in the country’s constitution it is not allowed, including sections 377(a), (b), (c) and (d) which prohibit sexual relations between two men.”
I believe, from what I’ve read of the Federal Constitution, that there are no provisions that prohibit homosexuality. In fact, if I remember rightly, there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about one’s sexuality, or how one’s sexual preference should be.
Perhaps he has confused himself with what the Federal Constitution is, and what the Penal Code is, which is where sections 377 (a), (b), (c) and (d), which he quoted, can be found. So if we were to go by his argument, homosexuality can only be unlawful, but definitely not unconstitutional.
However, being homosexual, whether you like it or not, is not confined to just the bedroom, or wherever one might find carnal desire. Being homosexual, just like being bisexual and heterosexual, is how a person lives, and loves. It’s like a girl wanting to make another girl happy, just as a husband should want to make his wife happy. It’s about a guy wanting to share his life with another guy, just as a wife would want to share her life with her husband.
Being homosexual, and admitting it, in a society that is heavily bound in heterosexual chains, can be a toughie. In a country like ours where social “norms” are almost sacrosanct, it gets even tougher. This combined with prejudices that have taken root for so long, changing mindsets is not something that can be done overnight.
However, as I mentioned, we seem to be making a start. At the very least, it’s out in the open. People are talking about this issue. It’s no longer stuck in the closet, hidden as if it doesn’t exist. Although what’s being said in the public arena has so far been of little substance, I’m hopeful that with time, change will come.
But while we continue to strive for freedom and equality for homosexuals in our country, perhaps we’d also like to ponder on the same bits of law that our federal minister quoted. He found it sensible to say that homosexuality is unconstitutional because sections 377 (a), (b), (c) and (d), which in effect, forbids the “introduction of the penis into the anus or the mouth of the other person.”
Only males have penises. What about our ladies?
