The Court Of Appeal Recognises SOGI Rights?

8 11 2014

Star 1

In the above article, The Star reported that in a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal lead by Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled that punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression.

I was really shocked to hear the news because the transgenders and two of the three judges are Muslims and Malaysia is an Islamic country.

As a Muslim, I am sad with the ruling:

  1.  Isn’t the freedom of expression for the Muslims must be in accordance with the rule of Islam? Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation”; and since LGBT is against the teaching of Islam, it contravenes with Article 3(1). How could cross-dressing be a part of freedom of expression for the Muslims when it is against their religion and also the religion of the of the Federation?
  2. Muslims must understand that we must obey the rules of Islam and not the total freedom as in human rights that is against Islam. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action says, “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated…  While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” So I think that freedom of expression must be in accordance with a person’snational and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds”.
  3. LGBT is against Malaysia’s, cultural and religious backgrounds; particularly the Muslims. And it can cause uneasiness to others and can cause unpeaceful situation.

Comparing this case to Meor Atiqulrahman and others vs Fatimah Sihi and others, is cross-dressing that important in someone’s life that they have the rights to do that even though it is against the law? In Meor Atiqulrahman and others vs Fatimah Sihi and others; Meor Atiqulrahman, his brother and cousin wore ‘serban’ in school. Serban is not a part of the school’s uniform and the rule is to wear uniform to school. Their headmistress told them to wear songkok instead but they did not listen. The headmistress told their parents to send them to another school and did not let them come the school again.

When it was brought to the court, Meor Atiqulrahman was not allowed to wear serban to school because although ‘serban’ is related to Islam, it is not a main part of the practice of Islam. And wearing ‘serban’ broke the school’s law.

Like wearing serban to Meor Atiqulrahman’s school, wearing other gender’s clothing is also against the law. So how can wearing other gender’s clothing be right when it is against the law and the rights of other people living in the same community? Imagine if a man in woman’s clothing enters a woman’s toilet because he dresses as a woman. Isn’t that contravenes the freedom of other women in the toilet? And what will happen in ‘surau’ and mosques? This matter is very serious because if this happens, it will involve the ‘aurat’ of others.

Malaysian government does not sign the SOGI Rights (Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity) and Malaysia does not legalise LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer). SOGI Rights is a part of Liberalism and Liberalism is against the teaching of Islam.


Actions

Information

3 responses

15 10 2016
Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355 | Ahmad Ali JetPlane

[…] Banyak hukuman kesalahan sivil telah dinaiktarafkan berberapa kali selepas kali terakhir Akta 355 dipinda. Contohnya dibawah Peraturan 11(1), Peraturan-Peraturan Kawalan Hasil Tembakau 2004, had hukuman merokok di tempat dilarang ialah “denda tidak melebihi 10,000 ringgit, atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun”, seperti yang tercatat dibawah Peraturan 11(3) Peraturan yang sama. Ini bermakna had hukuman kesalahan merokok di tempat yang dilarang adalah jauh lebih tinggi daripada had hukuman meminum arak di tempat awam atau lelaki berpakaian wanita atau ‘crossdressing’. […]

Like

13 10 2016
Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355 | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] Pindaan ini penting kerana had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah yang sediaada adalah terlalu rendah. Banyak hukuman kesalahan sivil telah dinaiktarafkan berberapa kali selepas kali terakhir Akta 355 dipinda. Contohnya dibawah Peraturan 11(1), Peraturan-Peraturan Kawalan Hasil Tembakau 2004, had hukuman merokok di tempat dilarang ialah “denda tidak melebihi 10,000 ringgit, atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun”, seperti yang tercatat dibawah Peraturan 11(3) Peraturan yang sama. Ini bermakna had hukuman kesalahan merokok di tempat yang dilarang adalah jauh lebih tinggi daripada had hukuman meminum arak di tempat awam atau lelaki berpakaian wanita atau ‘crossdressing’. […]

Like

11 11 2014
Murid Lelaki Beruniform Perempuan Ke Sekolah? | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog

[…] On Friday, the Court of Appeal lead by Justice Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus ruled that punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression. […]

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: