Repurposed from an email sent to an active Malaysian mailing list.

=======
[snip]
Some friends and I got together to write a simple memo about some recent articles in tabloids like Kosmo! and papers like The Star and Berita Harian that demonise the queer community, specifically in the context of exposés on lesbian parties in town. These articles reflect a trend of stigmatization against queers in the mainstream press that encourages continued violence and discrimination against sexual minorities. We submitted said memorandum to SUHAKAM last week, and we’re looking to get 1000 signatures for our online petition by the end of the month.

You can sign that petition (text below this email) here:

“Memorandum on Ill Representation and Discrimination of the Queer Community in the Media | Memorandum berkenaan diskriminasi dan representasi yang mengaibkan komuniti LGBTIQ dalam media” :
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/kryss/

I hope you’ll sign and encourage other pals and allies to sign on too.

[snip]

Memorandum to Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
June 10, 2010

We refer to the articles published in Kosmo! (“Parti Lesbian Berleluasa”) and the Harian Metro (“Aksi Panas Pengkid, Lesbian”) dated 2nd and 16th May respectively.

We, the undersigned, are enraged by the usage of disparaging words such as “songsang” (deviant), “lucah” (lewd) and “jijik” (disgusting) in the newspaper reports to describe the queer community. The words used by Kosmo! and the Harian Metro and echoed by other newspapers (such as The Star, 3 May 2010) are heavily loaded with moral connotations and paint the queer community unjustifiably and unfairly as deviants and morally tainted.

These recent attacks were first and foremost attacks on sexual rights and, by extension, on human rights. The claim and exercise of these rights are integral to a person’s identity and self-worth and do not in any way contribute to general misconduct or a decline in moral values as wrongly implied by these journalists and newspapers. The continued stigma and discrimination perpetuated by the media towards the queer community (more pronounced since August 2003 when a memorandum was sent to Suhakam then) shows that Suhakam has done nothing to effectively uphold the human rights of the queer community as Malaysians of equal status.

These attacks were also a violation of privacy since these gatherings were by invitation only and exclusive to the queer community concerned.

Besides those two articles which were published recently in Harian Metro and Kosmo!, more than a dozen of articles have been published this year alone in local newspapers (please refer to attachment). These articles are reflective of an ongoing hostile trend by the media towards people of different sexual orientation and gender identity, in complete disregard for their human rights.

We strongly condemn journalists and newspapers who use unscrupulous tactics to obtain their stories and who further rely on sensationalism and titillation to sell their newspapers. We consider these journalists and newspapers unethical and unprofessional because they break the profession’s own standards of good reporting.

Both journalists and editors should be aware of the impact and consequences of how the news is reported especially when it comes to news about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities where unethical and biased reporting only instigates hate and violence towards the queer community. Creating and encouraging an environment of hate and violence is criminal. As a result of such irresponsible reporting, private spaces are being invaded and violated, thus making it harder and harder for the queer community to enjoy their human rights just like other Malaysians.

In light of our urgent concerns, we repeat our call since 28 August 2003, and urge Suhakam:

First, to push for the protection of the human rights of individuals perceived or identified lesbians, bisexuals, gay, transsexual, transgendered, queer, under the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Second, to pressure the government to repeal all laws that outlaw and criminalise mutually consensual sexual behaviour between adults.

Third, to further educate citizens on constitutional provisions for the protection of the human rights of citizens and non-citizens, and to further educate the public on the spirit and core values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Yogyakarta Principles.

Fourth, to pressure the government to repeal all laws that restrict freedom of expression and freedom of information.

We hope that together, we will all be able to protect the democratic principles enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution, and strengthen the practice of a truly humane, participatory democracy in Malaysia.

For more information:
http://www.malaysiaforum.org/nmf/

Come join many other Malaysians from around the US to talk about Malaysia, and the harapan we can have for our country. Join group discussions, and take part in the forum that will be broadcast live from KL. We’ll also be having a live Local Forum on ‘active citizenship’ and what it means for us to be Malaysians living abroad.

We’re expecting around 70 to 80 participants. And this will be a good time to socialize and widen our networks.

Our confirmed panelists:

Arts, Literature and Education

1. Pete Teo
2. Sharon Bakar
3. Lim Soon Heng
4. Fahmi Fadzil

Racial and Religious Harmony: Understanding the ‘Allah’ Issue

1. Khairy Jamaluddin
2. Haris Ibrahim
3. Wong Chin Huat

Repurposed from AP News

All 18-year-old Constance McMillen wanted to do during prom was wear a tux and bring her girlfriend. Her 715-student school in rural Mississippi decided to cancel the prom when Constance kept on requesting her school to lift the ban on bringing same-sex dates.
Small justice was served when the U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson said he would hold a trial regarding the issue because canceling the prom violated McMillen’s rights.

Sometimes you just have to stick to your guns, you never know what you might get. In McMillen’s case:
- Invites to popular talk shows
- $30,000 college scholarships
- Nation-wide attention and awareness

McMillen, you go girl. If the prom happened, I would totally be your cougar date

Oscar Wilde’s only published novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, is due for a film adaptation. Dorian Gray will be released in September, 2009.

Wilde’s sexuality has been much discussed —he was definitely not heterosexual, and the hedenostic protagonist of his creation, Dorian Gray, follows suit.

For those unfamiliar with this story, here is a brief recap; Dorian Gray is a beautiful socialite, who trades his soul to keep his looks. Though he remains perfect looking, his nature becomes more vicious and evil. In contrast, a portrait of Dorian in the attic slowly gets older and uglier, reflecting the soulless monster he becomes.

The trailer looks rather faithful to the book (some parts even look like little salutes to previous film adaptations).

The film director, Oliver Parker, has suggested that the once subversive novel is nowadays more a part of tradition, and he wants to “blow off the dust”. Will this Dorian Gray really remain “the very portrait of modernity”? From the trailer, I’m not entirely convinced, but I’ll have to wait till September to say.

Meanwhile, I introduce you to what looks like (to me) an effective adaptation of Dorian Gray.

Wilde was a person of words; witty, pithy, and memorable. That this adaptation is a dance (without words), is quite a skillful switch of languages to me, from spoken, to physical:

It is choreographer/director Matthew Bourne’s Dorian Gray. In this modernised version, Dorian Gray is immortalised in billboards as the face of a new perfume. Dorian Gray is a celebrity, serial killer, and from the looks of it, a rakish devil.

Those who will like to watch more of Matthew Bourne’s Dorian Gray should click here (and wait for 1:50).

——————————

As an aside, I am currently collecting stories of people who went for KL Pride poolside party. If you’ve not heard, Harian Metro sent a female journalist undercover to the party, and she wrote something one would expect from the tabloid that is HM.

It’s a nasty piece of work, that article, and I am angered at the parties responsible. If you, or your family, are regular readers of HM, I suggest not giving them any more business.

Apparently all kinds of scandalous things happened at the party. For one thing, how dare lesbians dance without shame? Everyone knows homosexuals are only allowed to dance with a cower in their footsteps. And….kissing? Are you mocking the hate-rag that is Harian Metro, even though they had no bloody business being there?

[ To those who hooked up, picked up, and got their rocks off that night, good on ya ]

Well, I’m glad it sounds like you all had some fun at the party; I’m sorry about the crap that HM published. Fuck what Harian Metro had to say, their version of the party was crap, and let’s face it, written to sensationalise everything. Like you wouldn’t get the same stuff in different events.

I didn’t go for the party (I’m currently not in the country). I don’t want the only thing I know about the party to be from the scummy article I read, and I’m sure there are others who would prefer we reclaim what happened that night.

I want to hear from you.

How did the party go? Did you find it friendly?

What outfit did you pick? Did you meet any new people (you hung out with your cliques, kan? )?

Did you go into the pool? Were there any interesting people?

Were you the last one standing? How many girls were wearing boybeaters?

Who had an awkward bump-in with their ex, and their ex’s ex, who is now hitting on the same straight girl as you? How was the DJ?

If you have an anecdote on how the party went, please do email lainieyeoh@gmail.com soon (really soon), I’d like to hear from you. Anything. Save me from the crap memory that came from Harian Metro.

Sayoni presents the first ever Coming Out Guide in Singapore. Please provide your feedback on the guide.

This preliminary version of the guide was launched on 1 August, at the opening of IndigNation 2009, Singapore’s pride season.

From Launch of Coming Out Guide (preliminary version)

While I haven’t read the entire pdf, I did manage to go through a few sections and I feel that certain sections (debunking myths!) will be helpful for those with questions towards their own sexuality. Anj Ho, one of the presenters for Seksualiti Merdeka last year on spotting homophobic traits, is heading the team behind this booklet.

It also shows with simple diagrams and explanations, how sexuality orientation is comprised of sexual identity, attraction and behaviour. If you’ve ever wondered why certain things queer people do conflict with ideas you have on what they should be doing (ie: is a lesbian who sleeps with a man still a lesbian?), you should probably pick up some 101 guidance here.

Give it a go and see how you react to the content.

Jakarta [3 June 2009]. On 9-13 August 2009, Bali will host the 9th International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific (ICAAP) – the biggest congress on HIV and AIDS in the region. Approximately 3,000 delegates from 51 Asian and 14 Pacific countries are expected to attend this congress. The theme of the
9th ICAAP is “Empowering People, Strengthening Networks” to support a vibrant community of empowered people, all across Asia and the Pacific, to mobilize a holistic and more effective response to the crossborder challenges of today’s HIV pandemic.
The Local Organizing Committee Chair, Prof. Dr. Zubairi Djoerban,Sp.PD-KHOM, who is also the Chair of the Indonesian AIDS Society (Masyarakat Peduli AIDS Indonesia), said “we recognize that ICAAP is the second largest AIDS forum in the world and are grateful for the confidence in Indonesia to host this
important meeting. We are inspired by the decision and will work hard to assure that the congress activities will advance regional efforts to respond effectively to the challenge of HIV and AIDS today and in the future.”

Mr. JVR Prasada Rao, Director, Regional Support Team, Asia and the Pacific, Joint United Nations
Program on AIDS (UNAIDS), added, “the 9th ICAAP promises to be an even better and bigger conference
than previous ICAAPs. There will be evidence-based discussion on whether Universal Access can be an
achievable goal by 2010 for many countries in Asia and the Pacific. Every facet of the epidemic and the
region’s responses are featured in the wide array of session and activities.”

The congress will take place at the Bali International Convention Centre (BICC) in Nusa Dua, and is
scheduled to be officially opened on 9 August by the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono, in a ceremony at the Garuda Wisnu Kencana (GWK) Cultural Park.

ICAAP is a biennial gathering for the release and discussion of scientific, programmatic and policy
developments in the global response to HIV/AIDS and is convened by AIDS Society of Asia and the Pacific (ASAP).

In his message to the 9th ICAAP, Professor Myung-Hwan Cho, President of ASAP said that
“Indonesia has been given the opportunity to take bold and innovative steps n support of the regional
response to HIV and AIDS. Countries of Asia and other regions will be waiting to see Indonesia take the lead.”

According to the Independent Commission on AIDS in Asia (2008), AIDS remains the most likely cause of
death and loss of work days among people aged 15 to 44. The number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Asia in 2007 is an estimated 5 million, with a number of new infections (380,000) comparatively speaking equal to the number of people who died from AIDS-related illnesses (380,000). In Oceania an estimated 740,000 people were living with HIV in 2007 of which 13,000 were new infections.

Reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on HIV and AIDS requires all member countries to
halt and reverse the spread of the epidemic by 2015; this includes the Universal Access target of 2010 whereby all those who need treatment should also receive it, and the urgency to strengthen each country’s health system to ensure effective delivery of services and response.

Mr Rao continued, “what is really impressive is that the conference will showcase the immense progress
made by community groups, working together and in partnership with government and other partners, in
spearheading the response in many countries in the Asia Pacific region.”

Similar to previous ICAAPs, sessions will be divided into Plenary Sessions where distinguished
researchers, community leaders and policy specialists share the latest information and experiences; 24 symposia on topics such as addressing legal barriers and criminalization of at-risk populations, and a leadership session for delegates from the Pacific region; 64 oral sessions on topics related to prevention, care support and treatment of HIV and AIDS, understanding socio-cultural, economic and political determinants in the AIDS response, and on leadership.

Besides these, 32 skills-building workshops will also be held to help delegates improve various skills that
can apply to their daily work; Satellite Meetings and Exhibitions showcase the efforts of civil society and the private sector in the response to HIV and AIDS.
Distinguished guest speakers will include Michel Sidibe, UNAIDS Executive Director; Michel Kazatchkine, Director of the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM); Kyung-Wha Kang, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights; Dr Nafiz Sadik, Special Envoy for AIDS in Asia and the Pacific; Myung Hwan Cho, President of AIDS Society of Asia and Pacific (ASAP) and representatives from Seven Sisters, Asia Pacific Network of People Living with HIV (APN+), Asia Pacific Network of Sex Workers (APNSW), CARAM Asia, Asian Harm Reduction Network (AHRN), APCASO, APN Rainbow.

A Community Forum will also take place before the congress on 7–8 August, where various communities
each have their own conference to identify and share common issues and experiences. Seven
communities will be represented including people living with HIV (PLHIV); Injecting Drug Users (IDU);
Interfaith; Men who have sex with Men (MSM) and Transgender; Sex Workers; Women, including
Lesbians; and Youth.

The Asia-Pacific Village will be a friendly, fun and colorful venue to celebrate the region’s diversity, with arts and music performances, small group discussions, informal education activities, and regional stalls selling handicrafts and snacks made by people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS.

The Asia-Pacific Village will be open to the general public. Prior to the official opening ceremony on 9 August, a high-level meeting of AIDS Ambassadors will be held, co-hosted by the First Lady and National AIDS Ambassador, Mrs. Ani Bambang Yudhoyono, and AIDS Ambassador of Australia, Murray Proctor. The AIDS Ambassador’s Meeting will address the role of AIDS Ambassadors in the region in mobilizing greater action and accountability for the response.

For more information, please contact:
Ika Nazaruddin
Pacto Convex
Ph 62-21 571-9973
Ika_nazar@cbn.net.id
Elis Widen
Congress Coordinator
Ph 62-21 571-9973
elis.widen@icaap9.org
Ristya Paramita
Public Information Officer
Ph. 62-21-39838845/46
ristya.paramita@icaap9.org

Source: The Courage Campaign

The Courage Campaign is going all-out on the “offensive” in an outcry of today’s California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage voted for during last year’s elections.

Before the CA Supreme Court made the decision, the Courage Campaign, a family of organizations devoted to bringing progressive change to California, called for married couples to submit personal pictures of themselves. They then stringed the pictures into a montage to the crooning voice of Rebecca Spektor (“And it breaks my – ah – ah – ah – ah – heart”).

As of today, the Courage Campaign is looking for funding to air a one-minute version of the video above, entitled “Fidelity”. In a statement released by email to subscribers of their listserv, they said that although “the court recognized the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, we are saddened by the Prop 8 decision. But we don’t have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California.”

In line with that, “the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves in the next 72 hours with a 60-second TV ad version of “Fidelity” — the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.”

Watch the one-minute video “Fidelity” on the Courage Campaign’s website.

From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?_r=1&hp
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today’s decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Heated reaction to the decision began immediately, with protestors blocking traffic in front of San Francisco City Hall, their hands locked.

The same court had ruled in May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental “right to marry” as heterosexual couples. That sweeping 4-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which garnered 52 percent of the vote last November after a bitter electoral fight.

The opinion marks a new round in the long-running battle in California over the issue, and will almost certainly lead to a counter-initiative intended to overturn Proposition 8, which changed the state constitution, as early as next year.

The opinion focused on whether the use of a voter initiative to narrow constitutional rights under Proposition 8 went too far.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition, argued that the change to the state’s constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment to the constitution but a “revision,” a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.

Revisions, under California law, cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and majority vote, which is what led to Proposition 8; they can only be placed on the ballot with a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

It has historically been rare, however, for the state’s courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars deemed the challenge against Proposition 8 a long shot.

The question of whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or revision was the centerpiece of the oral arguments before the State Supreme Court during its hearing on March 5.

The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008 presented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing. A number of justices who had voted in the majority in the 2008 case, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested in their questions from the bench that they were reluctant to overturn the will of the voters or to undercut the initiative process.

The justices had seemed to be seeking a middle ground that would allow the rights they had affirmed the year before to be preserved in the form of civil unions, which would be different from marriage in name only. Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was “the label of marriage.”

That distinction was deeply dissatisfying to an attorney for plaintiffs, Shannon Minter, who argued that without the right to the word “marriage,” same-sex couples would find “our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.”

In the months since the case was argued, three other states have legalized same-sex marriage. On April 3, Iowa’s supreme court struck down a state statute that limited civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman — and cited California’s 2008 decision repeatedly in support of its ruling. Less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature narrowly overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Then on May 6, Maine’s legislature, too, passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and Gov. John Baldaci signed it.

Initiatives are also moving forward in New York and New Jersey; a similar measure has stalled in the New Hampshire legislature by a slim margin this month, but could come up for a new vote next month.

At the same time, attitudes of Americans toward same-sex marriage favor liberalization of the practice. In an April CBS/New York Times poll, 42 percent of those surveyed favored same-sex marriage, up from 21 percent at election time in 2004, when it was a wedge issue during the presidential campaign. That poll suggests the trend will continue into the future: 57 percent of the respondents favored legal recognition for same-sex marriage, compared with 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40.

The language of Chief Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

Source: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76475

Upon arriving on campus, I was the wide-eyed idealist looking for a revolution to spark. And that was what I didn’t find in my first few months at my university.

Activism was dead, someone told me. And he had the written proof. In Yale, the LGBTQ community are facing the same lethargy when it comes to rallies and protests. Organized rallies, no doubt, still find hundreds of supporters as we’ve seen with the nationwide Prop 8 rallies but any other political activism finds a mere handful of “radical queers” screaming chants and holding up signs. It was the same on my campus. “We are way pass that age,” someone wrote.

My sense of radicalism and political activism for the queer movement flickered out and died. I had to grapple with another identity – being gay and accepted. But that was when things began to change. Slowly, as more discussions took place within the Gender and Sexuality department and among transgender allies who are “tired of standing on the shoulders of gay and lesbian activists”, there began a call for more inclusion within the gay and lesbian community on campus. It is time that political activism included more people than just gay and lesbians. Discrimination is not over for the transgender community. And marriage isn’t everything. No doubt the ongoing work seeking marriage equality is one that is must be done, but at the same time, there are a growing number of individuals who feel that “Yes, we’ll fight for the equal right to marry. But we don’t necessarily like it.” A discourse begins to take shape. “Striving for equality shouldn’t be just an equality within a heteronormative model. Let’s move beyond there.”

Activism is reborn. Here comes Queer.

This is how I choose to identify — I am queer. It is a renewed sense of pride in the fact that we are different – in terms of how we view sexuality and gender – and that we are happy staying that way. Yes, we want equal and fair treatment. Yes, we want an end to discrimination. But no, we are not necessarily going to live within the heteronomartive model that has been set up. Some of us don’t want to get married. Some of us, who identify as males, and like other males, do not necessarily identify as gay. Some of us think that sexuality and gender are not two separate things. I am not heterosexual, but also, I am not a “man” – a stable, gendered, and performative body that is regulated through a political and social discourse.

We’ve change the group name on campus from LGBTSA to QSA – Queer Students and Allies to reflect the inclusiveness we wish to encourage in the discussions that go on. In some ways, activism is rekindled. People have fought to continue anonymous HIV testing, to ensure gender-neutral housing policies, and most importantly, to see that the university is committed to making as many of its social spaces and records gender-neutral. We are definitely seeing some spark of revolution return.

In the following video, historian and eloquent public speaker Tim McCarthy, tells us why we should not allow queer activism die. He is a wonderful speaker with great talent – his speech brings the listener on a turbulent journey through the comings-to-be of queer theory and politics in the United States and how milestone events such as the Stonewall riots have played a role in how we view the queer rights movement today. I won’t spoil the punch line/thesis of his speech, but he asks: What sort of queers are we when we forget who got us here today to be able to so casually dismiss our identities as part of other things?

The only reason why I can organize my identity politics around the axis of art, for example, owes a lot to the great work done by queer activists before me. Understanding that, knowing that, inspires me to organize my identity politics around the axis of being … queer, queer, queer!

The video is here.

In the past one week, a furious debate was sparked by a letter reproduced by Tilted World with the permission of the author. The letter had allegedly claimed that remarks of a not LGBTQ-friendly nature were used on air by a radio DJ. The DJ was heard talking about his ex-girlfriend who, according to the letter, “turned lesbian”. The DJ had allegedly retold the anecdote in a humorous and derogatory manner, including the use of the word ’sick’ to refer to his ex-girlfriend.

Several readers have contested that the word ’sick’ was at all used and that they did not find the DJ’s remarks to be in any way pejorative. To follow up on the debate spanning 22 comments (when this was written), the editorial team at Tilted World wishes to respond to the issue collectively and to state our position in the ongoing discussion.

To be clear, Tilted World does not guarantee the accuracy of facts or necessarily agree with the sentiments expressed when posting articles, new stories, letters, and opinion pieces written by other individuals not on the editorial team. We try to provide the direct source of our information and knowledge, whenever possible, as well as attributing all information taken from websites, books, blogs, and movies to their original sources.

In short, the views expressed by individual authors do not necessarily represent the collective view of Tilted World. Tilted World has been created to serve as an online community space to allow different individuals to express their views concerning the lives, rights, politics, experiences, and identity of the queer, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and gay community. In line with that goal, Tilted World encourages such discussions that go on in the “comments” section of every post. We do not censor comments, unless they are irrelevant or ad hominem attacks.

In light of the discussion on the DJ’s alleged remarks, Tilted World admits that we have not been able to obtain a clip of the DJ’s remarks. Referring to the discussion, however, there was definitely a call for and an attempt to locate the clip. Just because a clip of the alleged remarks cannot be found, we do not think that this issue should be closed, or that statements made by readers, should be retracted.

Regardless of whether a specific word has been used, the editorial team finds that the fact that several people were offended, and in turn, reacted negatively in response to the remarks made by the DJ reveal a greater issue to be examined and discussed. We view the issue not as one in which a slur or derogatory remark was targeted at the LGBTQ community, but as one in which an anecdote involving a queer woman was used as entertainment and was joked about on radio. The discussion highlights the responsibility public figures have and that they should be held accountable when making public announcements and remarks. The same way the public holds a minister accountable for what he says on the news and in newspapers, we should hold DJs, celebrities, academics, corporations, and journalists responsible for the remarks they make, directly or indirectly, in their work.

When remarks that belie any form of prejudice against another race, religion, sexuality, and gender identity are made in public without any sort of reprisal, such prejudice — no matter how insignificant or unintentional — is given the green light to proliferate. We feel that the published letter, despite its alleged factual inaccuracies, highlight the importance of the responsibility public figures have and address the issue that an individual was made into an “entertaining” and “newsworthy” object.

It is also of note to mention that while we condemn any all forms of discriminatory/disparaging remarks towards the LGBTQ community whose rights we advocate for, we want to be fair towards those people whom we (or our readers) criticize, and provide everyone their own space to speak for themselves. Tilted World has thus sent an email to the DJ letting him know that we are happy to publish any comments or views he has regarding the issue.