Cross-posted from Yuki’s Box Of Chocolates.

Yesterday, I featured a post on the biased and childish reporting from Harian Metro, which includes name-calling trans woman, “pondan”, 9 times, and tried to brush trans people with negative stereotypes. It is universally understood by everyone in the civilized world that morality and character has nothing to do with a person’s gender identity, yet Harian Metro attempted to correlate trans woman-hood, with cognitive sinister motives. Such blatant act of demonization deserves nothing but scorn. However, The Star shows how to do a proper report: just explain the situation without insulting people with derogatory words, and report on the news without attempting to single out and demonize any groups of people:

KUALA LUMPUR: A college student’s indecent act in front of a webcam has come back to haunt him three years later.

The 22-year-old from Sarawak, identified only as Chong, said he befriended a man, in his 30s, in an online chat room during his first year in a college here.

“He wanted me to teach him how to masturbate and show him how to do it,” he said. Chong masturbated in front of a webcam so that the man, known as Melvin, could see how it was done.

“But I did not know he recorded it and on March 14, he sent me a message asking me to have sex with him.

“He threatened to upload the recording on the Internet and asked for RM200 after I rejected his request for sex,” he told a press conference organised by the MCA Public Services and Complaints Bureau here yesterday.

Chong said Melvin came to his house to collect the money. “He showed up again after two weeks and asked for more money,” he said, adding that he banked RM250 into Melvin’s account.

Chong said he did not lodge a police report or tell anyone about the recording and extortion as he was not sure what to do.

He decided to seek the help of bureau head Datuk Michael Chong because he was afraid that Melvin will continue asking for money.

When asked why he did what Melvin asked, Chong said he was naive and trusted people easily.

He said he stopped communicating with Melvin and did not reply to his messages after the masturbating incident because he felt something was not right.

Michael said last year, his bureau received five reports relating to online sex video clips and extortion.

He said five victims lost a total of RM570,000 to extortionists.

Early this year, a man was forced to pay RM4,600 to a woman who had his naked photos, he added.

Both men’s sexual orientation were never objectified and not sensationalized. The words “gay” and “homosexual” were never used. The same situation between a man and a woman was mentioned, showing the reality of the situation, and the truth that immoral behaviour or criminal activities are not exclusive to any sexual orientation or gender identity. This is the journalistic integrity that separates tabloids like Harian Metro with newspapers like The Star. Now, what we hope to see from The Star is consistency, as they resorted to tabloid style reporting before, or allow junk news to creep into its papers.

On Harian Metro, the character assassination on trans people as done by them can be honestly called what they are: hate speech that will explode into societal genocide if not checked. And Harian Metro’s often published discriminatory rants against trans people, places them as the leaders in creating an environment of potential hate crimes against human beings whose only disturbance in society, is to be born in a gender different from their sex. Something needs to be done to counter the utter disrespect Harian Metro shows to the trans community in Malaysia. Violent reported deaths of trans woman every year, worldwide, and the many more that are not reported, gives us a sad reminder of what such hatred can do.

Some are your friends. Some are your families. Wise up, Harian Metro. Is this what you want?

Cross-posted from Yuki’s Box Of Chocolates.

Try not to press here. Tabloid news. Do not give them more hits than they deserve. But I will bring to your attention this article that does nothing but attempt to again demonize an entire transsexual community and brushing them with stereotypes. I shall substitute every mention of “pondan” with penulis Harian Metro and “mak nyah” with penulis tabloid to make a point them.

BATU PAHAT: Dari luar dia nampak lembut dan bersopan-santun. Namun, perwatakan itu langsung tidak menggambarkan kezaliman seorang penulis Harian Metro berusia 29 tahun terhadap seorang gadis lembam yang dikurung dan ‘diperdagangkan’ kepada lelaki hidung belang selama sebulan.

Malah, penulis tabloid terbabit sering mengancam dan memukul remaja berusia 19 tahun itu jika enggan melayan nafsu pelanggan yang bertandang ke rumahnya di Taman Soga di sini dengan bayaran RM100.

Hasil perbuatan tidak berperikemanusiaan terhadap remaja itu, penulis tabloid berkenaan yang juga seorang pak andam menggelarkan dirinya Abang Mustapha meraih pendapatan lebih RM2,000 sebulan.

Bagaimanapun, kegiatan jahat penulis Harian Metro itu dapat dihidu keluarga gadis berkenaan yang mencarinya di sekitar bandar ini sejak sebulan lalu.

Ketua Polis Daerah, Asisten Komisioner Ibrahim Mohd Aris, berkata pengalaman hitam mangsa bermula apabila pak andam terbabit bertemu remaja berkenaan di Dataran Penggaram di sini, pada malam 3 Mac lalu.

Dalam pertemuan itu, penulis tabloid terbabit memancing mangsa dengan perwatakan baiknya sebelum mempelawa remaja itu tinggal bersamanya. Dia turut mengambil hati gadis OKU itu dengan membelikan pakaian baru.

Menurutnya, sebaik mangsa tinggal di rumah itu, dia tidak dibenarkan keluar rumah dan diancam akan dipukul jika cuba melarikan diri.

“Sejak itu, mangsa dipaksa melayan nafsu lelaki yang datang ke rumah berkenaan dan jika enggan dia akan dibelasah,” katanya.

Menurut Ibrahim, kegiatan tidak berperikemanusiaan menjadikan gadis OKU sebagai hamba seks oleh penulis Harian Metro berkenaan akhirnya terbongkar apabila sepupu mangsa yang menyamar sebagai pelanggan menemuinya.

Katanya, sepupu gadis OKU itu memaklumkan perbuatan kejam penulis tabloid terbabit kepada keluarga mangsa sebelum melaporkan kepada polis.

Ibrahim berkata, penulis Harian Metro terbabit yang panik selepas menyedari kegiatannya dihidu pihak berkuasa cuba membuat laporan di Balai Polis Senggarang kononnya dia dipukul abang mangsa namun diberkas memberkas penulis Harian Metro terbabit ketika dia mahu membuat laporan polis.

Katanya, siasatan awal polis mendapati penulis tabloid berkenaan mempunyai beberapa rekod jenayah lampau termasuk mengikut Seksyen 292 Kanun Keseksaan kerana menjual bahan lucah serta Seksyen 325 iaitu menyebabkan kecederaan parah.

“Polis menyerbu rumah suspek dan hasil pemeriksaan menjumpai beberapa kondom sudah diguna di beberapa tempat, selain wang tunai RM2,247 dalam laci milik penulis Harian Metro terbabit yang dipercayai hasil melacurkan OKU berkenaan.

“Selain berdepan tindakan mengikut Seksyen 324 Kanun Keseksaan kerana kesalahan mencederakan seseorang menggunakan senjata, penulis Harian Metro itu juga berdepan dakwaan terbabit dalam aktiviti persundalan mengikut Seksyen 372A kanun sama.

“Malah, dia juga berdepan dakwaan mengikut Seksyen 377b Kanun Keseksaan (seks luar tabii), Seksyen 347 Kanun Keseksaan kerana melakukan pengurungan salah dan Seksyen 292A Kanun Keseksaan kerana memiliki 20 klip video lucah.

“Kejadian itu mendorong polis untuk mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap penulis Harian Metro di bandar ini selepas mendapati ada antara mereka bertindak melampaui batas,” katanya.

(changes made and emphasis added; translation may be needed for foreign readers)

That amounts, to nine mention of pondans, and six mention of mak nyahs. And bear in mind, pondan is a derogatory word, and this story uses it 9 times. Can we see their sexist mentality?

Usually in such reporting, professionalism requires the writer to simply mark the person as just that, the person or the suspect or “orang” to avoid targetting any specific group of people. Just imagine how bad things would be if we replace “pondan” with Kristian, and “mak nyah” with penganut; or worse, both with m*****. But of course, Harian Metro is the tabloid for sperm brains who love sensational news and their target market is people with third world mentality. We of course would not expect any professionalism from them. However, such purposeful demonization of transsexuals should be scrutinized to the bone, especially when dealing with an already misunderstood community. Looking at the size of their hypothalamus, I would not be surprised that their avid readers are filmakers Raja Azmi Raja Sulaiman and “Dr” Rozmey (see previous post). Only ignorant minds would resort to such parroting of all trash ideas and news.

The bigots at Harian Metro strikes again! This time, little miss Sarah Zukifli, our bastion of non-judgmental and unbiased journalistic ethics heads out undercover as a lesbian. I wonder how does one do that. Maybe she had to practice all day trying to act and look like one, which really questions her abilities to report anything substantial, really. Perhaps the only lesbians she finds are other undercover ones – all thinking lesbian is some stable, pin-pointable identity. Probably people just let her in – unlike you, little miss Sarah Zukifli, we don’t discriminate.

Ugh. I find it extremely funny that such a piece of news qualifies as “berita utama” – and it’s always my policy to reply intelligently (whenever I can muster enough of it) to intelligent articles. However, neither Sarah, nor the report titled “Pesta Lesbian” seem to evince any of it.

I guess being labeled “sesat”, “songsang”, and “maksiat” is what we queers have to get used to in Malaysia. Really, it’s not as bad as arbitrary arrests, unexplained deaths, and authoritarian rule. Besides, it’s only little miss Sarah Zukifli who thinks so – I bet many of us are laughing (and cringing) at her desperate claim to “religion + conservative values + eastern tradition” axis of power used so frequently to otherize those just different from Sarah Zukifli.

Oh no, Sarah. We see through that. Why don’t you stop importing values so typical of the conservative right in America, huh? Isn’t that a bigger sacrilege of whatever religiosity you claim to?

UPDATE: The Star picked up on it in their newspaper, too! Obviously, whoever was doing the translation and writing had all the genders and orientations slightly muddled: “The wild, poolside party where couples kissed, cuddled and performed sexy dances drew not only female gays, but also their male counterparts.” Male counterparts? What, strap-ons? Here we go again!

This is a letter I wrote several weeks ago in response to a Star Focus article on the issue of same-sex marriage in New York State, which contained remarks that put the LGBTQ rights movement in a negative light.

To the Editor,

I am writing in response to an article featured in The Star Focus on May 2, 2009, titled “City Fathers against Same Sex Union” by Lim Ai Lee. I am quite appalled by the inaccuracy of facts, biased reporting, and normative presumptions contained in hir article.

I take issue with hir very first sentence. Saying that New York State is the “only place in the United States where moral values still reign high as far as same sex marriage is concerned” reveals hir bigotry with regards to a legal – not a moral – issue. Hir many quotations of New York’s new Archbishop Timothy Dolan only underscores the one-sidedness of hir article.

It is certainly obvious that Lim’s moral values are a myopic mono-religious worldview that disregards the plurality of cultures, religions, and political backgrounds in the US. One wonders what other bishops are saying. Indeed, I would question Dolan’s ignorant appropriation of science in his public statements. No scientist would agree with the statement that “DNA” dictates any sort of “right and wrong”. Legal advocates for victims of sex abuse such as the Survivors’ Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP) have also criticized Dolan for his conduct and handling of priests accused of sexual misconduct [1] .

More importantly, Lim’s facts are themselves inaccurate. In hir article, ze reported that “same sex marriage is already legal in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa, and on Thursday, New Hampshire…” On the contrary, at the time of publishing, only Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Iowa have legalized same sex marriage. On May 6, Maine followed and legalized same sex marriage. Only civil unions are legal in New Hampshire, at the time Lim’s article was written. The same sex marriage bill is still waiting for the decision of Governor John Lynch.

To add further to Lim’s slew of wrong facts, New York presently recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, while its State Assembly has recently passed a same-sex marriage bill on May 12, and is now pending a vote on the bill by the Senate [2] .

Lim has also unashamedly failed to distinguish between several other facts. Gov. David Paterson’s unpopularity has nothing to do with his support for the same sex marriage bill. His drop in popularity was due to the fact that voters disapproved of his secret budget negotiations, opposed pay raises, and decision to layoff 8900 state workers [3] .

I plead that the Star will review Lim’s articles for accurate reporting. Through this one article alone, it is clear that Lim has manipulated facts, made sweeping assumptions and biased reporting. Although I recognize that it is an Oped column, the article is misleading because it is written in an authoritative voice. I suggest Lim writes hir opinions as opinions and not try to veil hir conservative values as a news story.

Sincerely,
Student
Boston, MA
______________________________________________________________

[1] http://www.stlbeacon.org/nation/dolan_to_shepherd_new_york_catholics
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/new.york.same.sex.marriage/
[3] http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/24/news/economy/ny_state_layoffs/index.htm

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.”

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.

I came out of the cinema and upon realizing what had just happened, I froze in my tracks. “Oh wow, our book was just autographed by a S&M top hustler!” Rewind.

Richard Berkowitz is a controversial man. An activist and author, he and two friends, Michael Callen and Dr. Jo Sonnabend, can be credited for bringing about the discussion surrounding “responsible behavior” when having sex. Featured in the biopic documentary “Sex Positive”, released in March 2008, Richard oscillates between headstrong and anxious during interviews with the filmmaker. “I really feel uncomfortable. This feels like a 50 year-old man telling how he got his dick sucked in his younger days,” he said interspersedly with comments about “Everybody just used the term “safe sex” without acknowledging the work we have done.”

During the raging AIDS epidemic of the early 80s, Richard and his friend, Michael Callen, wrote in the Native that gay men should cut back on their “promiscuous” behavior so as to reduce the probability of getting infected with the disease. Through continued and repeated infection and exposure to casual sex, a person’s rate of AIDS infection becomes higher. “It’s time we take responsibility for our behavior,” Richard said. Many gay people at the time found Richard’s sentiments distasteful. Larry Kramer, whose book was nominated for a Pulitzer, engaged directly in debate with Richard and Callen on national TV.

The debates get a bit more technical. Richard, Callen, and Sonnabend were proponents of the multifactorial theory of AIDS infection whereas Kramer’s camp believed that a single agent, i.e. a virus, is responsible for the disease. Today, there is enough scientific evidence to show that a specific virus, HIV, is responsible for AIDS – although links between CMV and AIDS are still being researched on (cf. The Lancet, 2004). However, it was Richard and Callen who tried to look for a solution to counter the infection.

As the debates raged on, Richard and his camp were accused of being sex negative. This was despite the fact that Richard, as a part-time job, was a paid-for-hire S&M top. He and his team began discussing S&M and how through safe behavior, the probability of passing on the infection is low. This is when they started writing the first manual to safer sex: “How to Have Sex in an Epidemic”. It is a guide on having safer sex using protection or engaging in behavior that does not transfer bodily fluids from one to another. Richard continued advertising his services, emphasizing on “safe”: “Safe S&M Top” was his classified ad header.

The documentary ended with a question posed to several activists, healthcare practitioners, and a porn star: Have you heard of Richard Berkowitz? Many of them answered in the negative.

The documentary, however, has done a great job in introducing to us Richard Berkowitz. In an era of huge debates and personalities surrounding the AIDS epidemic, Daryl Wein, the filmmaker has seamlessly weaved several narratives into a huge emotionally-charged and affecting fabric of the earlier half of the 80s.

At the end of the movie, it turns out Richard was watching the documentary with us. He stood up for a QnA session. “Many young gay and lesbian people today think of AIDS as a developing country problem, but we forget that there are many out there who still live through each day with AIDS,” he said of what young people can do in this age to raise awareness and advocacy for the issue. “Too few gay youth are engaged at all with the issue of AIDS.” But he ended on an optimistic note and one that recognizes and appreciates the tireless efforts of activists and scientists before us: “We always still talk about 1% infection rates, and prevalence and what not. But sometimes I think it’s time we pat a gay or lesbian youth on their back and say, “Good job!”"

To watch the trailer and several snippets from the biopicumentary, visit Richard Berkowitz.com. His book, semi-autobiographical, semi-thoughts and opinion, will also be re-released. Page through Stayin’ Alive: The Invention of Safe Sex.

Just when I thought our television had turned over a new leaf.

I should have known of course that there’ll always be certain boundaries drawn, especially around supposedly sensitive issues such as homosexuality. Still, when they showed Brothers and Sisters on our cable tv more than a year back, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Whoa. A regularly recurring main character who happens to be gay on our national tv? Hell, that’s progress if anything.

Maybe our idiotic censors can change.

Still when week after week they continued showing our gay protagonist Kevin Walker’s brief dalliances with his coterie of male admirers ( at least before he settled down with Scotty ), I found myself almost applauding the seemingly enlightened censorship board.

Scotty : Awww, Look, our proposal scene is coming on!
Kevin : Where? Bloody hell. Did they just erase it?

Of course – as usual – I spoke a lil too soon in praise of the scissor-happy censors. Since I guessed that tonight would be the infamous proposal scene that Kevin makes to his partner Scotty, I figured I might as well take a look. As a measure of support if nothing else. But just right at the end before the gay proposal, the episode came to an abrupt end with a clever segue nto a preview of the coming week’s delights.

Yup.  Our diligent censors had been busy at work. Helpful lil buggers. Obviously talk of gay marriage turned out to far too much for them. Two men committing to each other must have blown their little minds. Shouldn’t have expected much from folks who’d censor the word ‘gay’ from the Oscars.

So for all my fellow countrymen – at least those who aren’t as blindly bigoted as our homophobic censors – just take a look at what actually happened at the end of the episode.

Makes me wonder how they’re gonna play out the episode next week which centers on Kevin and Scotty’s marriage. Will the overeager scissor-happy censors slice and dice again? Tune in next week.

There are countless ironies in life. The fact that our religious institutions are more concerned with persecuting lovers than haters, for example. Or the fact that as a society, we are more comfortable with the idea of men holding guns than holding hands.

To the list, I want to add: the fact that our society’s patriarchal, misogynist notions of female sexuality can be illuminated by, of all things, a piece of legislation that has long been slammed as discriminatory against male homosexuals.

The article on Penal Code 377 reprinted at the bottom was written for Malaysiakini some time back in March against the backdrop of the re-emergence of Chua Soi Lek’s (oral) sex tapes.

For the uninitiated, Penal Code 377, also known as Malaysia’s ‘Unnatural Sex’ Law, contains a total of seven sections (see appendix at the bottom). Of these, four of them – covering bestiality, non-consensual oral and anal sex, non-consensual vaginal sex by foreign object, and inciting a child to gross indecency, I believe, rightly criminalise what are universally agreed to be violent and ethically wrong acts.

The other three, which cover consensual oral and anal sex, as well as ill-defined ‘gross indecency’ are more dubious, The former has been slammed by the international human rights community for violating sexuality rights in the context of consent and privacy, while the latter has been criticized for creating a lacuna for selective persecution of what is deemed as non-heterogeneous behaviour.

While the homophobic nature of the code has been long discussed, I will focus on another curious aspect of the legislation: sections 377A and 377B, which cover consensual oral and anal sex, criminalise only the (obviously male) penetrator but not the penetratee, whether male or female. In other words, the legislation criminalises men and only men.

Thus, there is not a single section in the entire code which criminalises any form of consensual lesbian intercourse: female-to-female oral sex, anilingus, fingering/fisting, tribadism, vaginal and anal penetration by foreign object etc.

At first sight, this may seem to be a cause for celebration for horny lesbians nationwide. Upon closer inspection, this seemingly heaven-bestowed oversight in our legislation sheds light on our patriarchal notions of human sexuality.

Penal Code 377 was drafted by the British colonialists with the aim of cracking down on male-to-male sodomy. The draftsmen, however, never considered including sections prohibiting lesbian sex because lesbian sex, the only form of sex not involving males, was not even considered to be ‘proper intercourse’ then.

One and half century since then, the notion that sex is an inherently penis-driven activity, propagated by a society that is dominated by heterosexual males, continues to permeate our social consciousness. Today, the term ‘oral sex’ is still associated with fellatio (insertion of penis into mouth) by default according to popular belief when by definition, it covers both fellatio and cunnilingus (stimulation of vagina with mouth or tongue). Coitus (penetration of vagina by penis) is still considered to be the ideal form of sexual intercourse over all other forms of sexual intercourse. Orgasm is still defined in the context of the male experience.

I would like to think that it is time to break such long-held notions, for two good reasons. Firstly, so that female sexuality is no longer regarded as inferior or less significant to male sexuality; a prerequisite to gender equality and upholding sexuality rights. It is time to recognise that females too, are equal participants in sexual experience and that yes, penises are not indispensable in the gratifying achievement of female orgasm.

Secondly, when we are finally able to recognise consensual lesbian sex as a legitimate form of intercourse, we shall then also be able to criminalise female-to-female rape and sexual violence, which I believe has been long gravely dismissed as unlikely events in our society.

Oral, anal sex: Controversial acts, but should they be illegal?

Gabrielle Chong

News that the police are contemplating charging Chua Soi Lek for oral sex one whole year after the emergence of his sex tape may have surprised many people.

However, the realisation that both consensual oral and anal sex are illegal in Malaysia will surprise even more people, as these acts are not widely assumed to be criminal.

Under sections 377(A) and 377(B) of the Penal Code, anyone who commits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” by inserting the penis into the mouth or anus of another person is liable to whipping and imprisonment of up to 20 years.

Penetration must also be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.

However, the code only affects the male person who is penetrating another person, while the male or female person whose mouth or anus is penetrated will not be subject to any form of penalty.

Under section 377(C) of the Penal Code, anyone who commits the same act without the consent of the other person is liable to the same penalty, with the exception that he or she will be subjected to a minimum of five years in jail.

Writer and activist Tan Beng Hui, feels that section 377 is obsolete and should be repealed. “The operative word in the code is not consent, but the act of oral and anal sex itself. It is its perceived unnaturalness that is the basis for the harsh maximum sentence regardless of consent.

“Or course, non-consensual anal and oral sex are rightly criminalised, but these provisions should fall under provisions for rape instead.

“How lawmakers deemed it appropriate to include them under an ‘unnatural sex law’ is telling of how the emphasis is on viewing these as acts ‘against the order of nature’ rather than acts that involve violence and coercion,” she said.

Archaic law?

The code, drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860 with the intention of prohibiting sodomy, was later incorporated into the laws of many former British colonies, including Malaysia.
But while the original code was abolished in the UK in the late seventies and later in several other former colonies, the Malaysian version has never been amended.

On this, Tan commented, “It is a legislation that was introduced into the country under British rule, so it is curious that we not only continue to abide by it but defend its provisions as being in line with Asian values.”

Across the Causeway, section 377, which criminalises oral and anal sex, was repealed in October 2007.

However, section 377(A) of the Penal Code, which prohibited acts of gross indecency between men, was retained in the backdrop of public commotion and heated debate between both proponents and opponents of the code.

The retention meant that oral and anal sex was finally legalised for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

“They (homosexuals) live their lives. That’s their personal space. But the tone of the overall society, I think, remains conventional, it remains straight and we want it to remain so,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said during the Parliament debate before a petition to repeal section 377(A) was rejected.

Nevertheless, the Home Affairs Ministry in Singapore has promised not to actively persecute anyone under section 377(A) of the Penal Code and prosecutions under that section have been rare.

However, in Malaysia, there has been little or almost no awareness on, much less opposition to, section 377 despite the fact that most human rights groups and activists strongly believe that the code violates the right of adults to sexual relationships within a private environment and the presence of consent.

Social taboos

Feminist activist and researcher Jac Kee admits, “Section 377 of the Penal Code has rarely been tackled by local human rights organisations.

“Although the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) has considered taking steps to push for reform, it has been occupied with other pressing matters, especially laws pertaining to rape, divorce and issues involving women’s rights.

“However, much of the lack of activity on reforming section 377 of the Penal Code is also due to paucity of space and willingness for proper discourse on sexuality rights in Malaysia.”

Agreeing that the taboo around sex was an obstacle to abolishing section 377, Tan added that a culture of fear has also hindered Malaysians from raising difficult questions.

“So long as these two obstacles remain, any effort to repeal the section will be difficult because we cannot speak honestly about our views, and hence cannot consider the full range of implications related to sexual matters.

“A third obstacle is related to our inability to separate matters of personal morality versus public morality. What happens within the confines of private life, so long as no rights are being violated, should not be regulated by the state,” she said.

“We should also ask ourselves what it means when the two times Section 377 has received any publicity has been in relation to politicised cases; the first involving Anwar Ibrahim, and now relating to Chua Soi Lek.

“It is not a coincidence that this law has been used to discredit both these men given how it is premised on the demonisation of sexual practices outside intercourse between a man and a woman within the institution of marriage.”

She also noted that a shift in Malaysian mentality towards respecting the privacy and lifestyle choices of individuals was needed before any substantial reforms in laws pertaining to sexuality rights could be attempted.

In 2007, a parliamentary select committee reviewed Section 377 of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. However, no amendments were made to the former.

Respecting the tenets of religion

According to Honey Tan, social activist with Empower, two recommendations to amend Section 377 were also shot down during the United Nations universal periodic review held in Geneva last month.

The review is held every three years to draft recommendations to improve human rights protection in member states.

The Malaysian delegation, led by Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, Rastam Mohd Isa, noted that it was right to say that the Malaysian Penal Code criminalised oral and anal sex, adding that such sexual conduct was against the tenets of not only Islam, but other major religions in Malaysia.

Chile recommended that Malaysia eliminate standards in the penal code which allow for discrimination against persons on grounds of sexual orientation, while France recommended that Malaysia respect the rights of all individuals, including homosexuals, by de-penalising homosexuality.

However, the Malaysian delegation reported that both suggestions did not enjoy the support of all Malaysians. Hence, it is safe to say that the ban on oral sex and anal sex will probably stay for a long time yet.

Appendix:

Penal Code 377

s(1) 377 – Bestiality
Voluntary carnal intercourse with an animal. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to fine and whipping)

s(2) 377A – Carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Penetration is to be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section.

s(3) 377B – Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature
Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be subjected to punishment. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to fine and whipping)

s(4) 377C – Committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature without consentCarnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to whipping, minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment)

s(5) 377CA – Sexual connection by object
Sexual connection with another person by the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of the other person without the other person’s consent. However, this section does not extend to where the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of any person if carried out for medical or law enforcement purposes. (Maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment, liable to whipping and fine)

s(6) 377D – Gross indecency
Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. (Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment)

s(7) 377E – Inciting a child to an act of gross indecencyAny person who incites a child under the age of 14 years to any act of gross indecency with him or another person. (Maximum penalty: 5 years imprisonment, liable to whipping)