A Malaysian man has failed in a bid to overturn a ban on sodomy, after a court ruled that the law criminalising the act was constitutional, his lawyer said Tuesday.

A Malaysian man has failed in a bid to overturn a ban on sodomy, after a court ruled that the law criminalising the act was constitutional, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Lawyer Fahri Azzat said the case was the first constitutional challenge against the ban on sodomy in Muslim-majority Malaysia, which is punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment even if between consenting adults.

The legal challenge was launched by Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahaman, 39, who was appealing against his conviction of 60 years in jail for 22 counts of sodomising a 14-year-old boy. He had said the acts were consensual.

“We have argued that this law is wrong and it is unconstitutional because it breaches your rights to privacy and it also creates inequality in terms of gender,” Fahri told AFP.

Fahri said the nation’s highest court had assured the right to privacy in a ruling last year but that the law penalising sodomy breaches this right and “treats homosexuals as potential criminals”.

The Court of Appeal however rejected the defence arguments and upheld the verdict against Abdul Rahim, a city hall worker who was also sentenced to 22 strokes of the cane.

“Are you saying that (homosexuality) among consenting adults is legal? In other words, what happens in the bedroom is none of the government’s business?” judge Suriyadi Halim Omar said in opposing the argument, according to state media.

source: Agence France-Presse (AFP)

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!

Here’s an article that I found extremely interesting and important in reminding us that the movement for equal rights can sometimes be (dangerously) dominated by those of us already in privileged positions, if we are not careful and aware of our own politics when advocating for a certain position. To quote a favorite historian and queer rights activist of mine, Tim McCarthy, who tells a predominantly gay and lesbian audience, “Let’s not throw the trans (or insert any minority part of the LGBTQ community, such as the black, hispanic, asian, low-income, immigrant, etc. LGBTQ community) people under the bus!”

By LZ Granderson
Special to CNN

Editor’s note: LZ Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, and has contributed to ESPN’s Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is the 2009 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award winner for online journalism and the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing.
LZ Granderson says criticism of President Obama by the gay community has gone too far.

LZ Granderson says criticism of President Obama by the gay community has gone too far.

(CNN) — Far from flowing rainbow flags, the sound of Lady Gaga and, quite honestly, white people, stands a nightclub just outside of Wicker Park in Chicago, Illinois, by the name of The Prop House.

The line to get in usually stretches down the block, and unlike many of the clubs in Boystown and Andersonville, this one plays hip-hop and caters to men who may or may not openly identify as gay, but without question are black and proud.

And a good number of them are tired of hearing how the gay community is disappointed in President Obama, because they are not.

In recent weeks, one would have thought the nation’s first black president was also the nation’s biggest homophobe. Everyone from Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black and radio personality Rachel Maddow to Joe Solmonese, the president of Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay advocacy group, seem to be blasting Obama for everything from “don’t ask don’t tell” to Adam Lambert not winning American Idol.

In their minds, Obama is not moving fast enough on behalf of the GLBT community. The outcry is not completely without merit — the Justice Department’s unnerving brief on the Defense of Marriage Act immediately comes to mind. I was upset by some of the statements, but not surprised. (After the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, President Ronald Reagan’s initial handling of AIDS and, more recently, Katrina, there is little that surprises me when it comes to the government and the treatment of its people.)

Still, rarely has criticism regarding Obama and the GLBT community come from the kind of person you would find standing in line at a spot like The Prop House, and there’s a reason for that.

Despite the catchiness of the slogan, gay is not the new black.

Black is still black.

And if any group should know this, it’s the gay community.

Bars such as The Prop House, or Bulldogs in Atlanta, Georgia, exist because a large number of gay blacks — particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community — do not feel a part of the larger gay movement. There are Gay Pride celebrations, and then there are Black Gay Prides.

There’s a popular bar in the heart of the nation’s capital that might as well rename itself Antebellum, because all of the white patrons tend to stay upstairs and the black patrons are on the first floor. Last year at the annual Human Rights Campaign national fundraiser in Washington, D.C. — an event that lasted more than three hours — the only black person to make it on stage was the entertainment.

When Proposition 8 passed in California, white gays were quick to blame the black community despite blacks making up less than 10 percent of total voters and whites being close to 60 percent. At protest rallies that followed, some gay blacks reported they were even hit with racial epithets by angry white participants. Not to split hairs, but for most blacks, the n-word trumps the f-word.

So while the white mouthpiece of the gay community shakes an angry finger at intolerance and bigotry in their blogs and on television, blacks and other minorities see the dirty laundry. They see the hypocrisy of publicly rallying in the name of unity but then privately living in segregated pockets. And then there is the history.

The 40th anniversary of Stonewall dominated Gay Pride celebrations around the country, and while that is certainly a significant moment that should be recognized, 40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people have been through in this country. There are stories some blacks lived through, stories others were told by their parents and stories that never had a chance to be told.

While those who were at Stonewall talk about the fear of being arrested by police, 40 years ago, blacks talked about the fear of dying at the hands of police and not having their bodies found or murder investigated. The 13th Amendment was signed in 1865, and it wasn’t until 1948 that President Harry S Truman desegregated the military. That’s more than an 80-year gap.

Not to be flip, but Miley Cyrus is older than Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That doesn’t mean that the safety of gay people should be trivialized or that Obama should not be held accountable for the promises he made on the campaign trail. But to call this month’s first-ever White House reception for GLBT leaders “too little too late” is akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner. This is one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements — everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.

This lack of perspective is only going to alienate a black community that is still very proud of Obama and is hypersensitive about any criticism of him, especially given he’s been in office barely six months.

If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups — and that is certainly debatable — then the parade of gay people calling Obama a “disappointment” on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn’t help matters either.

Hearing that race matters in the gay community may not be comforting to hear, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of LZ Granderson.

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.

“We are born alone and we die alone, but there is no reason why any of us should live alone in this life… Too many of my gay friends have left this shores because of intolerance. Let’s make a change today.” – Neo Swee Lin (in the video below).

Picture taken from Queerty.com

From the Guardian.

SINGAPORE (AP) — The gay community in tightly controlled Singapore held its first-ever rally Saturday, taking advantage of looser laws on public gatherings to call for equality.

About 2,500 participants wore pink clothing, played music and sang songs at a park known as Speaker’s Corner, said organizer Pink Dot, which represents Singapore’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

“This is a great opportunity for us to make our pitch for the equal treatment of the LGBT community in Singapore,” said Roy Tan, a Pink Dot spokesman.

Singapore’s government has become more tolerant toward gays and lesbians in recent years, but sodomy is still illegal, Tan said.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng told the state-owned New Paper on Friday that gay people “have a place in our society” but warned they must “not assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West.”

The government eased a ban on public demonstrations last year, encouraging Singaporeans to air grievances at Speaker’s Corner as long as they don’t discuss race, language or religion. The government says public discussion of those subjects could enflame passions and create instability in the multiethnic city-state.

Last year, Singaporean investors met at the park after losing money on structured notes issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

I’m sure a great many of you have heard of Singapore’s AWARE fiasco.For those who aren’t, this is why I’m posting this. Some things you should know, okay? THIS IS YOUR CRASH COURSE!

Basically, in April

1) a lot of antigay females of the same church (the homophobic Church of Our Savior) joined a feminist ngo, AWARE..

2) because they felt AWARE was too pro-gay. I wouldn’t say they had womens’ rights as their main concern.

3) They then voted their own people into the Executive Committee, and

4) fired AWARE’s staff and replaced them with fellow church members..

5) which is not the only crap they pulled (more on that later).

I mean, I’d heard of “working for change from within”, but this is “grab everything in your power-hungry fists, NOW”. I cringe just thinking of what damage they wreaked upon the work the feminists usually do with their one selfish power-grab.

You can grab some background from Donkeylicious: Can feminists take back Singapore’s AWARE from antigay church?

After this takeover, an AWARE EOGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) was called for, to take place during 2nd of May, 2009. The aim was to pass a vote of no confidence against the new AWARE leadership (am I the only one reminded of Perak right now?).

A few days before the EOGM was held, a friend of mine posted up this on her blog: Popagandhi: Possibly the most difficult post I have ever written.

Popagandhi is a Singaporean most known for not being in Singapore. She travels so much if there were an honorary degree for researching travel routes, it should go to her. This time around, she writes in response to the AWARE fiasco as, first and foremost, a Christian. You should totally read it.

By the way, yes, the new leadership was voted out in the EOGM. You can read an account and analysis from our dear friends over at Sayoni Speaks: AWARE EOGM, An account and commentary.

To cap it off, there’s an article from The Economist’s website, Singapore’s NGO furore.

Taken unawares

May 7th 2009 | SINGAPORE
From The Economist print edition

Liberals rally to take on the Christian right

A BLOODLESS coup instigated by a septuagenarian “feminist mentor”; a death threat sent to the new president’s husband by a self-proclaimed “jihadist sleeper”; a 3,000-person showdown. The tiny world of Singapore’s usually timid NGOs has never seen anything like it.

In late March a secretive group of conservative Chinese Christian ladies surreptitiously took over the executive council of AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research), an advocacy group that has done much to promote women’s rights. Half of the new council attend the same church. They were jolted into action by AWARE’s alleged pro-gay agenda, particularly in sex-education courses taught at some schools. “Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?” bemoaned Thio Su Mien, their 71-year old matriarch.

Ms Thio’s disciples snatched control from a group of liberals who had served AWARE for years. The conservative new council and the liberal old guard traded barbs, exposing an ideological divide. Critics questioned the new lot’s shady tactics as well as their religious motives.

And so the old guard tabled a no-confidence motion, forcing an extraordinary general meeting. Ahead of it, politicians called for tolerance. And the new council’s pastor, Derek Hong, tried to mobilise support from the pulpit. Rebuked by leaders from a number of religions, he later apologised.

But the damage was done. At the meeting on May 2nd, the new council lost the vote and resigned. The question is why it staged the ill-fated raid in the first place. According to Alex Au, an online commentator, the Christian right will tend to use stealth to achieve its goals, because the discussion of religion is taboo in Singapore. They do not have well-established channels of discourse.

Yet the manner in which this conflict was resolved—through reasoned debate, without government intervention—is reason to cheer, says Braema Mathi, a former AWARE president. On May 7th, however, the government announced that AWARE’s programmes in schools did not conform in all respects to its guidelines and would be suspended.

Mr Au rejoices that the episode saw more people involve themselves in important issues. They are still, however, in a minority. In a survey, 70% of those polled said they did not care about what is going on at AWARE. But then, with Singapore’s trade-dependent economy facing its worst recession in history, most people have more prosaic worries.