The November 7 Malaysian high court decision that declared that Negeri Sembilan state religious officials violated the rights of three Malaysian transgender women's eight to dress as woman on is undergoing more analysis as lawyers and religiosophers continue their battle.
The Court of Appeal which decided that Muslim transgender males have the right to cross-dress said the Negri Sembilan religious authorities had failed to prove Islam's position on how those who suffered from gender identity disorder (GID) should dress
--The Malaysian Insider
The Court of Appeal has affirmed that the Negri Sembilan religious enactment violates Articles 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the Federal Constitution on the right to life and liberty, equality, freedom of movement and freedom of expression
This decision affirms the constitution’s position as the supreme law of the land.
-- Center for Independent Journalism directors, Sonia Randhawa and Jac Kee
In a related case the NGO Sisters in Islam is challenging religious authorities in Selangor over a fatwa declaring SIS to be a deviant group.
The fatwa in question against SIS does not define liberalism and religious pluralism, the alleged deviant acts, in declaring the NGO deviant and this may be tantamount to stifling freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. SIS has stressed that they would challenge the process of gazetting the fatwa, not the fatwa itself.
It's a case of science battling religion.
Judge Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, who led the appellate court's three-member bench, said the three Muslims in the case were not "normal males" as they suffered from the disorder, which had been confirmed through psychiatric and psychological tests.
The religious authorities did not rebut the medical evidence, the court said in its written judgment of its decision on November 7 that Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Criminal Enactment violated provisions in the Federal Constitution.
In other words, the Judge declared that a law aimed at cisgender males cannot be applied against transgender women because they are not men.
Judge Hishamudin particularly chastised the Negeri Sembilan mufti who filed an affidavit who claimed that Section 66 was a precept of Islam.
(The appellants' lawyer) makes a pertinent point that the mufti's opinion remarkably fails to address the issue that is crucial for the purpose of the present constitutional challenge: what is the position in Islam as to the appropriate dress code for male Muslims who are sufferers of GID, like the appellants?
--Judge Hishamudin
Muhamad Juzaili Mohd Khamis, Shukor Jani and Wan Fairol Wan Ismail were the appellants in the case to declare Section 66 in the enactment as unconstitutional
Since there waas no evidence that the appellants were insane, Judge Yunus trashed the state legal advisor Ali Dewa's claim that transgender people who behaved and dressed as women were of unsound mind.
Our answer to this is that in the absence of medical evidence, it is absurd and insulting to suggest that the appellants and other transgenders are persons of unsound mind
--Judge Hishamudin
Ali told the court in July that the law should stand, but that the appellants should use the defense that they were mentally incapable of knowing what they did was against the law.
The appellate court in a unanimous ruling has declared that Section 66 of the enactment was void as it violated the constitutional right of freedom of expression, movement and the right to live in dignity and equality.
Hishmudin said that Section 66 directly affected the appellant's right to live in dignity and deprived them of their worth as members of society.
The appellants work as makeup artists but have suffered from "deep-seated discrimination, harassment, and violence" because of their gender non-conformity.
Malaysian Government officials concerned.
The recognition of Islam as the official religion of the Federation should not be interpreted through colonial views.
--Information chief Datuk Dr. Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali
Because apparently science is colonialism.
expressed concern that the ruling would being down the Islamic way of life.
Closer to home a parents' group has petitioned the British Columbia Supreme Court to overturn a Vancouver school board policy which supports transgender students. The policy allows students to be addressed by the name and use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
Xiaofeng Huang, Yuen Cheng Li and Shaohui Li claim the policy violates their children's Charter rights to privacy. Supported by affidavits from nearly 200 parents, they also claim the policy violates the School Act's moral requirements.
The Board is not permitted to allow a single conception of morality to deny or exclude opposed points of view or refuse to acknowledge their existence.. The Board failed to consider morality, as it relates to public decency, as a factor that must be weighed against any other moral factor.Because, you know, the litigants' religious morality and stand that transgender girls are actually immoral boys should trump any other morality.
The measure was supported by all but two trustees, Ken Denike and Sophia Woo. The pair are now running for re-election under the Vancouver First banner after they were expelled from the Non-Partisan Association for suggesting real-estate agents were concerned about the policy's potential negative impact on the enrollment of international students.
Denike says many Chinese-Canadian parents object to the policy.
I think it's appropriate for the parents to challenge the policy this way," he says. "There's a concern that they are not being treated equally. There's a concern that when they go out to public sessions they do not get a fair break and that they're being spoken down to by the professionals.
Because, you know, the "professionals" are using science.
Board chair Patti Bacchus is also running for re-election as a Vision candidate. She says the policy wasn't actually a substantial change to the way transgender students were already being treated. She says the rules simply "codified and clarified" the supports available.
There was a lot of misunderstanding and I think there was actually a lot of fear-mongering that went on. This whole issue is about making students feel safe. It is a critical issue. It is an important issue. It's not just ideological - it's a legal and moral obligation to make sure that all students are accommodated and made to feel safe.
--Bacchus
Including, you know, transgender students.
The petition claims the policy violates the rights of parents, by allowing children to keep their school gender identities confidential. The parents also claim the policy would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to account for the feelings of "non-trans" students.
Some students are uncomfortable with sharing very personal information or private spaces with members of the opposite sex and deeply care about their privacy when using the washroom or change room. The Board never proposed how to accommodate the wishes of students who are uncomfortable.
--the petition
How about uncomfortable students use special gender-neutral facilities?
Parents of transgender students say the policy makes a huge difference.
It's acknowledging who they feel they are. I think it's a very, very sad division that has clearly arisen in our community.
--Jane Duff, who has a 16-year-old transgender son
In the US, of course we have:
Southern Baptists: The World would be better off if transgender people were dead
More from PFLAG Atlanta: Embracing Transgender Equality, Inside and Outside Religious Communities