Hasta La Gadget!

Joseph N. Goh, Monash University Malaysia

Originally scheduled for release on March 16 in Malaysian cinemas, Walt Disney Studio’s live-action version of Beauty and the Beast was initially banned in the country due an outcry over a short scene of two men dancing.

Despite continuing objections from conservative NGOs that this “gay scene” goes against Malaysian values, the film will now be screened uncut. Many Malaysians believe that the country’s Film Censorship Board relented in part due to tourism minister Nazri Aziz’s comment that the ban was “ridiculous.”

Objections from certain sectors of Malaysian society to the film neatly illustrates both the fear and lack of understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the country. A prevailing moral panic means gay men and male-to-female transgender people have been particular targets of discrimination, conversion therapies and even violence.

Opposition to LGBT people is part of a larger framework of hostility towards and the policing of Malaysians who are considered immoral.

Secular and religious police have raided hotels in search of unmarried Muslim couples who are considered guilty of khalwat – close proximity between unwedded people. And sex workers have been routinely rounded up and sent to police stations for illegal activities.

Criminalizing Sexualities

Homosexual identities are not illegal in Malaysia, but there are secular and religious laws that criminalize sexual expressions between men, such as the Malaysian penal code and Syariah (Islamic) laws. Some sections of the the Code outlaw oral and penetrative sex, for instance. And while such laws are applicable to all citizens, they have targeted primarily gay men.

Former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim is probably the most prominent Malaysian to be prosecuted for homosexual acts. He has been subject to a series of arrests, convictions and acquittals since 1998.

In 2015, he began a five-year sentence on the charge of sodomy. Although Malaysian academics argue that these are obviously political ploys against him, Anwar’s case is symbolic of the vulnerability of gay men in Malaysia.

Male-to-female transgender people – known as mak nyah in Malay – are often seen as men who shamelessly imitate women. Mak nyahs often experience social stigma familial rejection and workplace discrimination, which causes some of them to resort to sex work for a living.

Apart from the penal code and Syariah laws, mak nyahs can also be arrested under the 1955 Minor Offence Act for indecent behavior. Malaysian transgender activists, such as Sulastri Ariffin, have shared stories of ill treatment in public areas as well as in prison.

And although the police have denied it, the recent murder of transgender woman Sameera Krishnan is seen by some in the LGBT community as a hate crime against mak nyahs.

The role of religious belief

The vulnerability of LGBT people in Malaysia particularly affects Muslims and those at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.

Organized religions continue to play an important role in the daily lives of Malaysians. LGBT citizens have been labelled as enemies of Islam and compared to terrorist groups in the Muslim-majority country.

Mainstream Christian churches have stated that they do not condone violence against LGBT people, but they continue to resort to the Bible to condemn homosexual expressions as going against divine law.

Other religious groups in Malaysia have mostly been silent on the issue, but the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism has officially spoken against discrimination and violence towards LGBT people.

Largely unprotected

In 2012, deputy minister in the prime minister’s department, Mashitah Ibrahim, stated that the Malaysian Federal Constitution does not provide protection for LGBT people. And during the signing of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration at the 21st ASEAN Summit in 2012, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak deliberately excluded LGBT rights on the premise that the country has its own moral norms and values.

In 2016 Human Rights Watch noted the steady increase of human rights violations in Malaysia. Topping the list were curtailments of free speech and freedom of expression, police abuse, detention without trial, human trafficking and the lack of protection for LGBT people. In fact, the human rights NGO considers Malaysia one of the worst places in the world for transgender people.

The fight for LGBT rights in Malaysia has faced and continues to encounter various forms of resistance. Islamic federal and state government agencies have even claimed that sexual minority rights do not constitute human rights.

Efforts to foster community spirit among LGBT Malaysians have also been prohibited, as evident in the banning of the sexuality rights festival Seksualiti Merdeka in the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur in 2011.

In short, LGBT rights do not officially exist in Malaysia.

Fighting the good fight

Nevertheless, LGBT activists continue to fight for recognition. Grassroots organization Justice for Sisters, for instance, is actively advocating for the rights of Malaysian transgender men and women.

Community-based organizations such as the PT Foundation and Kuala Lumpur AIDS Support Services Society deal mainly with issues of sexual health. But they also recognize the need to educate government departments and the general population on related issues of gender and sexuality.

Numerous groups in the country are discreetly creating strategies on how best to canvass for the rights of LGBT people. For many of them, working behind the scenes is the safest and most effective way.

Malaysian LGBT activists have also linked up with their international counterparts. In 2011, the ASEAN Civil Society Conference and ASEAN People’s Forum was held in Kuala Lumpur.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus organized workshops and set up booths to educate the masses on LGBT rights. Many Malaysian LGBT activists were involved in these events, and took the opportunity to speak to politicians about their issues, needs and concerns.

Despite these efforts, LGBT rights in the country continue to face uncertainty, disapproval and opposition. Activists experience a certain measure of the good – a sense of community and camaraderie – as they work towards their goals. But they are also subject to a lot of the bad and the ugly in their fight for the legal, social, cultural and religious recognition and appreciation of LGBT people. They too are, at the end of the day, Malaysians in their own right.

Joseph N. Goh, Lecturer in Gender Studies, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

LOS ANGELES ― California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Wednesday that he will continue to seek the death penalty against Scott Dekraai, a man who pleaded guilty to killing eight people in 2011, even though the case has been tainted by misconduct from prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies.

“After weighing the evidence, considering the law and the responsibilities of my office, I have concluded that the appropriate course of action is to seek the death penalty in this case,” Becerra said in a statement.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals ejected the entire Orange County District Attorney’s Office from the Dekraai case in 2015. He found the office’s use of jailhouse informants constituted egregious misconduct. After Goethals’ decision, which a California appeals court affirmed, the state attorney general’s office assumed responsibility for Dekraai’s case. 

The Justice Department announced in December that it was investigating allegations that the informant program used by the sheriff’s and district attorney’s offices had violated defendants’ rights. 

Many legal experts are unnerved by the decision to seek the harshest punishment available against Dekraai, considering the uncovered and alleged misconduct in the case. 

“Given the serious improprieties in the handling of this case ― including the disqualification of the District Attorney’s office for egregious misconduct, as found by the trial court and Court of Appeal ― it is very disturbing that they are seeking the death penalty,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of law at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.

Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University who has written at length about prosecutorial misconduct, said he was “deeply troubled” by Becerra’s decision to pursue the death penalty.

“The fact that a different prosecution team ― state, and not the county ― is pursuing it does not remove the taint,” Medwed said. “Before pursuing the ultimate penalty, one hopes prosecutors are extremely confident in the integrity of the underlying evidence ― with respect to the crime itself and any aggravating factors. It seems far-fetched to have such confidence in a case infected by one of the most egregious informant scandals in the past quarter century.”

Even relatives of the shooting’s victims have pleaded with prosecutors to abandon the death penalty, although OC Weekly reported in December that they are especially concerned with ending the case quickly. 

Goethals has also called for new evidentiary hearings in Dekraai’s case, partly because it appears some information had been manipulated and/or destroyed and partly because of allegations that the sheriff still has not turned over all documents related to the informant program.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=5881013ee4b0e3a735679ce2,56cf727ce4b03260bf761e66,5852ff39e4b039044707b888,58139936e4b0390e69d003c7

In his 2015 ruling, Goethals said a pair of sheriff’s deputies “either intentionally lied or willfully withheld information” about the existence of a jail database on informants when they testified in the Dekraai case. 

He also admonished the district attorney’s office for failing to turn over records pertaining to Fernando Perez, an especially prolific informant at the center of Dekraai’s case. Dekraai’s attorney, assistant public defender Scott Sanders, has argued that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies intentionally planted Perez next to Dekraai in order to glean incriminating information from him ― a violation of his constitutional rights ― and then concealed that effort. 

Becerra’s office did not directly inform Dekraai’s defense team of its decision to continue to seek the death penalty, Sanders told The Huffington Post. He said his defense team was “very disappointed” to hear the news. 

“However, as will begin to show very soon, the misconduct that has poisoned this litigation is far more extensive than even known to the defense a few months ago,” he said. “We look forward fully adjudicating all of the issues relevant to this case.”

Sanders has filed a series of blockbuster motions to unearth evidence that a secret, tainted snitch network has for decades existed in county jails. He alleges that county prosecutors and police have violated multiple defendants’ rights by illegally obtaining, and sometimes withholding, evidence received from jail informants. 

His discoveries have led to the unraveling of multiple murder cases in the county. Some accused murderers have had their sentences vacated.   

It seems far-fetched to have such confidence in a case infected by one of the most egregious informant scandals in the past quarter century.
Daniel Medwed, law professor at Northeastern University

It’s not unusual or illegal for authorities use informants to help bolster cases. But Sanders alleges that in some Orange County cases, informants held recorded and unrecorded conversations with inmates who were already represented by lawyers, which violates an inmate’s right to counsel. Prosecutors then allegedly took damning evidence gathered by the informants and presented it in court, while withholding evidence that could have been beneficial to the defense — which is a violation of a defendant’s right to due process. 

It remains unclear exactly how many cases in the county may have been affected by tainted informant evidence. Sanders has argued that every case involving a jailhouse informant in Orange County over the last 30 years deserves to be re-examined.

And the scandal continues to grow. Just last year, Goethals made public 242 pages of notes, known as the “special handling log.” The log reveals the inner workings of the county’s informant program and appears to contradict testimony given by multiple deputies. The district attorney’s office conceded that the log contradicts statements made by multiple witnesses, including several members of law enforcement who had testified during hearings in the Dekraai case. 

The pages represent just a fraction of the total 1,157-page database, still largely under seal, which was used between 2008 and 2013 and maintained by sheriff’s special handling deputies. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

WASHINGTON ― As the House investigation into ties between President Donald Trump’s associates and the Russian government unravels into a partisan debacle potentially tainted by the White House, the heads of the Senate intelligence panel have a message for the public: Ignore the mess in the lower chamber and leave the serious business to us.

In the first news conference together since announcing their probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Senate intelligence committee chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and vice chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) patted each other on the backs, praised one another’s commitment to truth over politics, and assured reporters that their investigation was moving along just fine.

“Mark and I work hand in hand on this, and contrary to maybe popular belief, we’re partners to see that this is completed and that we’ve got a product at the end of the day that you can have bipartisanship in supporting,” Burr told reporters on Wednesday.

The duo offered an update of the committee’s work ― but were careful to only share enough information to assure the public that their probe was proceeding smoothly.

The committee received an “unprecedented amount of documents” from the intelligence community, which were compiled into three binders, Burr said. Staffers are expected to finish reviewing the documents in the coming weeks. In addition to looking at ties between Trump surrogates and Moscow, Senate investigators are reviewing the process by which the intelligence community concluded that the Russian government had interfered in the election in an attempt to help Trump win. The chairman and vice chairman have compiled a list of 20 individuals they plan to interview and have scheduled times for five, they said, and are willing to use subpoenas to bring in unwilling individuals if necessary.

It was clear that Burr and Warner sought to draw a stark contrast between their work and the efforts of their House counterparts, where a dispute between chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and the Democrats on the committee has played out in an unusually public way.

Earlier this month, Nunes alleged that Trump surrogates ― and possibly the president himself ― were indirectly surveilled during the final months of the Obama administration. He briefed the press and Trump on his revelations, but has yet to disclose the identity of his source to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the panel. In the days that followed, there were indications that Nunes’ gambit may have occurred in conjunction with the White House. Schiff has called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee’s investigation into links between the Trump team and Moscow, but the chairman has refused to step aside. The House panel’s work has ground to halt amid the chaos.

The Senate intelligence committee has long viewed itself as more competent than its counterpart in the lower chamber. And amid plummeting confidence in the House’s ability to investigate the Trump-Russia matter, Burr and Warner made a deliberate effort on Wednesday to assure the public that they were getting along great and to distance themselves from the trouble in the House.

Before answering questions from reporters, Burr set a ground rule: no questions about the House investigation. Asked if he would ever hide the identity of a source from Warner, Burr joked, “He usually knows my sources before I do.”

Throughout the news conference, the two senators sometimes exchanged looks at one another before answering questions to which their responses might differ. It was clear that each lawmaker was making a concerted effort not to say anything in public that would upset the other.

The chumminess between the two Senate intel heads obscured the somewhat bumpy start of the committee’s investigation. In January, Burr, who was listed as a Trump adviser during the campaign, said it was outside of the committee’s purview to look at ties between Trump surrogates and the Russian government. The unilateral declaration about the scope of the committee’s probe sparked concerns among Democrats that Burr would hamstring the investigation. Within hours, Burr appeared to have backed down. The committee released a bipartisan statement the following day clarifying that their probe would look at links between Moscow and political campaigns.

But on Wednesday, Warner was eager to dispel any suggestion that Burr was unfit to oversee the investigation because of his past ties to Trump. “I have confidence in Richard Burr that we, together with members of our committee, are going to get to the bottom of this,” he said, resting his hand on Burr’s shoulder.  

Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser Jared Kushner is the only individual who has been publicly confirmed as a person of interest for Senate investigators. The list could also include former Trump adviser Carter Page, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, political operative Roger Stone, and officials who worked on the intelligence community’s January assessment that concluded Russia meddled in last year’s election on Trump’s behalf.

Closed-door interviews may start as early as next week, Burr said.

The committee heads declined to describe in detail the process by which staffers view the secret documents, except to rule out the use of a shared secure computer drive. “That didn’t have a happy ending,” Burr said, referring to a 2014 feud between the committee’s Democrats and the CIA after it was revealed that the agency spied on investigators who were working on a report on the CIA’s torture program.

The intelligence community has been “for the most part” very cooperative in turning over classified information, Warner said. The committee has requested information that goes beyond what is usually provided to the so-called Gang of Eight, a select group of lawmakers who are privy to sensitive information, he continued.

It is unusual for the Senate overseers of the intelligence community to request raw intelligence data, Burr said. “We are in a very rare time, and we will test some people to see if, in fact, their commitment is 100 percent correct,” he said of intelligence officials.

The committee will hold its first investigation-related hearing since the inauguration on Thursday. It will focus on tactics used by the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election and ways it could be repeated in future elections in the U.S. and Europe. No current government officials are scheduled to testify. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

RICHMOND, Va. ― When Kathy Tran and her husband found out their fourth child was due on Inauguration Day, they were excited. Tran, the daughter of Vietnamese refugees and a workforce development specialist, assumed her preferred candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton, would win.

“It was fantastic,” she recalled. “How apropos that our baby would be due on Inauguration Day!”

But after Donald Trump’s victory, the impending birth took on a different significance as the couple wondered whether a country of immigrants was turning its back on newcomers. They decided to name their daughter Elise Minh Khanh, a name heavy with symbolism. “Elise” was for “Ellis Island,” where Tran’s husband’s Jewish ancestors arrived in the United States. “Minh Khanh,” which means “bright bell” in Vietnamese, references the the Liberty Bell.

“Her name means to us, ‘Ring the bells of liberty and champion opportunity for all,’” Tran explained.

But giving her baby a poetic name was not enough.

“I could not just give such an aspirational name to my baby and expect that she rise to the occasion and create that future for herself and her generation,” she said. “So I had to jump in myself.”

Tran, 38, decided to run for a Virginia House of Delegates seat representing the swath of northern Virginia suburbs where she lives. She is hoping to unseat Dave Albo, the 42nd district’s Republican incumbent. Voters in the district opted for Clinton by a 20-point margin, and she hopes that turning out those voters will be enough to dislodge Albo after nearly 24 years in office.

Tran is one of dozens of House of Delegates candidates who gathered over coffee and Jimmy John’s sandwiches for the Virginia Democratic House Caucus’ new candidate training seminar in downtown Richmond on March 18.

Trump’s election has inspired an unusually large number of Democrats to run for Virginia’s House of Delegates: 74 candidates have lined up to run in 47 districts currently held by Republicans. In 2015, Democrats mounted general election challenges in just 21 of those districts. The state Democratic Party said this year’s candidate training seminar was likely the biggest it has ever had.

Democrats hold all five of Virginia’s statewide elected offices ― governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and two U.S. senators. They also have a near-majority in the state Senate. But right now, they control just 34 of 100 seats in the House of Delegates. Democrats admit that the prospects of retaking the chamber are extremely unlikely in 2017, but they are optimistic about making significant gains.

They are also looking ahead to 2018, when there could be several special elections if the federal courts order a redrawing of some of the state’s gerrymandered legislative districts.

“If you can pick up a lot of seats this time, and then next time you’ve got some new districts which are more competitive, you can make a run at the majority in 2018 with the right set [of candidates],” said Delegate David Toscano, a Charlottesville lawyer and the Democratic leader in the Virginia House.

More importantly, as one of just two states with legislative elections this November ― the other is New Jersey, where Democrats already control the legislature ― Virginia is a vital testing ground for Democrats hoping to ride the anti-Trump tide.

Things look good for Virginia Democrats, at least on paper. Clinton won the state handily in November, and Republicans currently hold 17 state House districts where she won.

A pair of special elections for open state House seats since the general election have not been particularly telling one way or another. In January, Republicans held on to the Virginia Beach-area 85th district, improving slightly on Trump’s 1-point margin there. Democrats kept control of a seat in Richmond’s solidly Democratic 71st district in February. 

“We’re the first out of the box in the post-Trump era, and we’ve got these two trends that are helping us: One is how chaotic D.C. is, and [the other is] how positive the state has been run under Democrats,” Toscano said.

Many of these eager new Democratic candidates will first have to win primary races in June, including Tran. Her opponent in the primary is retired social worker and veteran civil rights activist Nelfred “Tilly” Blanding.

Blanding, 66, broke into gospel-style song in introducing herself to the room of fellow candidates at the training seminar, and referred to the Republican incumbent as “Lucifer.”

Her journey as an activist began when she was a teenager in Orangeburg, South Carolina, where she stood down threats of violence to protest racial segregation at local businesses.

Like Tran, Blanding decided to run for office because of Trump’s election ― and particularly because the Affordable Care Act could be repealed. She protested in the U.S. Senate in late January and was arrested with fellow members of the Service Employees International Union.

“I’m a faith-filled person. I feel like God directs my life. I’ve been on the battlefield all my life,” Blanding said. After the election, she said, “I thought, ‘Okay, the battle goes on.’”

Despite an abundance of Democratic candidates ― and thus, lots of upcoming primaries ― party leaders said they are not concerned about internal divisions. Blanding and Tran, for example, have already said they will happily vote for the primary winner in the general election.

Toscano said he has seen few signs that other contests will prove less amicable ― so far, they lack the bitterness or ideological divisions of the 2016 presidential primary.

“I don’t see it as much as you would think,” he said.

Toscano’s own race seems to be an exception, however. He faces a primary challenge from Ross Mittiga, a 28-year-old University of Virginia instructor and ardent Bernie Sanders supporter who derides Toscano as a “corporate-backed” Democrat.

Mittiga complained last week that the Virginia Democratic Party was trying to obstruct his challenge by withholding access to the state’s voter files. (The party said it does not share those materials with primary candidates challenging incumbent Democrats.)

If you can pick up a lot of seats this time, and then next time you’ve got some new districts which are more competitive, you can make a run at the majority in 2018.
David Toscano (D), Virginia state delegate

The Democrats gathered for the candidate training were more interested in taking on Republicans, however.  

Trump’s election also gave 34-year-old Schuyler VanValkenburg the push to run for office. The father of three and middle-school government teacher had long considered challenging Jimmie Massie, the 72nd district’s five-term Republican incumbent. Massie’s time in office made him less accountable to his constituents, VanValkenburg said. (Hours after VanValkenburg spoke to The Huffington Post, Massie announced his retirement.)

And while Trump may be a primary motivator for many of these candidates, they know they need to localize the issues to win state House seats. VanValkenburg, said he is eager to erode the legislature’s appetite for socially conservative initiatives ― like a so-called bathroom bill enabling anti-transgender discrimination that died in committee in January. He is campaigning on protecting voting rights, improving access to health care and making higher education more affordable, noting that Virginia’s public universities are among the most expensive state schools in the country.

“Virginia doesn’t like President Trump,” said VanValkenburg. “There’s a lot of kind of passion in the area. We just have to tap it and organize and get the Democratic Party going.”

Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up!

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

When Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler unveiled plans to have at least six electric cars on the market within a decade, it was clearly being conservative. The automaker has announced that it’s accelerating those plans, with over 10 EVs on the road by 202…