Talk:LGBTQ rights in Malaysia

If source required

@Lmharding: When there is a claim in an article that you believe should have a source, it is not appropriate to assume the opposite is true. If there is no source to say, for example, that "penguins can't fly", the needed action is not to change it to "penguins can fly" instead. Along with the options noted in my edit summary, removal of the whole statement could also be considered.

Options:

1. Citation needed tag added to current claim: "yes"
2. Changing current "yes" to "no" along with a supporting source
3. Removing the statement

Your changes here and and here: not the right thing. As the "Yes" has been there next to "Adoption by single people regardless of sexual orientation" ever since that row/label was created and placed into the table in July 2020, it is fair enough that the sole disputant makes the effort to WP:fix the problem they perceive. That's also WP policy.

It constitutes a WP:BOLD edit, which has now been challenged. As such, preferred practice is to discuss and not reinsert as you have been doing. As you apparently feel my posts are "nonsensical", I invite you to civilly ask me for any clarification you may need. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Should "Islamic courts" be wikified to Syariah Court?

Apokrif (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2023

"LGBT people in Malaysia face severe discrimination and challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents." "add However, multiple members of Malaysia's queer community have spoken out in outrage against the band, citing the incident to have caused further harm to the community by dragging them under further scrutiny from the government. under "He also expressed that Healy is no white saviour for showing solidarity to the community as "queer rights are a universal human right, not a western one". in the History section. As the subject in matter concerns and affects Malaysian queer people, it is only fair to include their perspectives of the situation as well." 115.132.47.203 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This request is really difficult to follow. I believe you may have used quotation marks in places that are in error, which makes it all-but-impossible to tell what should be altered/added/removed, and where to make the changes. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Why is homosexuality in Malaysia a crime?

Homosexuality is illegal in Malaysia. It is a crime and it is punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment in the country. Therefore, there are no protections for LGBT rights in Malaysia.

Homosexual behavior is banned in Malaysia. The maximum punishment for homosexuality in the country is 20 years of imprisonment. 2603:7000:B500:5D4:3C33:2A3F:A634:7B (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the two unenforceable hudud law in Kelantan & Terengganu

@Pineapplethen: Greetings, it is in my opinion that the two unenforceable hudud law in Kelantan (ie: Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015) and Terengganu (ie: Syariah Criminal Offence (Hudud and Qisas) Terengganu Enactment 2002) should not be put in the "Legislation" section, but instead in the "History" section only.

By including those unenforceable hudud law in the "Legislation" section, readers may confuse those hudud laws with the currently in force shariah law as the same law. The placement of those paragraphs about hudud law may have also affect the sentence flow and coherence of the article, as the readers may feel like the article has made a sudden turn of topic mid-way.

It's also in my opinion that the "Legislation" section should only be reserved for laws that are currently in force, or was at one point in time enforceable (eg: the provisions annulled by the Federal Court in Nik Elin and Iki Putra Mubarrak cases).

Additionally, I wish to address the following sentences:

However, following backlash by Sisters in Islam and letter to then Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad, the code remains unenforced amid pressures from the government. In 2015, Kelantan amended this shariah criminal code so that Non-Muslims are fully exempt from the law, however its provisions are still unenforceable due to the limits set in Act 355.

The sentence seems to imply that the unenforceablity can be changed by an executive decision from the federal government, which is not true. The unenforceablity is tied to Act 355 (as you've correctly said so), which can only be changed by the Parliament throught an amendment to Act 355, not by the federal government/Cabinet. A better sentence would be "...Act 355, which bars the hudud law from being enforce, remained unamended/untouched...".

And about the non-Muslim provision part, whether the Kelantan criminal code have exempted non-Muslims from it or not, it is still irrelevant, as shariah law will still remain not applicable to non-Muslim. Even if somehow Act 355 is amended to allow shariah court to trial non-Muslims, the shariah law is still not applicable to non-Muslim because the protection on non-Muslim from being subjected to shariah law is enshrined in the Federal Constitution itself, not by the Kelantan Enactment, nor by Act 355.

...the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam...

— Item 1, List II (State List), Ninth Schedule, Federal Constitution

Wolfiewhite (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)