Police helping Jais reflection of misplaced priorities - Statement by the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG)

  • Posted on: 4 May 2016
  • By: admin1

The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) questions the need of the decision by the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) to conduct a pilot project which places two police officers and a sergeant at the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) to assist in the enforcement of syariah laws.

We are especially concerned as PDRM is a federal body and the allocation of federal resources for a state religious body reflects grave misplacement of priorities.

While the deployment of police officers at Jais may seem like an effort to increase accountability and professionalism of the religious authorities, this pilot project would likely only focus on the implementation of the Selangor Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment specifically on moral policing, with little attention given to the laws themselves and their impact on our fundamental liberties.

Wouldn’t federal resources be better spent on tackling issues of gender-based violence rather than moral policing?

Uneven Playing Field for Women Lawyers in Malaysia? AWL's Meera Samanther featured on BFM together with UM's Dr. Lai Suat Yan

  • Posted on: 26 April 2016
  • By: admin1

The Baseline Study on the Working Conditions of Male and Female Lawyers in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor conducted by The Association of Women Lawyers, provided a comparative view of the careers and compensation of men and women lawyers here. Factors examined include factors that influence career progression, levels of gender bias, salary levels and the impact of family obligations or having children, among others.

End The Misery of Stateless Children - Goh Siu Lin, AWL President

  • Posted on: 18 April 2016
  • By: admin1

The Association of Women Lawyers refers to the news report on the long-awaited decision of the Home Ministry in granting citizenship to Navin Moorthy under Article 15 of the Federal Constitution.

This is indeed a significant moment for child rights in Malaysia, in line with the spirit and intent of the said Article 15A while upholding Malaysia’s obligations under Article 7 the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child on the right of every child to acquire a nationality.

Federal Court Judgment of S Deepa – Domestic Violence & Child Custody

  • Posted on: 13 February 2016
  • By: Daniella

13th February, 2016

 

The Association of Women Lawyers welcomes the Federal Court’s decision which has reaffirmed the legal position[1] that the civil courts retain sole jurisdiction over the dissolution of a non-muslim marriage.

 

The Federal Court had clarified that upon dissolution of a civil marriage, all ancillary reliefs and consequential orders remained within the exclusive purview of the civil court, including that of custody. The Syariah Court custody order which was made in excess of jurisdiction was thus set-aside.

 

The Federal Court had interviewed the children and following this, the original High Court custody order was varied splitting custody of the 8 year old son to the father and the 11 year old girl to the mother. It was reported that the Federal Court had made such a decision after having taken into account the wishes expressed by the children[2][3].

 

AWL's Press Statement in respect of the Court of Appeal's decision in Indira Gandhi's case

  • Posted on: 12 January 2016
  • By: Daniella

12th January, 2016

 

The recent court of appeal decision in the Indira Gandhi case has cast a shadow over the rights of a non-muslim parent in a custodial dispute.

By subterfuge, Indira’s husband had unilaterally converted the children to the Islamic faith, without her and the children’s presence, knowledge and consent and later secured a custody order from the Syariah court. Such conversions were effected in defiance of the rules of natural justice, particularly where the children were born of a non-muslim marriage. 

Gender Equality Initiative 2015 - Moot Court Competition at Advance Tertiary College, 24 October 2015

  • Posted on: 8 December 2015
  • By: admin1

On 24 October 2015, AWL together with the Bar Council, Advance Tertiary College (ATC) and the rest of the GEI committee (INTI International University, Brickfields Asia College, Taylor's University, KDU University College) organised a Moot Court Competition at ATC's Kuala Lumpur campus. The Moot Problem, or "Brief to Counsel" as it was called was based on issues such as sexual harassment and discrimination against those who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT). The Brief to Counsel was drafted by AWL's Treasurer, Daniella Zulkifili.

Gender Equality Initiative 2015 - Forum on Unheard Voices

  • Posted on: 9 September 2015
  • By: Daniella

The Gender Equality Initiative 2015 (GEI), which is a collaboration between AWL, the Malaysian Bar Council, KDU University College, INTI International University, Taylor's University, Advance Tertiary College and Brickfields Asia College will be organising a Forum on Unheard Voices on 22 September 2015. The Forum is hosted by KDU University College and will be held at their new Glenmarie campus.

FREE PDC/AWL Workshop on Capacity Building for Lawyers to work with Victims of Human Trafficking on 12 August 2015

  • Posted on: 31 July 2015
  • By: admin1

As part of the FREE Seminars conducted by the KLBC in line with the Malaysian Bar's resolution regarding a mandatory Continuing Professional Development ("CPD") Scheme, the KLBC Professional Development Committee ("PDC") and the Association of Women Lawyers (AWL) have jointly scheduled the above Workshop on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm at the KL Bar Auditorium, 4th Floor, Wisma Hangsam, No.1, Jalan Hang Lekir, 50000 Kuala Lumpur. 

 

AWL's View on Marital Rape - Why It Should Be Criminalised

  • Posted on: 25 June 2015
  • By: admin1

AWL is of the view that Section 375A of the Penal Code is deficient for many reasons. For example:

a) the section in its current form, fails to recognise that rape is a crime involving an act of sexual violence without the victim's consent. There are instances where marital rape occurs in the absence of any visible signs of injury on the victim as the perpetrator may resort to other forms of coercion (e.g. economic, emotional threats, blackmail etc).

b) it should also be highlighted that the prescribed punishment under Section 375A is imprisonment up to 5 years - extremely mild when compared with Section 375 which prescribes a minimum period of incarceration of 5 years up to a maximum of 20 years AND whipping.

If Section 375 and Section 375A were meant to be the same animal under the guise of a different term, then why is there an apparent and gross disparity in sentencing guidelines??

Pages