The Prime Minister of Malaysia sets the conditions for sending military forces to help Palestine

The Prime Minister of Malaysia sets the conditions for sending military forces to help Palestine

Anwar Ibrahim, Prime Minister of Malaysia, announced that sending Malaysian military forces to assist Palestine in its conflict with Israel is subject to the approval of the countries of the region.

According to data from the Malaysian news agency Bernama, the Prime Minister stressed on Monday that “the deployment of Malaysian forces in Palestine, including within the framework of peacekeeping operations or humanitarian missions, can only take place after reaching a consensus between neighboring countries.”

Because, according to Anwar Ibrahim, without this agreement, planes carrying Malaysian peacekeeping forces will not be allowed to land.

“Some Malaysians have announced that we refuse to send our army,” he says. “Our military leadership asked me to clarify that it is not fair for any party to raise this issue.”

The Malaysian Prime Minister called on all Malaysians and the country's Islamic community to "come together to pray for the safety of all Palestinians who continue to be subjected to persecution and violence by the Israeli regime."

It should be noted that Malaysia has been in contact with Hamas for years, and in 2020 it hosted the organization’s senior leaders.

It should be noted that Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” was launched on October 7, during which Hamas fighters were able to penetrate the border areas in southern Israel. In response, Israel began Operation Iron Swords against the Gaza Strip and began launching intensive air strikes on targets, including civilians in the Strip. Israel also announced the imposition of a complete blockade on the Gaza Strip: supplies of water, food, electricity, medicine and fuel were stopped.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called on both parties to the conflict to stop military operations. According to President Vladimir Putin's position, a settlement of the Middle East crisis can only be achieved on the basis of the two-state formula approved by the UN Security Council, which stipulates the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the Palestinian territories within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

India : Gay marriage is not recognized: Parliament will decide on changing the law

The CJI said that these gay people are not just English speaking white collar men who can claim to be gay (Same Sex Marriage), but a woman working in agriculture in the village can also claim to be gay.

Gay couples have received a big blow from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has refused to recognize homosexual marriage. CJI said that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of Parliament. He has issued guidelines to the Central Government to take appropriate steps for the rights of homosexuals. Today, all eyes across the country were focused on the Supreme Court's decision on the petitions to recognize gay marriage. The Supreme Court has already declared homosexual relationships legal. Whereas on May 11, 2023, after a 10-day long hearing, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had reserved its decision on this, now only the decision was awaited.

Court gave example of transgenders
While delivering the verdict on the petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage, CJI DY Chandrachud said that if a transgender person wants to marry a heterosexual person, such marriage will be recognised, as one will be male and the other will be female. A transgender man has the right to marry a woman. A transgender woman has the right to marry a man and transgender women and transgender men can also marry. If permission is not granted, it will be a violation of the Transgender Act.

'Gays are not only urban and elite'
The CJI said that it is not just any English speaking white collar man who can claim to be a homosexual, but a woman working in agriculture in the village can also claim to be a homosexual. To create the image that people exist only in urban and elite spaces is to erase them. Not all people living in cities can be called elite.

'Parliament should make changes in the Special Marriage Act'
 While delivering the judgement, the Supreme Court said whether there is a need for changes in the SMA, it is for the Parliament to ascertain and the court should be cautious in entering the legislative field. Many sections are against these changes. Parliament has to decide on changes in the Special Marriage Act. The Special Marriage Act cannot be declared unconstitutional. 

The CJI said that if the Special Marriage Act is repealed, it will take the country back to the pre-independence era. If the Court adopts the second approach and reads the words into the SMA, it will be playing the role of the legislature. Parliament or state legislatures cannot be compelled to create a new institution of marriage. 

'Marriage has changed, this is the unbreakable truth'
 CJI DY Chandrachud said that the court is not taking the work of historians. The institution of marriage has changed, which is the specialty of the institution. The form of marriage has changed from Sati and widow remarriage to inter-religious marriage. Marriage has changed and this is an unchangeable truth and many such changes have come from Parliament. 

'Gay people have the right to adopt a child'
While delivering the judgement, the CJI said that there is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child. CARA Regulation 5(3) indirectly discriminates against atypical unions. A homosexual person can adopt only in an individual capacity. This has the effect of strengthening discrimination against the gay community.  

The CJI said that unmarried couples are not excluded from adoption, but Rule 5 prevents them by saying that the couple must be in a stable marital relationship for 2 years. The JJ Act does not prevent unmarried couples from adopting but only when CARA regulates it but it cannot defeat the purpose of the JJ Act. CARA has exceeded the authority provided by Regulation 5(3). CARA Regulation 5(3) discriminates between partners in unusual unions. This would adversely affect non-heterosexual couples and thus an unmarried heterosexual couple could adopt, but not so for the homosexual community. The law makes no assumptions about good and bad parenting and perpetuates a stereotype that only heterosexuals can be good parents. 

'There is no single definition of a stable home'
CJI said that married couples can be separated from unmarried couples. The respondents have not placed on record any data to show that only married couples can provide stability...It is noted that separation from married couples is restrictive, as it is regulated by law, but unmarried couples It is not so for. The stability of a home depends on many factors leading to a healthy work life balance and there is no single definition of a stable home and the pluralistic nature of our Constitution grants rights to different types of unions. 
Previous Post Next Post