I refer to Minister in the PM's Office Jamil Khir Baharom’s comments that “it is unconstitutional to be homosexual in Malaysia” in the aftermath of the government crackdown on the Seksualiti Merdeka festival.

If anything, it's the crackdown itself that should be deemed 'unconstitutional' in the name of freedom of assembly and expression.

It’s axiomatic that there is indeed a crying need to clarify this matter of mind-boggling intricacies with absolute respect for and spirit of the law. Constitutionally speaking, something that's forbidden in Islam and matters not allowable by the federal constitution should not be critically viewed conjunctively.

Rather, it is prudent to afford a space to discuss about it in a completely two separate legal terrains. Though Islamic matters are broadly discussed disparately in the state list of the federal constitution, it is nonetheless very pivotal to understand that any state laws (or any other laws) enacted that are not in line with the spirit of the federal constitution, shall, up to the extent of its inconsistency, be void.

First of all, it is wise to be reminded of the facade of the political convention often happening in our country. Whenever a general election appears to be around the corner, some people - specifically politicians - will find it politically profitable to stoke the embers of controversy about the crying need to emphasise strengthening the Islamic pillars by denouncing what appears to be un-Islamic and anti-syariah and moral as well as religious policing seem to be the sole raison d'être amongst our prevalent soi-distant emissaries of God.

Since homosexuality is an issue of religious concern, and given the fact that Islam is a religion predominantly professed by Malays, I genuinely believe that it is nothing more than just a crafty political bait calculated to win the hearts of potential voters in the face of this coming general election.

At the end of the day, it's just these power-mongering politicians who are endlessly trying to flex their muscle to garner and further shore up their political clout.

Despite a barrage of vehement fulminations against Seksualiti Merdeka for its ideology that is seen as antagonistic towards the teaching of Islam, I personally take a very dim view against banning it.

In the main, Seksualiti Merdeka is merely an event that LGBTs would perceive as the only mechanism they may have recourse to in order to have their voice heard and for us to gain better understanding on gender diversity. Simply giving an emphatic NO to something one does not stand in agreement with does not make it a solution to the problem either.

I would say, Seksualiti Merdeka is a means to afford a voice to the voiceless. There is a blatant misconception we have seen for the past few weeks when the press misreported it and went on accusing the event as ‘ parti seks bebas ’ (free sex festival).

Let the LGBT community be understood once and for all.

Professing oneself to be gay does not in any way possible induce others to immediately have a sudden urge to change their sexual preference, does it? It can be analogous with studying criminal law. When we have a law professor teaching his students about defences an accused may use in his attempt to have all the charges levelled against him cleared, does that justify our allegation that the said law professor is teaching his students to become conniving criminals? Of course, not.

Thus, it is utterly impolitic to demonise Seksualiti Merdeka as the event only serves as a medium for the LGBT to air their grievances and make explicit the hidden but real problems they are often faced with in a civil way - and who are we to stifle their ideas? Why not hear them out?

After all, while claiming with conviction that they are a disgrace to the religion, what do we do? Does Islam teach us to simply disown them? And most essentially, who are we to assume such a position of moral superiority and consequentially regard them as amoral and a social parasite?

To those who are diabolically opposed to the idea of respecting gender diversity and who use Islam to justify the LGBT’s persecution, have they forgotten that Islam never encourages any form of ideological divide in any uncivil manner?

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom (hikmah) and beautiful preaching and argue with them in ways that are best.” (Surah An-Nahl 16:125)

And coming to the issue of its “unconstitutionality”, with due respect to the minister, I humbly wish to register my utter disillusionment with his statement.

First of all, nowhere in the federal constitution does it spell out anything about the constitutional prohibitions on embracing one's sexuality. In fact, I reckon he must have seriously erred when confusing the Penal Code with our federal constitution.

Article 8 of the federal constitution which speaks about equality expressly guarantees that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”, as per Article 8(1) of the federal constitution.

Jamil Khir must have misunderstood the very significant point in the whole edifice of the constitutional scheme of things, that fundamentally the federal constitution is not a penal law to start with, but instead, a fundamentally basic law that lays down the foundations of the roles of every organ of the government and essentially, the inalienable rights of the peoples. Suffice to say that an offence that falls within the ambit of the Penal Code does not necessarily render it unconstitutional. It's simply banal.

He is absolutely wrong in citing the Penal Code as an authority, namely Sections 377(a), (b), ©) and (d) that prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. Assuming that homosexuality conduces to engaging in an ‘unnatural sexual intercourse' would be very presumptuous, speculative, preposterous, nay, unfounded.

If I were to flip to other side of the coin, would it not then be justified to say that 'straight folks' also face the likelihood of being stigmatised as a threat, and thus become both morally and legally minatory as far as the Penal Code is concerned by reason of Section 375, that broadly deals with the criminal offence of rape?

Or that consuming pork amongst non-Muslims is also 'unconstitutional' given the fact that our federal constitution is and has always been silent about the consumption of pork?

Or what about homosexuals who choose to subscribe to celibacy? Are they then said to be a cinch to get off scot-free and be constitutionally entitled to enjoy all other rights just like other 'normal' citizenry do, without any persecution?

Aren't these questions as hilariously ridiculous as arguing the 'constitutionality' of the existence of everything?

I don't profess to be a medical luminary who would assume any authority to discuss profoundly on scientific explanations to one's sexual orientation. Be that as it may, I personally believe as much as others do, that no one in his right mind aspires to become neither a figure of insult nor a scourge of a problem, or a societal problem, for that matter.

If one is by birth born in a manner not approved of by others and capable of changing, wouldn't it be much easier for homosexuals to simply choose to defect from leading a life as a homosexual to being heterosexual thereby leaving out any room for societal censure? But why the insistence? Why can't they just compromise and budge an inch away and subsequently spare themselves from a massive public mortification?

Verily, they can't choose at all because it is, as a matter of fact, never a choice they made in the first place.

If we all agree that every human being is of equal worth and dignity, then why discriminate? Why assume God's role and decide what is tantamount to His wrath and what is not?

Let the brain, and only the brain do the thinking, not emotion or even prejudice.

Right now I am thinking of petai for dinner and I hope no one will have a temerity to challenge the 'constitutionality' of my craving.

The writer is a final year law student in a local university) and a strong advocate for women's rights.