Reema Omer Profile picture
Sep 21, 2022 8 tweets 3 min read Read on X
The social media campaign against the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, is malicious, opportunistic and entirely baseless

Some facts and context:
1. The law was enacted in 2018 after months of research, deliberations and consultations

It had support from all major parties (eg PML-N, PPP, PTI); NCHR; members of Council of Islamic Ideology, civil society groups, and most importantly, khawaja sirah and transgender community
2. The Act reaffirms fundamental rights of transgender people such as education, health, access to public spaces, political participation, and livelihood

Most importantly, it recognises their right to live with dignity, free from harassment and discrimination as equal citizens Image
3. The law also recognises the right of transgender people to get their ID cards changed in accordance with their self-perceived gender identity

Rules notified under the Act clarify ID cards can be changed from F or M to only “X”

Note: People with “X” on ID cards cannot marry ImageImage
4. There is no requirement for medical examinations to get gender markers on ID cards changed to “X”

Such examinations violate rights to dignity, privacy; make trans people vulnerable to sexual harassment; and act as a major deterrent for trans people to get ID cards changed
5. The law contains no provision for marriage or companionship

It does not cover homosexuality or same-sex relations

Gender identity and sexual orientation are entirely separate issues - they are dishonestly and opportunistically being conflated only for fear-mongering Image
6. Courts have passed many judgments directing authorities to protect rights of transgender people

They have held “gender identity is the most fundamental aspect of life” which refers to “intrinsic sense” of being male, female, or transgender

See for example PLD 2018 Lahore 54 Image
7. This Act is an effort to undo oppressive colonial laws/mindset that criminalised trans identities in our region, viewing them as “deviants”, “imposters”

It is a rejection of Lord Mayo and a celebration of Bulleh Shah

All of us, incl religious parties, should embrace this law

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Reema Omer

Reema Omer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @reema_omer

Feb 1, 2025
1. Developments related to judiciary since Parliament enacted 26th amendment in Oct 2024 confirm fears this was no sincere “reform” to make judges “accountable”

Instead, what we see is the most blatant attempt at judicial capture by an insecure regime struggling with legitimacy:
2. On 23 October, a Special Parliamentary committee nominated J. Yahya Afridi as CJP

The committee’s proceedings were held in camera (as provided by the 26th amendment). Any criteria for assessment or reasons for the Committee’s choice were not made public
3. On 4 Nov, Parliament enacted legislation to double the number of SC judges as it was “expedient” to do so

From 17, the number was increased to a maximum of 33, excluding the CJP

The number of IHC judges was increased from 9 to 12 Image
Read 11 tweets
Jul 26, 2024
Justice Babar Sattar’s order in Bushra Bibi’s case provides a comprehensive overview of our law regarding recusal for judges

These principles are informative as we assess PTI’s recusal requests against CJP and Justice Aamer Farooq:
1. The constitution and the law do not give a litigating party the “right” to demand recusal

Instead, the obligation is on the judge to seek recusal and they should determine their own disqualification to hear a case
2. Where a judge has a personal or proprietary interest in the outcome of a case, they should recuse based on the principle “no one can be a judge in their own cause”

3. Upholding the constitution/law is not “personal” interest - a judge has the duty to protect and defend them
Read 6 tweets
Jul 12, 2024
Summary of SC judgment today:

1. Majority of 8 judges hold even without a common symbol, PTI is and was a political party

39 candidates who mentioned PTI in their (i) declarations or (ii) statements, or (iii) submitted PTI’s certificate would be considered PTI candidates
In addition, due to “peculiar facts and circumstances” at the time of elections, the remaining 41 candidates may make a fresh declaration of affiliation within 15 days. If the concerned party confirms affiliation, that candidate too would be considered the party’s candidate
PTI’s reserved seats shall be calculated on this basis, for which PTI can submit a fresh list of candidates

2. J. Mandokhail and CJP state the ECP misinterpreted the SC’s 13 January judgment and had no authority to declared candidates validly nominated by a party as indepedents
Read 8 tweets
Jul 3, 2024
1. The “seniority” principle and the “legitimate expectation” of senior most high court judges to be appointed CJs + judges of the SC are once again being debated after Justice Aalia Neelum’s nomination as CJ LHC

What are these principles and are they even relevant today?
2. These principles are often traced back to the Al-Jehad Trust case (Judges case), 1996

At that time, SC judges were appointed by the President (on PM’s advice) after consultation with CJP

CJs of High Courts were appointed by the President in consultation with CJP + Governor
Image
Image
3. As is evident, the Constitution at the time gave the executive a lot of power in judicial appointments

In Al-Jehad, the SC led by CJ Sajjal Ali Shah, read into law a number of requirements, including making CJP’s opinion in “consultations” practically binding on the President
Read 10 tweets
Jan 13, 2024
1. A brief constitutional history of intra-party elections, which shows they cannot be used to deny rights protected by Art 17(2):

(Note: Courts have interpreted Art 17(2) to include right to function as a political party + right of citizens to vote for a party of their choice)
2. In 2002, General Musharraf amended the Constitution through the Legal Framework Order

He added 17(4) to the Constitution, which said:

“(4) Every political party shall, subject to law, hold intra-party elections to elect its office-bearers and party leaders”
3. In 2010, Parliament passed the 18th amendment

Among other changes, the 18th amendment repealed Art 17(4) - the constitutional obligation on parties to conduct intra-party elections
Read 6 tweets
Jan 12, 2024
Why the SC should not interpret S. 215 of the Elections Act as empowering the ECP to deny political parties electoral symbols on the basis of irregularities in their intra-party polls:
1. The law is ambiguous. It does not expressly give ECP power to scrutinise intra-party elections, and on the basis of irregularities, deny electoral symbols

The law also doesn’t set any threshold for when irregularities are serious enough to lead to denial of electoral symbol
2. Art 17(2) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form political parties. Over the years, SC has robustly interpreted Art 17(2) to not just forming, but also operating as a political party

Contesting elections with a unified symbol comes falls squarely within this right
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(