Want to see the new “Beauty and the Beast” movie in Malaysia? Be our guest.

Disney’s live-action remake of the classic animated film won a small victory in the country recently, despite efforts from its censorship board to ban the film over the decision to depict one of the characters, LeFou, as a gay man. 

Malaysian censorship officials pushed to cut scenes suggesting that LeFou is gay, but Disney refused to edit it and the film’s postponed release date is now set for March 30 with a PG-13 rating.

Movies that feature gay characters can only be shown in Malaysia if the characters are portrayed negatively or renounce their sexuality. Malaysia is among a handful of countries, where homosexuality is either outlawed or condemned, that have tried to hinder the movie’s release.

In Russia, the film, which is rated PG in the U.S., has been restricted to viewers aged 16 and older. “Beauty and the Beast” was also pulled from cinemas in Kuwait, where an edited version might return to screens soon. Meanwhile, a group of churches in Singapore has issued a warning about the movie to parents.

The controversy can likely be traced back to the U.S., where, before the movie even came out, a drive-in owner in Alabama said he would refuse to show it because he opposed the inclusion of a gay character on religious grounds.

So what exactly happened in the film to spark such a global scandal? It turns out, the representation of a gay character may actually be overhyped. LeFou is a sidekick to the villain Gaston, and it is implied throughout the story that he has an unrequited crush on Gaston. One scene shows LeFou dancing with another male character for about three seconds, but he never explicitly reveals his sexuality.

If anything, the scene–which director Bill Condon described as an “exclusively gay moment”–deserves criticism for being too subtle, according to some LGBT advocates. Bustle’s Martha Sorren writes:

I can acknowledge that Condon has taken a (small) step forward with this scene, but I’m certainly not going to praise the director and cast for representing the gay community when they did so little to represent us.

Sorren adds that LeFou’s effeminate gestures reinforce stereotypes about gay men, and that his unreciprocated feelings for Gaston could cause “straight people–especially the young viewers who will undoubtedly see ‘Beauty and the Beast’–to think that their gay friends are going to develop creepy, obsessive crushes on them.”

Sorren’s concerns echo those about another beloved children’s tale that stars Emma Watson. In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that the character Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series is gay, but critics were disappointed that she never made this clear in the books or movies, and questioned whether she was just tossing in a token gay character as an afterthought.

Though Disney has taken steps to expand racial diversity in its movies in recent years, members of the LGBT community hope to see the studio create more characters like them. Last spring, some fans of the movie “Frozen” started a campaign to give the main character, Elsa, a girlfriend in the sequel.

And then, of course, there’s this perspective:

imagine boycotting beauty & the beast because of a gay character while being totally cool with a teenage girl falling in love with a buffalo

— Tyler Oakley (@tyleroakley) March 5, 2017

It’s certainly not a Disney production without a happy ending. Disgruntled fans could not stop “Beauty and the Beast” from becoming a box office hit. In fact, boycotters who complain about too many women or people of color in Disney’s movies have never had much success before–just look at the attempts to bring down the company’s first “Star Wars” film, “The Force Awakens,” two years ago.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Beauty and the Beast” to Premiere in Malaysia Despite Controversy over Gay Character appeared first on Law Street.

An Indonesian woman, her Malaysian boyfriend, and a woman traveling with a Vietnamese passport have been arrested in Malaysia in connection with the apparent assassination of Kim Jong-un’s half brother, Kim Jong-nam. According to Indonesia’s national police chief Tito Karnavian, Indonesian Siti Aisyah believed she was taking part in a TV prank. Talking to reporters, Karnavian described how Aisyah and the other woman were paid to spray water in men’s faces, which they were told was part of a TV comedy sketch:

Such an action was done three or four times and they were given a few dollars for it, and with the last target, Kim Jong-nam, allegedly there were dangerous materials in the sprayer. She was not aware that it was an assassination attempt by alleged foreign agents.

Suspect in Kim Jong Nam killing says she thought it was harmless practical joke, Malaysian media reports. More here: https://t.co/I2odpNUbtu pic.twitter.com/Bcp6uxW4G1

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) February 17, 2017

Aisyah’s boyfriend, 26-year-old Malaysian Muhammad Farid Bin Jalaluddin, was taken into custody to assist with the investigation. The second female suspect was captured on security footage wearing a sweater with the text “LOL” and was carrying Vietnamese identification with the name Doan Thi Huong. Her behavior seems more suspicious, as she stayed at a cheap hotel near the airport before the attack, and had a big stack of cash on her. She then switched to a second hotel where she borrowed a pair of scissors from the front desk to cut her hair. The next day, which was the day of the attack, she went out for most of the day, and then checked out and switched to a third hotel.

Although Doan also claimed she thought she was part of a TV prank, it appears that at least some investigators didn’t quite buy it. One Malaysian investigator who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said: “If you ask me, do her movements indicate that she was an intelligence operative, then I would say yes,” he said.

Vietnamese woman with ‘LOL’ shirt stayed in cheap hotels, carried wad of cash and cut her hair a day before attack,https://t.co/Eh1ZvbvkDm

— Eddie Du (@Edourdoo) February 17, 2017

Kim was on his way to take a flight from Malaysia to Macau, where his family lives, when he was attacked on Monday. The details surrounding his death are still very unclear and at first reports claimed he was attacked with poison needles. Malaysian authorities have conducted an autopsy but have not released any information. The authorities say that they will not release his body to North Korea unless they get a DNA sample from a next of kin so they can make a positive identification. North Korea has so far refused to comply with that request, and North Korean officials have said that they will not accept the autopsy results because they had no witnesses present. And so far, no one from Kim’s family has claimed his body.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Female Suspect in Murder of Kim Jong-nam Claims She Was Part of TV Prank appeared first on Law Street.

So as I predicted in my previous article, issues of liability were around the corner. It looks like they came sooner than expected and from an unexpected volunteer. On Tuesday, Malaysia Airlines announced the first batch of payments it would make to families of passengers on Flight 370. The amount? $5,000 per passenger. This pre-emptive payment is not by any means the final payment by Malaysia Airlines, as the Montreal Convention set the $150,000 threshold, and experts expect next of kin compensation could eventually exceed millions of dollars per passenger.

So far, Malaysia Airlines has also provided money for food, lodging, and any travel expense the families may have since the incident unfolded on March 8. The airline has pledged to continue this aid for as long as possible. But with more and more people assuming all lives have been lost, people are turning their eyes toward compensation for the families of passengers.

One attorney, Monica Kelly, spoke to CNN and said that within her experience, Malaysia airlines may be forced to pay between $400,000 and $3 million per family.

Another attorney, Mike Danko, said the amount of money families are awarded has a lot of to do with where they filed a lawsuit. For instance, U.S. courts will probably give families more money than those in China. Passengers on Flight 370 came from 14 different countries, so lawsuits could be filed in any of those.

At least in the US, one of the more difficult (and arbitrary) set of decisions will come when the courts decide how much each family gets… by figuring out how much each person’s life was worth in the first place. Each passenger will be assessed separately, and the amount of money awarded to each family is decided on a number of factors. For instance, someone with 3 small children may receive more money than a single person in his 40s.

But Malaysia Airlines may have some help, as well. Airlines tend to be covered by insurance policies ranging between $2 to $2.5 billion, with as much as $10 million set aside by each passenger, according to Brian Havel, director of the International Aviation Law Institute at DePaul University.

And as previously discussed, the logistics surrounding this still-missing aircraft could slow the process down. But assuming a long period of time goes by and no sign of the aircraft is found, courts might go ahead and rule the passengers as deceased, allowing families to sue for damages and collect life insurance.

[CBS] [CNN] [Yahoo]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Allen Watkin via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Payments from Malaysian Plane Crash: Only $5,000? appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks in, everyone with a television knows about the disappearing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. And even if you don’t, turn on just about any news station, and within two minutes you’ll get the gist of it. Recently the Prime Minister of Malaysia said the flight crashed in the Indian Ocean, and rumors about what actually happened are still floating around. But one thing that hasn’t been discussed as heavily as the conspiracy theories: Who is liable?

To be frank, things like this are logistical nightmares. Before compensating families of victims, a number of questions need to be answered: who is responsible for what happened? Does the fact  that no remains have been recovered (yet) make a difference? Would foul play affect the amount of money families are eligible to receive? And, perhaps most basically, who will actually have to pay?

Luckily, we have some answers to these questions. Back in 1999, the Montreal Convention, which outlines rules and rights that passengers have in international air travel, was adopted. In response to who is liable, the article 17 of the treaty puts it quite simply- “the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger”. The convention even goes on to describe how much money they must pay to compensate for death or injury of passengers. After some conversions, we find that amount is roughly equivalent to $150,000. (Yep, that is a cost of life now a days). Now, if the family members suing the airline aren’t claiming damages worth any more money than that, the airline can’t “exclude or limit its liability.” Basically, the airline is on the hook.

But this is the 21st century, and it would be surprising if families didn’t sue for much, much, more. This is where we hit a fork in the road. According to the Convention, if the crash was the airline’s fault, courts could rule in favor of passengers, giving their families more money. But if the airline wasn’t negligent, or if a 3rd party alone (like a terrorist group) caused the damages, Malaysia Air might be off the hook in paying damages.

So, what’s the most obvious problem with all of this? We don’t know what happened. We don’t know if it was a mechanical failure, if the pilot made a mistake, or if this was intentional. Until there is evidence of a crash, let alone who is at fault for it, determining who is liable for what will be difficult at best, and impossible at worst. Unfortunately, the Montreal Convention didn’t account for this potential lack of information.

But assuming we get the answers to at least some of these questions, there are still a number of things to address.

First, where will these lawsuits take place? In Malaysia, where the airline is based? Or, in the home countries of those presumed dead? The Montreal Convention accounts for this as well. The most likely place for these lawsuits to take place will be the home of the airline, the homes of the passengers on the flight, or the destination of the flight. In this case, that means Malaysia, China, and/or the United States could be involved, among others. Obviously, all three of those countries have vastly different court systems, and could rule incredibly differently. So there is a potential for families to be compensated with vast differences depending on where the lawsuit was first filed.

But wait, there’s still more. Not only is there a potential for families to sue the airline, they could sue the maker of the plane- Boeing, or the maker of the engine- Rolls Royce. And these lawsuits could be based just about anywhere.

There’s a lot up in the air about what happened to Flight 370, and a lot of questions still need to be answered before the victims’ families can be compensated. Because there is so much we don’t know, it’s hard to guesstimate how much the airline will be required to pay as a result of this tragedy. But the Montreal Convention, if nothing else, gives us a good baseline parameter.

[BBC] [Montreal Convention] [ABC]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Abdallahh]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable? appeared first on Law Street.