The Verdict Of The Federal Court On Lina Joy’s Case Is A Setback Against Religious Freedom In Malaysia
The 2-1 decision of the Federal Court to deny Lina Joy her choice to remove the word “Islam” from her identity card and pass the buck to the Syariah Court has dismayed and alarmed many Malaysians of many faiths who believed freedom of religion is guaranteed in our Federal Constitution.
The judgement also means Lina Joy’s right to leave Islam has been denied by the civil courts and she now has to submit her fate to the hands of the Syariah Court. This is not only denying her human rights, it is also a denial of Muslims of their right to choice of religion.
It is sad that a section of society is denied their right to freely embrace any faith of their choice.
The series of recent high profile cases involving conversion and marriages such as Marimuthu-Raimah, Shabashini etc have further divided the various communities.
It is important for the government to take immediate measures to amend the Federal Constitution to make it beyond any misinterpretation that the Civil court is superior over the Syariah court in all matters.
In addition, the government must set up mechanism to foster closer relationship among people of different races and different religions to ensure religious divide will not be deteriorated further in the country.
The Constitution does not guarantee freedom of religion or freedom from religion. If it did, or if it does, it has not been determined by any competent authority or court to mean freedom of worship, freedom of religon (to do what?), freedom from religion has a definition which is universally accepted. And if accepted in the many permutations of the statement, it has not been applied with any degree of certainty previously or has a precedent that Malaysians can rely on.
If there is freedom of religion as the statement presumes in this article, then Lina Joy has been rightfully judged in her own case. Freedom of religion makes religion the subject of the freedom arguably and not the adherent free as Lina Joy would have us believe.
Freedom of religion is a dangerous and anti democratic concept. It means religion (recognised religions one presumes fall into this category) is free and free to do what to do what it wants like the Assemblies of God who propagate a distortion of Christianity with a distinct White man bias, mindless worship of all things material and hysterical and American. Faking miracles by slight of hand, by way of deception and exploitation of societies most vulnerable, the sick, destitute, poor and lonely. In such a situation it is worthwhile supporting a constitutional convention or article that denies freedom of religion. If it promotes freedom of worship or the free and unfettered right to chose ones religion, Lina Joymay have had a case to argue.
In Lina Joys’case there is no reason for supporting a self promoting individual in the hope or mistaken belief that her ‘conversion’ to Christianity complete with well scripted and choreographed statements from her are sufficient to denounce Islam. She did not simply profess a personal view but allowed herself to be used as a vessel for the political objects of others.
More disturbing is Lina Joy’s inability to articulate her position free of legal interpretation, political input, media hype and counter religious influence. In short Lina Joy’s simple journey from one end f the spectrum to another (from the frying pan into the fire) was hijacked on the way by groups using her to promote their own interests.
Christians and by that I mean the born again ‘Amway of religion’ evangelical movements spawned by the pop culture of the US, break up families in Asia and the rest of the world with their deep pockets financed by the US interests that control them and it has never been a matter for the constitutional courts to interfere with.
When the novelty of a Muslim converting (and it is not as if they were doing so in droves) the whole dammned Christian (at tleast thats what they call themselves) march like a drunken mob of crusaders on speed and ice sloganeering and disrupting the harmony of an otherwise relatively harmonious community.
Lina Joy is as bigoted as she makes Islam and Malays out to be. Her supporters are well not a novelty. Not anymore than Lord Haw Haw or Tokyo Rose in World War 2. Cheap propaganda merchants with litle between the ears.
The constitution is not as easily interpreted as some believe it to be. One thing Malaysian lawyers lack is the ability to draft or articulate themselves in any coherent manner. And that applies to the Malaysian judiciary as well. As for legal reasoning, thats what your fight ought to be about. Not a disruptive and explosive unproductive unreasonable subject as religion is.
No matter how things may be verbosely fudged, a Persuasion is a religion, a Compulsion is more a Cult. No use resorting to finger pointing and reinventing tenuous moral equivalence. This is how thinking people everywhere will see the matter at the bottom line.
Words get around these days…:
The persecution of Lina Joy, continued
By Michelle Malkin · May 30, 2007 10:40 AM
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
“Freedom of religion is a dangerous and anti democratic concept.”
– that is a big statement, you know. Communism is anti democracy and disallow religion. You can’t say FOL is anti democratic.
– if you go to China, the version of Christianity there is subject to government censorship and control so in that case, FOL is not present and China is definitely not democratic.
I think this is primarily a Muslim and Islam issue. As I am a non-muslim, I don’t want to judge or say anything else but as a normal person would think, clear cut, well defined, clearly communicated set of rules and lastly consistetntly executed will clear all doubts.
It is up to some mufti/syariah top/our forgiving law minister (to the contractor)/sultan/Agong, to come out to say NO, no muslims can never leave islam no matter what or YES you can leave provided you do this and that.
Then it is clear to everybody, muslims and non-muslims. Dragging the nation through a gripping process of law is painful, unproductive and disruptive.
Clearly its all politic. Muslim is supreme. Those who thought of the American involvement is pure phantasy nut given the way he articulated himself being erudite. There are many cases can be co-ordinated to draw a conclusion, and if you are not Malaysian then is excusable. The reluctance to sit together with others to discuss interfaith issues-be it internationally or domestically is a straight NO. Meaning, absolute decision on no consideration for any “consultation”, if it does is seen as second. It cannot be held on that basis other than supremo. Its the very Might of the very very Right on this land.
Lee wee tak, China must be given credit for at least attempting albeit at a slow pace to allow freedom of worship. It has however expressed a right many more nations hae recently (over past 20 years) been negotiating with the Vatican (which is an independent sovereign state under the Concordat) so as to limit the interfeerence in the affairs of state by another state.
The Vatican is not democratic and they make no excuses for it. They claim divine authority and an authority that is unquestionable. Thats why perhaps catechism teaches Catholics that the Chruch is infallible and the Pope cannot err.
The electoral college that elects the Papay is not of the universal sufferage model. It is exclusively by the school of Cardinals another elitist excluisve grouping within an unaccountable regime.
If Communism is so bad why would anyone want to support an equally totalitarian regime that would not condemn Pinochette’s murder of over 40,000 of his own citizens he simply branded communists like the British did your forefathers in Malaya? Why did the Catholic church continue to support Nazis during world war 2 and why would it continue to finance wars in the name of religion? its adherents are by and large non European yet its leadres are almost all exclusively White.
Churches are always under the control of a political entity and thats politics and common sense. In the US the Mormons, the Assemblies of God and others are subject to laws of the state and considering the power of the evangelical churches their lobby one wonders what you would call democratic.
If it is simply the power of numbers rather than the concept of free choice by a majority expressing their will then your definitions and analogy suffers from a lack of substance or logic.
Lina Joy and the question of freedom of religion needs closer examination. Some moronic individual has suggested it is all about Muslim Islam. Thats like saying it is all about Human People.
Criticism and the right to differ is a good thing It is one of the esential ingredients of debate. A very Malaysian Chinese attitude here is the personal attacks against writers or posters who hold views different to theirs.
Attempts at what would be abusive comments except that the forms of expression used is so substandard and absurd as to make them pathetic and laughable. If we keep our arguments and our criticism to a factual or legal level something beneficial may come out of it all.
The final note by Karlmarx is perhaps why Lina Joy can never succeed if any of you are a representation of her support base.
Karlmarx argues it is about the might of the very right in this land, on its own making no sense like the rest of his post. The concept of democracy is such that the might of the majority is always an overpowering influence over the lives of others especially the minority. Sometimes referred to as the tyranny of the majority.
Much of what you support or complain about on the other hand is like what happened in Singapore where Malays and non Malays were subjugated by anoverwhelming number of Chinese immigrants bolstered by invitees on the basis of racial preference in the 1960’s by Lee Kuan Yew who later went on to espousing the virtues of everything Chinese, ridiculing and villifying non Chinese.
Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore is perhaps the single greatest example of what majorities don’t appreciate about especially a Chinese dominance. The demonstrated intolerance of anyone non Chinese by Chinese is perhaps only worthy of the morality and virtues of Genghis Khan,
The good thing about democracy is it allows each individual the freedom to express their own opinion.
I respect your right to air your opinion which I do not concure….
“very Malaysian Chinese attitude here is the personal attacks against writers or posters who hold views different to theirs. ”
– if you go to Malaysia today, all races post comments that sounds like that, not only Malaysian Chinese. This is human nature that go around all the world.
Lee Kuan Yew = Genghis Khan? nah not likely. Does the Singapore Malay complain about unfair treatment? I cannot say but there were 2 incidents that struck my mind years ago in Singapore.
A Malay from Melaka who works in Singapore decided not to return to Malaysia because Singapore is a much better place to live in, he told me. Another Singapore Malay who was working in Isetan, Orchard Road told me, “saya malu tengok rumah saudara saya di Johor…tak seperti rumah kami di Singapore yang selamat.” I rest my case.
“The demonstrated intolerance of anyone non Chinese by Chinese is perhaps only worthy of the morality and virtues of Genghis Khan,”
– err, mate, Genki is a mongolian, not Chinese. It is a good thing he is not around nowadays, otherwise he will lead his army into Malaysia for that C4 case.
Its nice of you to respect my opinions and by your admission I hope you will respect although not necessarily concur with the opinions of non Chinese.
More importantly I hope the respect, especially considering your acceptance of Democracy as being a concept or system you admire, extends to the will of the majority. Thats the basis of a democracy. So at least to this extent we are in agreement even if by default of your statements.
As to the “very Malaysian Chinese attitudes” I am equally glad you accept it by not denying it. However your acceptance falls short or sincerity in that you tend to justify something as crude and uncivil as being Malaysian Chinese in character as personal attacks against those you disagree with, by seeking to justify it by crediting it to others whom you really cannot speak for.
Your attitude towards Malays and others by your MP Theresa Kok here, and others in tow ,admits to something else. The logic sound very mkuch like , “I kicked him because everyone else in my group was kicking him”. Latvians, Lithuanians, Croats and Estonians claimed this defence after world war 2 when confronted by the allies about their involvement in the holoucast. Nice try Cyril.
Again I ask the question, why is your morality so selective and spineless ‘simply because others do it?’. The Malays are part of the others aren’t they? so why do you as Chinese chose only this aspect of what the Malays do (if you can prove your statement in this regard) and condemn them for their other actions whcich you do not wish to follow? or are you saying you want to emulate the Bumiputra system for Chinese alone because the Malays are doing it now? Maybe we are arriving here albeit slowly, at a better understanding of the mentality of what drives the anti Malay and anti Muslim pro Lina Joy (as it were) mob mentality and hysteria being driven by Theresa Kok.
Selective perceptions and selective morality is what this behaviour is often referred to. If the Malays do what you have agreed the Chinese are doing in this blog, by personal attacks in an argument when you run out of substance, then it would seem very strange that you leave other elements of their conduct out of the equation when it suits you.
Why not try the tolerance by Malays for centuries of the massive numbers of immigrants (many illegal) who have been forced out of China for economic or political or purely mercenary reasons including your forefathers to settle amongst them and to prosper amongst them even if at their expense?
No one claims or is claiming the Malay to be the exemplary citizen of the world. Least of all the Malay. But me thinks your demands of a higher standard of the Malay is a bit rich considering your own community standards and attitudes towards others.
Yes you are dammned right,the Singapore Malays do not complain much. But then again neither does the Singapore Chinese, Indian or ex patriate European. Not many people value a stint behind Changi prison or the island soff Singapore for the mere privilege of expressing what you compel the Malays to allow you to do in their country,Speak Freely. Lee openly admitted in every possible international forum that freedom of expression was a privilege of the state to dispense with (not in exactly the same words). He has never made any apology for his benevolent dictatorship parading as Democracy. Apartheid South Africa claimed to be Democratic and was supported by the west as well for the same reasons. I would be intrested to know how you define a democracy.
Perhaps you should first go amongst your own bretheren in Singapore and complain. Hold a small demonstration, try voting like the constituents of Anson for an opposition member and have your refuse not collected and then be fined because the state won’t collect it. Try that.
Yes a great example indeed of one Malay saying he was ashamed of his people and the rest. “One swallow does not a summer make”. It is trite what point you attempt to convey with that statement.
There are more Chinese who have been subjugated than any other group in Singapore till they relented and accepted the pay off which is their choice. They had no alternative. Mao was purging his fellow Chinese by the millions. Singapore was a far better alternative even if one had to become a political eunuch.
The pay offs which I must admit, for which Lee has no peer, is the economic success the Chinese like you crave and substitute for all of the other glories this world has to offer and despise your fellow man for because you are unable to understand them.
A manifestation of that disatisfaction amongst the Singapore Chinese is tobe found in a more sinister expression of one of the highest suicide rates in the world in Singapore.
The sterile, souless state where the only measure of a mans worth is his bank balance. Even the Chinese sometimes let their souls emerge from behind that thin veneer. Take the Silk Air pilot who suicided with his plane in Sumatra during the Asia currency crises because he lost over $ 2million. Now which expression of disatisfaction would you judge to be more balanced or better. The single Malacca Malay you describe or the several thousand who silently overdose or use other means to commit suicide because they fail to live up to the mercenary money driven standards of your community?
Lee and Genghis Khan? that was a metaphoric description of the man and his policies. Unfortunately it missed you.
Now take a look at the Chauvanist first article by Ms. Sassy on this page in a democratic state she wants more equality from the Malays for. Who on Gods earth would accept a language and an alphabet exclusive to the Chinese alone not understood by most in a multi cultural state as Malaysia struggles to be? It is okay for her to put it in peoples face and continue to insult the majority who are Malays and the other minority the Indians who have nothing in common like the Malays with your language?
What this narcissitic self indulgent woman is doing is reinforcing what fears all non Chinese have of Chinese politicians. Parochialism to the exclusion of others. Her insensitivity is further reinforced by her conduct in this regard apart from showing a bit of leg to an Imam claiming the right to be pokeswoman or champion of Malay womens rights. What a load of hog wahs and what a racist patronising sentiment.
The Chinese have made enormous contributions in Malaya. Those with half a brain rejected the parochialism this woman seeks to re introduce. Even Lee based his fight on the chauvanistic element of the Malaysian Chinese which is why Zhao En Lai referred to him as a Banana “Yellow on the outside white on the inside”>
Its no wonder in Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, Viet Nam and Cambodia Chinese were forced to adopt local names and for a while (a long while) were denied the use of their language in public.
Get a little tolerance into your psyche. It is useful and a sign of greatness to be tolerant yourselves. It is no wonder that centuries ago you adopted the philosophy of an Indian prince from Kapilavastu. The reason being that many of you understood then as you do now deep inside the need to reject that very ingrained trait of intolerance the Chinese suffer from. Everyone else is a Gui.