Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Contributed by the Human Rights Committee

The Committee refers to the various media reports on the Bar Council’s forum “Conversion to Islam: Art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini & Shamala Revisited” held on 9 August 2008. The forum was to discuss the human and legal problems faced by persons who find themselves in similar scenarios as the parties (both Muslim and non-Muslim) in the Subashini and Shamala litigation suits, and to seek solutions to the same. It was not a forum to challenge Islam as the official religion of the country (Article 3(1) Federal Constitution) or the constitution of the Syariah Courts; and neither was it an assault on the religion of Islam. Islam is a religion which is wholeheartedly respected by the Bar, and professed by a majority of the members of the Bar.

In reality, the forum sought to utilise the civil tools of speech and language in a dialogue about a human and legal issue. This represents the current philosophy of all civilised nations of the world - that matters of conflict including race and religion should be resolved by conversation, not confrontation.

We note that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression of both the protestors outside the Bar Council building and the participants of the forum inside the Bar Council building were exercised on 9 August 2008. This is evidence that competing rights may be upheld in a civil society.

It is however utterly disappointing that the protestors were instigated through speeches by leaders of various NGOs and political parties, and in the name of the religion of Islam, to storm the Bar Council building and commit acts of violence if the forum did not stop. The said leaders subsequently demanded that they be allowed to enter the Bar Council building to ensure that the forum was stopped, and the police decided to escort them into the building.

By their position of non-interference when the leaders of the protest sought to enter the Bar Council’s private premises, the police singularly failed in their duty to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of the participants. The actions of the leaders and the protestors themselves must be denigrated. The disruptive and threatening behaviour exhibited including issuing of threats of violence, making racial and religious taunts, and refusing to reason instead with the organisers (despite an invitation to do so) is something which no civil society should accept.

Firstly, the said actions of the leaders and protestors in the name of the religion of Islam are unfortunate, and represent a grave insult to the peaceful nature of the religion. The “politicisation” of the forum also raises concerns. We are heartened to note that one of the participants of the forum, Dr Mehrun Siraj, former SUHAKAM commissioner, decried the actions of the protestors in disrupting the forum, and was quoted (in The Sun’s report on 11 August 2008) as having said to them:

You represent UMNO, I represent the Muslims. Muslims must act based on the Qu’ran and Sunnah. We must behave well. Muslims must not be rude. I am ashamed of your behaviour. Islam does not condone this.

The actions of the leaders and protestors obviously do not represent the full spectrum of Muslim views on the matter.

Secondly, human rights principles enshrined in Article 20(2) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. While the Bar Council took a clear position that everyone is entitled to freedom of peaceful assembly, provocative statements with a view of inciting hostility and violence cannot be condoned.

Thirdly, we are disappointed that civil space for dialogue on matters of race and religion is constantly being attacked or sought to be eliminated both by the State and non-State actors. We live in the 21st century, and in the age of information technology. There should no longer be “sensitive” matters which cannot be discussed rationally, logically and openly. It is the only way for any civilised country and its people to progress. Already we see that around the world, discussing matters which relate to religion is a common trend in the hope of creating a greater understanding of various view points. It is not the reverse i.e. to suppress discussion when it pertains to religious matters.

We note that when the Reid Commission Report in 1957 was being drafted to make recommendations for our Constitution, and feedback was sought from and given by various quarters, matters of race and religion were constantly raised and debated. Fifty-one years on, it is truly ironic that we are constrained to exercise restraint on the same matters by the threat of forceful intervention.

The Committee cautions that the 9 August 2008 incident is symptomatic of worsening ethnic and religious relations, and national integration is still an elusive concept to our country. The Government must live up to its obligation to generate more civil space, and protect existing safe spaces for everyone including dissenting voices in the country.

Dated this 11th day of August 2008
Human Rights Committee
Bar Council

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed