At The Economist:
Article 11 has been in the country’s constitution since independence from Britain 50 years ago. However, things were muddied by a 1988 amendment, which denied the regular courts all jurisdiction over matters dealt with by the sharia courts. It was not clear if this gave sharia judges the right to overrule Article 11 for those born Muslim and to tell them they must remain so. It now seems that indeed they can. [Lina Joy’s despair. The Economist. May 31 2007]
How many more amendments have been passed to restrict liberty, I wonder.
Also, proof that The Economist is concerned with liberty rather than appealing to irrational fear of Islam:
In many places, constitutional guarantees of liberty are undermined by laws constraining religious belief. Indonesians, for example, are also obliged to state their religion on their identity cards and to choose between just six officially recognised faiths. The governor of the state of Rajasthan, in India, is being pressed by the state assembly to approve a law punishing conversion from Hinduism. Constraints on individuals’ rights to choose their beliefs are usually backed up by claims that religions are somehow “under threat”: a curious lack of faith—in faith itself. [Lina Joy’s despair. The Economist. May 31 2007]
There is one interesting similarity in the final sentence of the article: a curious lack of faith—in faith itself. That is probably a clear reference to:
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
— Milton Friedman, July 31 1912 — November 16 2006.
One reply on “[1249] Of The Economist on Lina Joy”
[…] as they see fit. For proof, seek no further than the creation of Islam Hadhari. They even have the power to declare who is a Muslim and who is not, regardless of the opinion or decision of the individual. Almost by […]