Tag: Lina Joy

Categories
Activism Liberty Society

[1256] Of Lina Joy case is more than a mere procedural matter

Is the Lina Joy case is a procedural matter?

There are those that insist it is but I strongly beg to differ. Saying the case is procedural in nature downplays an issue that receives great attention from many sides that have stake in the ruling of the case. On the surface, I would agree that the case is about procedural in nature. If one looks at the issue beyond skin deep however, this is about a conflict of rights.

I was surprised to read procedure being forwarded as the cause of this confrontation. The procedure-based argument understates the issue so much that I feel there is a gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Or maybe, it is an act of downplaying an explosive and divisive issue. I could not care less if it were specifically, exclusively about procedure but I care because it is not. If this case were about procedure, what a pitiful society we all live in, arguing on matter of little significance. In my humble opinion, our society deserves a little bit of respect as far as this case is concerned.

The truth is, there are two groups that matter in this case. One emphasizes on individual rights and another emphasizes on community rights. From a neutral point of view, the overlapping area of the rights is the crux of this whole debate.

The fraction that stresses on individual rights is without doubt the liberals. The liberalism, at least classical liberalism, places the sovereignty of the individual on the individual. Individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person and properties as long as he respects others’ person and properties.

The other side however demands the sovereignty of an individual be transferred to the society. In other word, sovereignty of the individuals is the pregorative of the society. The religious conservatives in particular, from my observation, insist that a higher being or god rules sovereign over individuals. The community then acts on behalf of that god and takes over the sovereignty on the individual on the behalf of god. As far as the case is concerned, Lina Joy’s religious belief is god’s prerogative and by implication, it is the community’s prerogative.

Between the two, the latter does not recognize difference in belief or religious freedom while the former does. If one is to draw a Venn diagram, the overlap is obvious where the content of the universal set is claims to rights.

By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved.

The source of contention is freedom of belief. Individual rights demand religious freedom while community rights do not but both stake claim for it. Therefore, the question we need to ask and answer is, which rights should take priority? For liberals, the answer is obvious.

As long as this is left unanswered, the issue — the contest of ideologies — the blurriness will stay. Furthermore, saying the Lina Joy case is a question of procedural tantamount to sweeping the dust under the carpet; attributing the case to procedural matter does not solve the matter.

If we as a society would like to come to a common ground, the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge the root course. Attacking the symptoms, which is too common in Malaysia, does nothing.

After all, just as was mentioned by Jonson Chong at a forum on Lina Joy ruling organized by DAP that I attended earlier this week, the law is an mean, not an end.

Categories
Liberty

[1249] Of The Economist on Lina Joy

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.

Categories
Liberty

[1248] Of accusation of Islamophobia is just an act of poisoning the well

Some religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia accuse those that disagree with the Lina Joy case ruling as Islamophobes. While there are Islamophobes out there, just as there are xenophobes in general out there, the labeling of Islamophobes on freedom lovers is merely an act of poisoning the well. While I do not speak for others, the accusation certainly does not apply to me as well as other like-minded libertarians and sincere freedom lovers. Most libertarians disagree with the ruling not because it is specifically connected to Islam but rather, it is due to the intervention of the state in personal individual affairs. That intervention results in the infringement of individual liberty. And just like libertarians, generic freedom lovers are concerned with the restriction imposed on religious freedom by the ruling.

Imagine a hypothetical country called Hinduland where Hinduism had the exact sanction Islam enjoys in Malaysia. Imagine further of a former Hindu Muslim and he wished to remove the word Hindu from his identity card whereas by law, a Hindu must have his religion stated on the card. As is the case with the Lina Joy ruling, many individuals with strong conviction to religious freedom would support the Muslim convert’s wish and subsequent action toward that wish.

I would imagine, religious conservative Muslims would also join the freedom lovers in expressing support for the former Hindu Muslim, just because the person was a Muslim. The religious conservative Hindus in Hinduland on the other hand might take the position the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia currently take. If the ruling in Hinduland would have been the same as in Malaysia, the religious conservative Hindus would call everybody that disagreed with ruling as Hinduphobes. This is the exact parallel in Malaysia with the only difference is the names of the religions.

In that case of the Hinduland scenario, I would support the Muslim’s action. Be mindful that I would do so not because he is a Muslim but rather, because I fully respect his freewill. The same cannot be said for religious conservatives whom have issues with the concept of religious freedom. To them, freewill is a dirty word.

Before one disposes this model as merely hypothetical, do note that conversion from Hinduism to Islam is a controversial subject in India. The religious conservative Hindus in India share the same concern with the religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia regarding liberty to disassociate oneself from the religion.

For sincere freedom lovers, this is not a question of loving or hating any particular religion. Freedom lovers and especially libertarians could not care less with the beliefs a person would want to migrate from and to. For freedom lovers, it is a matter of allowing a person to think and act for himself. As long as any of his action does not limit others’ same rights, he should be free choose his own course of action without coercion from others.

This clearly shows that freedom lovers’ opposition is based on dedication to an ideal of liberty and not based on irrational fear or hatred to Islam. Some religious conservative Muslims are trying to say otherwise in hope to poison the well, divert attention from the source of disagreement and indulge in disinformation.

Categories
Activism Liberty

[1246] Of religious freedom in Malaysia on Wikipedia and Facebook

I am happy to announce that news of the restriction on religious freedom in Malaysia has made it to the front page of Wikipedia (due to the nature of Wikipedia, the permanent link is here). That is exactly what I hoped for when I first inserted the entry to Wikipedia’s current event section a few day ago. This is important in raising awareness pertaining the tyranny that is going on in Malaysia.

Screenshots by Mohd Hafiz Noor SHams. Fair use.

Further, if you are on Facebook and if you care for religious freedom in Malaysia, do kindly consider joining in the newly created group called Uphold the Malaysian Constitution. Reaffirm religious freedom. It may not amount to real activism but at least, it helps in spreading the awareness. Without awareness, there can be no activism.