An Anti-corruption Advocate, the Voice of Conscience
31 Oct 2014
AG’s statement on Bible-burning boggles the mind
The recent public statement by the
Attorney-General giving his reasons for not prosecuting Ibrahim Ali for
sedition has not in any way allayed the discontent of many people including
even a cabinet minister.
They cannot understand, and rightly so, why this man is
being protected from prosecution.
On the contrary the reasons given by
the AG is nothing but mitigation for the man whose outburst was a call to
Muslims in this country to commit a serious crime under the Penal Code.
If indeed the story given in the AG’s
Statement is true that there was an attempt by a non-Muslim student to
distribute Bibles to students including Muslim students, the AG should know
very well that if the act constituted an offence, it was an offence by the
student or students concerned.
The offence does not extend to the
Bible or to the millions of people in Malaysia who use the Bible as their holy
book.
Would not those millions of Christians
be troubled and offended by the call of that man to seize and burn Bibles?
Does
not such a call constitute a “seditious tendency… to promote ill will and
hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”
within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sedition Act?
It was reported in a news portal on
October 27 that Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said, “It is up to the
Attorney-General.
My personal opinion is when one says they want to burn the
holy book of another, that is seditious.”
The AG gave two reasons why he chose
not to prosecute Ibrahim. One was that, taken in its overall context, the man’s
call to seize and burn Bibles did not have a seditious tendency.
The other was that the man had “no
intention to offend or to provoke”. Both those reasons are flawed
in law because they are not defences recognised by the Sedition Act.
On the contrary Section 3(3) of the Act has made it
abundantly clear that “intention” (however good) of the person uttering the
statement, is irrelevant if the statement has a seditious tendency.
It boggles my mind how the AG could excuse the man on grounds
of his good intention when the law says otherwise.
It also boggles my mind how burning the Bible would defend
the sanctity of the Islamic religion.
In such a prima facie blatant case of sedition as this, the
AG would have done well to let the court decide if Ibrahim was entitled to the
defence of “context” and “intention” as given by him.
Now, what about the many others who in a swoop, were
recently charged for sedition?
Were the considerations of “context” and
“intention”, even though not valid considerations, not applied to them also
before they were charged?
I think not.
Stanley Isaacs is the former Head of Prosecution,
Attorney-General’s Chambers Malaysia.
Source : http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2014/10/31/ags-statement-on-bible-burning-boggles-the-mind/
Ex-chief prosecutor slams AGC's ‘burn bible’ reply
The justifications given by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for not prosecuting Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali over his threat to burn bibles does not hold water, said a former AGC prosecution chief.
Stanley Isaac, who was AGC head of prosecution, said that the reasoning that the call had no seditious tendency or that Ibrahim had no intention to provoke are “flawed in law”.
He said that Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act makes it clear that intention is “irrelevant” if the statement has seditious tendency.
“It boggles my mind how the AG could excuse the man on grounds of his good intention when the law says otherwise.
“It also boggles my mind how burning the bible would defend the sancity of the Islamic religion,” he said in an email to Malaysiakini.
Isaac said that with the prima facie “blatant” in this case, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (left)should have let the court decide if Ibrahim’s defence of “context” and “intention” stands.
He added that reasons given were just “mitigation” and not reasons not to prosecute.
Further, he said, clearing Ibrahim because of these two factors also calls to question the other sedition charges, where context and intention were not considered.
The AGC had justified not charging Ibrahim for threatening to burn the Malay-language Bible by saying he did not intend to cause disharmony and was only defending Islam.
It also noted that Ibrahim had said this in response to claims that Muslim students at a school in Penang were given the holy books.
In his own defence, Ibrahim said he was only making the call to burn the holy books to Muslim parents’ whose children were given the bibles.
Meanwhile, Isaac said Ibrahim’s call is a call to Muslims to “commit a serious crime under the Penal Code”.
Even if the claim of distribution of bibles to Muslim student is true, he said, the offence lies with the distributor of the books and not the books themselves or others who use the book for their worship.
“Would not those millions of Christians be troubled and offended by the call of that man to seize and burn bibles?
“Does such a call not constitute a "seditious tendency to promote ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sedition Act?” asked Isaac.
Stanley Isaac, who was AGC head of prosecution, said that the reasoning that the call had no seditious tendency or that Ibrahim had no intention to provoke are “flawed in law”.
He said that Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act makes it clear that intention is “irrelevant” if the statement has seditious tendency.
“It boggles my mind how the AG could excuse the man on grounds of his good intention when the law says otherwise.
“It also boggles my mind how burning the bible would defend the sancity of the Islamic religion,” he said in an email to Malaysiakini.
Isaac said that with the prima facie “blatant” in this case, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (left)should have let the court decide if Ibrahim’s defence of “context” and “intention” stands.He added that reasons given were just “mitigation” and not reasons not to prosecute.
Further, he said, clearing Ibrahim because of these two factors also calls to question the other sedition charges, where context and intention were not considered.
The AGC had justified not charging Ibrahim for threatening to burn the Malay-language Bible by saying he did not intend to cause disharmony and was only defending Islam.
It also noted that Ibrahim had said this in response to claims that Muslim students at a school in Penang were given the holy books.
In his own defence, Ibrahim said he was only making the call to burn the holy books to Muslim parents’ whose children were given the bibles.
Meanwhile, Isaac said Ibrahim’s call is a call to Muslims to “commit a serious crime under the Penal Code”.Even if the claim of distribution of bibles to Muslim student is true, he said, the offence lies with the distributor of the books and not the books themselves or others who use the book for their worship.
“Would not those millions of Christians be troubled and offended by the call of that man to seize and burn bibles?
“Does such a call not constitute a "seditious tendency to promote ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sedition Act?” asked Isaac.
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/279082
28 Oct 2014
不提控焚烧圣经论- 难以服衆，為司法立下不良示范
马华妇女组主席拿督王赛之文告（28-10-14）
王赛之：不提控焚烧圣经论- 难以服衆，為司法立下不良示范
（吉隆坡28日讯）马华妇女组主席拿督王赛之今日总检察署以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论不含煽动倾向～乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不作出提控，表示震驚及难以置伩。
在联邦憲法第3，8及11條文保障下，我国人民被赋于宗教伩仰自由。換句话说，毎个人都可以自由去选釋及履行其宗教职责，包括在必要時捍衛本身宗教，这本無可厚非，可以理解。不过，在"捍卫本身宗教圣洁 "过程中，并不代表就可以发表或做出欺压或伤害其他宗教伩徒或个人的言行。这一点，作为国家司法权威之首，总检察署应该更加暸解。
更何况，土权主席之"焚烧圣经论"不但已严重伤害了我大马两百六十万名基度教徒的感受，同時也造成种族分歧，破坏宗教和谐及引发社会不安。因此， 总检察署之"不含煽动倾向"之说，理由牽強，实在难以服衆。
她续稱，立国以耒，大马是个多元种族、多元宗教的国家。若不及時纠正，总检察署此举必将为大马司法开了先例，立下不良示范，亦恐他日不利于我国多元宗教和谐犮展。
道理很简单，今日你以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不严办，那他日若有其他宗教伩徒有样学样，也以"捍卫本身宗教圣洁"為由，大珒发表"焚烧佛经、焚烧可兰经、焚烧印度经" 论，此起彼落，那我国豈不将陷入宗教对立乱局。即時代表公正严明的总检察暑又將如何自处呢 ?～是否还是—視同仁，从宽以待吗 ?
她强调，姑息足以养奸。身為决策者，应以国家長远的利益、稳定与发展為依归。何况大马是个民主多元国家，在推广不同宗教文化之际，互相尊重及包容是各族和谐共处的主要原则。眼看当下宗教极端分子日趨严重之挑衅言论，总检察署身为司法之首，更应秉持其专业公正职业操守，维护司法权威和国家之稳定和谐，这样，才能挽回人民对国家司法体系的信心。”
王赛之：不提控焚烧圣经论- 难以服衆，為司法立下不良示范
（吉隆坡28日讯）马华妇女组主席拿督王赛之今日总检察署以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论不含煽动倾向～乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不作出提控，表示震驚及难以置伩。
在联邦憲法第3，8及11條文保障下，我国人民被赋于宗教伩仰自由。換句话说，毎个人都可以自由去选釋及履行其宗教职责，包括在必要時捍衛本身宗教，这本無可厚非，可以理解。不过，在"捍卫本身宗教圣洁 "过程中，并不代表就可以发表或做出欺压或伤害其他宗教伩徒或个人的言行。这一点，作为国家司法权威之首，总检察署应该更加暸解。
更何况，土权主席之"焚烧圣经论"不但已严重伤害了我大马两百六十万名基度教徒的感受，同時也造成种族分歧，破坏宗教和谐及引发社会不安。因此， 总检察署之"不含煽动倾向"之说，理由牽強，实在难以服衆。
她续稱，立国以耒，大马是个多元种族、多元宗教的国家。若不及時纠正，总检察署此举必将为大马司法开了先例，立下不良示范，亦恐他日不利于我国多元宗教和谐犮展。
道理很简单，今日你以土权主席依布拉欣阿里发表焚烧圣经论乃“捍卫伊斯兰教圣洁”而不严办，那他日若有其他宗教伩徒有样学样，也以"捍卫本身宗教圣洁"為由，大珒发表"焚烧佛经、焚烧可兰经、焚烧印度经" 论，此起彼落，那我国豈不将陷入宗教对立乱局。即時代表公正严明的总检察暑又將如何自处呢 ?～是否还是—視同仁，从宽以待吗 ?
她强调，姑息足以养奸。身為决策者，应以国家長远的利益、稳定与发展為依归。何况大马是个民主多元国家，在推广不同宗教文化之际，互相尊重及包容是各族和谐共处的主要原则。眼看当下宗教极端分子日趨严重之挑衅言论，总检察署身为司法之首，更应秉持其专业公正职业操守，维护司法权威和国家之稳定和谐，这样，才能挽回人民对国家司法体系的信心。”
China Press (27-10-2014)
领头大哥会振臂高呼大家应该捍卫华小维护自己族群的权益
彭总一句 ：【你是华人，您不捍卫华小，谁来捍卫？】
彭总接着说：【我们是马来西亚人！我们也要有自己的权益！】
我第一次因为联欢晚会的致辞而有所感动！
彭总！您好样啊！！！
彭总！您好样啊！！！
3 Oct 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)