We have been calling for the repeal of all laws that criminalize freedom of assembly..., and that is why we must not at all be happy that the Attorney General have decided the said cow-head protesters under Section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967 for illegal assembly - we must protest this.
Likewise, his decision to charge for an offence under Sedition Act. Remember this is an evil act that we have always been campaigning for its repeal.
The truth is that we have section 298 of the Penal Code - and, if these persons are to be charged for any offence, it must be under section 298 of the Penal Code. Section 298A may also be relevant.
298. Uttering words, etc. with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
Whoever, with deliberate- intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utter any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes ant gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
298A. Causing etc, disharmony, disunity, or feelings or enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.
(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-
(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or
(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,
on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.
(2) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S. Cap. 6) shall not apply in respect of an offence under subsection (1).
(3) Where any person alleges or imputes in any manner specified in subsection (1)-
(a) that any other person, or any class, group or description of persons, professing any particular religion;
(i) has ceased to profess that religion; or
(ii) should not be accepted, or cannot be accepted, as professing that religion; or
(iii) does not believe, follow, profess, or belong to, that religion; or
(b) that anything lawfully done by any religious official appointed, or by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, in the exercise of any power, or in the discharge of any duty, or in the performance of any function, of a religious character, by virtue of being so appointed, established or constituted, is not acceptable to such person, or should not be accepted by any other person or persons, or does not accord with or fulfil the requirements of that religion, or is otherwise wrong or improper,
he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the religion referred to in the allegation or imputation.
(4) (a) Where, on any ground of a religious character, any person professing any particular religion uses for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion.
(b) Where any person, on any ground of a religious character, counsels, advises, instigates, urges, pleads with, or appeals or propagates to, or in any manner or by any means calls upon, whether directly or indirectly, any other person or persons professing any particular religion-
(i) to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or
(ii) not to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or
(iii) not to use for worship any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion,
he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion or different religions.
(5) Where any person who is not a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law purports to exercise any power, or to discharge any duty, or to perform any function, of a religious character, being a power, duty or function which can be lawfully exercised, discharged or performed only by a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions.
(6) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to-
(a) anything done by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed by or under any written law and conferred by written law with power to give or issue any ruling or decision on any matter pertaining to the religion in respect of which the authority is established, constituted or appointed; or
(b) anything done by any person which is in pursuance of, or which accords with, any ruling or decision given or issued by such religious authority, whether or not such ruling or decision is in writing, and if in writing, whether or not it is published in the Gazette.
(7) It shall not be a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest interpretations of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.
(8) If in any proceedings under this section any question arises with, regard to the interpretation of any aspect of, or any matter in relation to, any religion, the Courts shall accept the interpretation given by any religious referred to in subsection (6), being a religious authority in respect of that religion.
We should be driven by principles...and this must be constant - and, as such we must protest the charging of people under illegal assembly laws...or even that draconian Sedition Act. More so, in this case where the Penal Code provides very clearly for such offences...
It is the act of dragging along the cow's head...the stomping on the cow's head... acts that is totally insensitive and disrespectful to our Hindu brethren, for whom the cow is very sacred.
I must state that I am very proud with my fellow Malaysians of the Hindu faith for their patience and calm in this issue.
The newspaper report about what the protesters may be charged with is as follows:-
The cow’s head protesters are likely to be charged with sedition and illegal assembly today.Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail confirmed in a statement issued yesterday that the protesters in the controversial demonstration against the relocation of a Hindu temple in Section 23 in Shah Alam on Aug 28 would be hauled to court.
He said: “I have decided to charge those who carried and spoke while stepping on the cow’s head under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act alternatively Section 298 of the Penal Code.
“They, as well as the other demonstrators, will also be facing another charge under Section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967 for illegal assembly.”
Those charged under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act are liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or jail terms of not more than three years or both, while under Section 298 of the Penal Code, offenders can be jailed up to a year and/or fined.
For illegal assembly, the punishment is a fine of between RM2,000 and RM10,000 and a jail term of up to one year.
Abdul Gani said the police had personally submitted the investigation papers to him yesterday afternoon, and “I am satisfied that the demonstrators should be taken to court”.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said police were serious about taking action against protesters who offended the people of other faiths.
“We will not tolerate such incidents that can spark racial tension. We are pushing for deterrent sentences.”
On Aug 28, some 50 people, led by residents of Section 23, marched some 300m from the state mosque to the gates of the State Secretariat building to protest against the relocation of the 150-year-old Sri Mahamariamman temple from Section 19 to Section 23.
They carried a cow’s head and stepped on it, kicked it and spat on it during the protest.
They also warned of further action if the temple was built in their area.
The manner of the protest drew heavy criticism from various parties for insulting religious sensitivities as cows are considered holy by Hindus.
Last week, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said he would leave it to the A-G to determine if there were any violations of the law when the residents staged the protest.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein also met with Section 23 residents representatives to resolve the issue.
In an immediate response to the A-G’s decision, Hindu Sangam adviser Datuk A. Vaithilingam said: “The move to charge the culprits is a good step.”
Coalition of Malaysian Indian NGOs secretary Gunaraj George said the decision to prosecute would help ease the hurt felt by the Hindu community.
Chairman of the Section 23 action committee for the protest, Mahayuddin Manaf, said he respected the decision taken by the A-G to prosecute those responsible for incident.
Malaysian Indian Associated Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry president Datuk K.K. Eswaran welcomed the decision to charge the protesters.
“This is a stern reminder that the Government does not condone actions which disrupt harmony among the various races in the country,” he said. - Star, 8/9/2009, Protesters to be charged with sedition and illegal assembly
By not charging them just under section 298 and/or 298A of the Penal Code - I wonder what is the message that the government is sending...
It seems to be that old message that they are AGAINST the freedom of assembly, freedom of expression...
That is so wrong - the message that should be clearly sent is that government is against such behaviour that was insulting and hurtful to our Hindu brethren...our Buddhist brethren and other Malaysians....and that is why they must ONLY be charged under section 298 and/or 298A of the Penal Code.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment