As a result of the confusing interpretations over the Court of Appeal decision on the ‘Allah’ case, the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) hopes there will be judicial clarity on the decision when the case goes before the Federal Court.
“We note with deep concern the confusion of interpretations expounded. There are so many legal views expounded in the media by ministers, legal experts, the attorney-general (AG) and the former AG. Some say that the prohibition is only in the use of the word ‘Allah’ in The Herald but others indicate that it is a blanket ruling against all non-Muslims.
“This therefore requires clear judicial clarity through an appeal process to the Federal Court. The attorney-general should also highlight to the Federal Court the 10-point solution announced by the government in 2011,” he said.
Proham, which is established by former commissioners of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), also expressed its grave concern over the Court of Appeal decision in its interpretation of Article 11 of the federal constitution as it constitutes the eroding of religious freedom.
It agrees with the Bar Council and constitutional expert Abdul Aziz Bari’s view on Article 3(1), that the court could have wrongfully interpreted that provision, as Article 11 should be read within fundamental liberties and the only restraint to religious freedom is in Article 11 (4), with regard to the propagation of religions other than Islam to Muslims.
‘Take action on divisive groups’
While Proham welcomes Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s urging that “Muslims should not hurt the feelings of the non-Muslims and non-Muslims should not hurt the feelings of Muslim”, it observes that a number of groups have been urging the burning of the Bible, a ban on the Al-Kitab, and those who do not agree with the decision to leave the country.
“Proham views with deep concern these matters and urges the authorities to take appropriate action on the groups sowing the seeding of disharmony, and therefore the Home Ministry is required to do more than just provide political assurances,” Kuthubul Zaman and Denison said in a statement.
They reiterated that it was the fundamental right of an individual or institution to commence court proceedings should they feel that their basic rights are being threatened or infringed.
Such proceedings, Proham stated, should not be discouraged or frowned upon and those making them should not be viewed as troublemakers or instigators.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.