WHY DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ARE BAD

Muslims believe in Jesus but do not believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Hence the cross is offensive to Muslims because it distorts what Muslims believe. So why can’t Muslims oppose the cross on top of a building, especially when Muslims are the majority in that neighbourhood while Christians are the minority?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The advocates of protest demonstrations argue that they have every right to take to the streets to protest and to demonstrate against whatever it is that displeases them or makes them unhappy.

If you point out that Malaysia has certain laws that restrict what you can do and if you want to organise mass rallies you need to first apply for permission — and hence you will be violating the law if you do not do this — they will argue that the law is a bad law that violates our civil liberties and therefore need not be followed and can be ignored or defied.

Actually there are many bad laws that violate our civil liberties. Can we pick and choose which laws to defy or can we use our own judgement and defy all those laws that we consider bad laws?

You may say that laws that forbid street protests without prior approval are bad and hence needs to be ignored or defied. Someone else may say that laws that forbid the public display of Christian icons without prior approval are also bad. So what is wrong if Christians erect a cross outside their church without first getting approval when Christians think that it is a bad law that needs to be ignored or defied?

I have said this before and I will say it again: democracy is bad because democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If the majority wants it then the minority has no choice in the matter.

Take yesterday’s protest outside the Taman Medan church as one example. First of all it is said that the demonstrators were mainly or all Umno members. So what? Why should they not be allowed to protest just because they are Umno members? Do you mean to say if you are an Umno member then you forfeit the right to protest? Are protests the exclusive right of just Pakatan Rakyat members?

Once we say that every Malaysian has the right to protest and to demonstrate on the streets as a mark of this protest then we open the floodgates because under the category of ‘every Malaysian’ would include Umno members.

Now, the protestors say that Muslims are the majority of the residents of Taman Medan and since the majority do not want to see a cross on top of a building then the minority should not be allowed to display a cross on top of their building.

What about the rights of the Christians? Well, since the Christians are the minority then what they want does not matter because only what the majority wants matters. This is democracy where the majority decides and the minority has no say in the matter. And this is what the opposition has been saying — that only what the majority wants matters.

The majority of the citizens of Kelantan are Muslims and they want Hudud to be implemented in their state. But the minority and all those others who do not live in Kelantan and some who have never even been to Kelantan oppose Hudud.

Why do they oppose Hudud? If the majority in Kelantan want Hudud then they have every right to push for Hudud. Who do these minorities and those who do not live in Kelantan think they are? Democracy is about what the majority who live in Kelantan want. Your minority or non-Kelantanese voice is not important.

Some argue that we are not comparing apples to apples. That’s your opinion. The majority may not share your opinion. You support what you believe to be right and you oppose what you believe to be wrong. This is very subjective.

Some believe that Hudud is bad while others believe that kafir laws inherited from the British Christians are bad. It is all a matter of belief and you believe that your belief is right while those opposed to you are wrong.

You may say that Hudud is wrong. Can you prove that it is wrong? If Hudud is based on belief then there is no right and wrong. You cannot even prove that Jesus died on the cross and came back to life three days later. Yet you believe this even though you cannot prove it. So why is your belief right and other people’s belief wrong?

Muslims believe in Jesus but do not believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Hence the cross is offensive to Muslims because it distorts what Muslims believe. So why can’t Muslims oppose the cross on top of a building, especially when Muslims are the majority in that neighbourhood while Christians are the minority?

So you see, arguments that are used to justify your actions and beliefs can also be used the other way around. That same argument which worked for you can also work against you in another situation.

The concept of the right of expression and that the majority has the final say may be good when you need to defend your actions and beliefs. But when that same concept is applied to protest against a cross on top of a church it does not sound so good after all.

And to argue that protesting the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim is not the same as protesting the cross on top of the church (and is therefore not comparing apples to apples) is not true. Both are about beliefs. You believe Anwar is a victim of injustice and others believe it is unjust for minorities to erect a cross in a Muslim majority neighbourhood.

So democracy, the rights of the majority over the minority, and the right to demonstrate your beliefs, does not always turn out favourable in the end, does it?

Basically, the gun that defends can also kill. Hmm…I wonder why they call it defence force and not killing force when the so-called defence force actually kills.