While most people take the view that the majority's judgment in Lina Joy is bad for civil liberties in this country, I think the Federal Court has just given the 'liberals' more ammunition to fight the next battle. (Assuming My Understanding of the Judgment is Correct...)
You have read the majority’s judgment?
Do you notice what has been said and what has not?
Could you see what has been said very loudly (but less significant) and what has been whispered quietly and in passing (but highly significant)?
The Chief Justice (in the majority) says:
"(13) ABIM, Muslim Lawyers Association and the Malaysian Syarie Lawyers Association, also as watching brief, have in turn gave their respective opinions which are briefly as follows:
(a) Article 11 of the Federal Constitution used the words ‘profess and practice’. Hence, the matter of leaving Islam should follow the related laws. A person could leave {26} Islam but has to follow its procedures...
(14) Regarding the views at paragraphs (12) and (13) above I agree with the views at paragraph (13).”
1, The Federal Court agreed that in Malaysia, a person could legally (not talking about theologically or spiritually) leave Islam, by virtue of the guarantee in Article 11.
On the other hand, the Court never said that Muslims do not have the freedom to apostate. In particular, the Federal Court did not say that because of Article 121(1A), Article 11 has been completely denied to the Muslims.
In this case, the Court only decided on which is the appropriate court (which has jurisdiction) to do this, that’s all. No doubt has been cast over Muslims’ Article 11 freedom at all.
In other words, the Federal Court has confirmed that Muslims could go to that destination (apostasy) (because of Article 11); it’s just that for now, the court has prescribed a particular mode of transportation (because of Article 121(1A)).
So, when it comes to Muslims, Article 121(1A) has only burdened Article 11, but has not eliminated it.
And that’s great news for Muslims who want their religious freedom, don't you think?
(Even though you can't just take the shortcut of deleting the IC...)
This point (which I think is significant) seems to have been missed by all newspaper reports.
2, The Federal Court did not say what and where are the appropriate ‘laws and procedures’ for leaving Islam, neither did they point to any which currently exists in Malaysia. But based on what they have said, these must exist, because otherwise, what they have said would be a complete nonsense or empty talk – like asking an alcohol drinker to buy wine from the mosque. Of course the highest court in the land would not pronounce nonsense or hot air - they are, in fact, telling us what is the highest law in the land.
It seems that all they have suggested was that such matters are to be dealt with by the Syariah Court, which means that if there is no such ‘laws and procedures’ in the Syariah Court, then some must be created to allow the leaving to happen. But if the Syariah law-makers refuse to do that, then of course the Syariah Court would no longer be the appropriate place to deal with apostasy because the rationale for going to the Syariah Court in the first place is the availability of such ‘laws and procedures’.
However, if after confirming that the Syariah Court lacks those ‘laws and procedures’, the Federal Court still insists that the apostate must go there, the Federal Court would be mocking Article 11 of the Federal Constitution – and the very basis of its own existence. So, if the Syariah Court does not have or exercise them, then the civil court would have to become the appropriate, default place to deal with the matter.
After all, I'm sure the Federal Court still believes that, Islamic law or otherwise, when there is a right (to leave Islam... according to the proper laws and procedures of course), there must be a remedy.
3, If any such ‘laws and procedures’ created is so burdensome that it could practically prevent a Muslim’s leaving of Islam and rendering the freedom to leave illusory or just a joke, then those ‘laws and procedures’ must be nullified for contravening the Federal Constitution, i.e. unconstitutional.
4, And further, if there is any ‘laws and procedures’ which actually penalize the exercise of the freedom to leave Islam, then they must all the more be nullified as unconstitutional.
Such as these:
(b) if that person at any time during detention has repented, the Observing Officer shall report the matter to the [Syariah] Court and the Court shall call that person and after confirming his repent, shall make an order to free him.
(4) The Islamic Guidance/Rehabilitation Center shall be gazetted as a detention centre.
is committing an offence and when found guilty can be fined not more than RM5,000.00 or jailed for a period not more than 3 years or both together.
JOHOR ENAKMEN KESALAHAN JENAYAH SYARIAH 19974/1997, BAHAGIAN V KESALAHAN PELBAGAI, Seksyen 31
Is there a 'Next' Battle?
Appellant: "But I have followed your previous advice to stay the course, follow through all the laws and procedures, and they still put me in a deadend (after jailing me)!"
Federal Court: "Errr... hhmm... Then, we guess you just have to wait for the Wahhabists to take over the Parliament and abolish Article 11... sorry."
For the Sake of the Nation's Long Term Unity and Harmony
But is the next battle going to help national unity? Of course not, especially if it has to go through the courts again.
Therefore, I believe that the task of giving a way out - in the Syariah Court or otherwise - to the apostates can no longer be avoided. Although it could be more tempting to just amend the Federal Constitution to deny Article 11 to the Muslims, that is only going to suppress, not resolve, the minority's grievances, and is going to do a permanent, possibly irreparable damage to national unity in the long term.
Some people have suggested making clear rules and procedures to make apostasy possible but with strict, discouraging (but not penalizing) quid pro quo, such as requiring the apostate to promise not to disparage Islam after leaving, to pay hefty 'compensation taxes' to the Muslim community as the payback for having enjoyed the benefits and privileges which come with the position of being a bumiputra, and to make that option available to only those who are of a mature enough age, say 21, (therefore not easily swayed by the 'enemies of Islam').
I think that is the only way out - striking a balance between allowing individual freedom of conscience (and to avoid the inhumanity of mentally and spiritually torturing those who no longer has a heart for Islam), while not disrupting the choice of the pious Muslim majority to live the comprehensive Muslim lifestyle they crave.
But above all, the Muslim elites should study the real reason why Musims want to leave the Malaysian 'legal' Islam in the first place (rather than fooling themselves with the imaginary, distracting, blame-it-on-others and self-deceiving/deluding reasons like 'exposure to the poison of Christian missionary, American culture and internet' blah blah blah).
Doing away with discriminatory laws such as 'easy' polygamy, and anti-choice laws such as regulating women's dress and compelling marital conversion would perhaps have pre-empted many from thinking about converting out of Islam.
For a start, we would probably never hear about Lina Joy and she would have happily married her Christian boyfriend and live happily and quietly together as wife and husband -- Muslim and Christian.
Now, wouldn't God have liked and praised that ending?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should also read 'Lina Joy, The Decision (Counsel’s Explanation)' by The Idiot Behind the Iron Mask, who has tried to give the explaination by apparently some of the lawyers involved in the case for some of the concerns I happen to have about going to the Syariah Court. This is my comments (in black) posted there (with some changes):
“Whether a person such as Lina will succeed or not in the Syariah court will depend on the grounds that she gives to the Court i.e. she will have to state why she is leaving the religion… the Court [can] go through the body of Muslim jurisprudence in order resolve her problem.”
Q: what are the grounds normally acceptable?Q: would the counsel agree that it would make people have more confidence in the syariah system’s transparency and accountability if the requirements for leaving islam are clearly written down for all to know - since it is such a sensitive issue.
from the other side of the divide, it does look like apostates are being sent to a ‘black hole’ or sent on a wild goose chase -- while there r MANY serious offences CLEARLY written down to punish whoever claims to b an apostate, on 1 hand, NONE of the ‘requirements’ and ‘conditions’ for apostasy application is written down.
those who r used to the civil court common law system knows that the judges write down the reasons for their decisions, and the confidence is boosted by the expectation that like cases would b treated alike (they call it ‘binding precedent’?), therefore nobody could accuse the civil court system of favouritism against any one party.
but syariah court doesn’t seem to inspire that kind of confidence.
i’m NOT trying to disparage the syariah court system, but only hope that muslims understand why going to
syariah court is such a non-starter for most non-muslims.“In the state of Negeri Sembilan, there are special provisions for Muslims to leave Islam.”
which means the rest of the states/territories DON’T have. why?
wouldn’t it make things look less ’suspicious’ to the non-muslims if they r written down?
“The Court may impose counseling on the would-be apostate for a certain period until the Court is able to satisfy itself that there is no hope for the applicant to return to Islam.”Q: is there any safeguard in place to prevent any ill-treatment? i’ve heard of people being torturned (physically n mentally - brainwashed is the minimum) during the ‘counselling period’.
(which is another reason that scares apostates away, i guess.)
“Once the court declares that she is an apostate, she cannot be charged for any offence which other Muslims are subject to. If she is charged, she can raise her defence under Article 11 (1) of the Constitution.”
Q: ok, is this only in N. S., or all states?
“Negeri Sembilan… Of the 89 applications made between 1984 and 2003, 16 applications were allowed, 29 applications were dismissed and 39 postponed. In 2005, there were 5 successful applications; in 2006 (until August) there were 3 successful applications…”
Q: i think it’s reasonable to say that getting the order is still much less likely than not?
(that’s why, i feel that clear rules and procedures should b written down.)
“The application by a person to leave Islam is a civil suit/ proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. No one will be charged under Islamic criminal law for making such an application. Federal Court judge Justice Malanjun (a Kadazan Christian from Sabah) is misled for saying in the Lina Joy case that a person will incriminate himself and can be charged for a criminal offence if he applies to leave Islam in a Syariah court.”
Q: true, the application might b a civil application, but could the authorities LATER/AT THE SAME TIME/BEFORE YOUR APPLICATION IS DECIDED, charge u with a criminal offence in a PARALLEL, SEPARATE criminal proceedings, for MAKING the application (which seems to be caught by the wording of those criminal provisions)?
Is there any assurance (explicitly written) that they would not?
Q: any express provisions/syariah principles to guarantee that she wouldn’t b charged? for a start, those criminal provisions DO NOT give an EXCEPTION to that kind of application. their wordings r very wide - ‘by word, conduct, … or by any manner at all’ surely, it’s reasonable for most people (including Justice Malanjun) to make that conclusion.
(some muslims like to say, “that’s why we keep saying non-muslims should not interfere with syariah matters BCOS THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND!!”
but they never bother to EXPLAIN and PERSUADE by telling us, unambiguously, what is REALLY the fact. they just stop there, n broke off the conversation. frankly, asking someone to ’stop asking’ in the middle of a conversation/discussion is quite rude. at the very least, it shows that they r not interested in engaging others.)
many non-muslims, myself included, ARE WILLING to listen n understand what the other side is thinking. if we don’t understand, PLEASE EXPLAIN and point to CLEAR examples. then, we’ll b persuaded.
maybe not all of us, but many would.
“As to the fact that some states have enacted Islamic laws making apostasy a crime, these laws are seldom enforced.”
Q: i won’t dispute that these laws r seldom enforced. but the fact is, they r THERE. from the other side, it does seem like the clerics r just WAITING for the time to ’strike’ (to snatch your wife & children from your home, etc). i’m not saying that this perception is correct, but there r a lot of things MUSLIMS could do to achieve greater understanding.
if the laws r not frequently enforced, that still does not answer the fact that the syariah system IS TRYING TO SCARE apostates. now, in that situation, how can u expect the apostates to willingly go to the syariah court? again, i’m not criticizing u on this, but just hope u’ll see things from the other side’s perspective.
I'll update if there's any reply by him.
3 comments:
well, looks like there's still no answer to my questions/doubts above n raised at http://www.wanzafran.com/2007/lina-joy-the-decision-counsels-explanation/
...
b that as it may, the syariah court system itself HAS ANSWERED them.
it seems that it's NOT TRUE that the syariah criminal provisions punishing acts apostasy would not b applied to punish somebody for applying to the syariah court for an apostasy order. they DO apply.
in other words, justice richard malanjum was CORRECT to say that to send lina joy to syariah court would b SELF-INCRIMINATION, n the majority of the federal court was telling us a BIG FAT LIE.
so, lina joy majority decision could b summed up as:
go bang your head on the syariah court wall, don't come to civil court. if u bleed, KEEP banging.
dear wanzafran, or any other person who still wishes to defend the majority's decision in lina joy, please show that i m WRONG... please. bcos i WANT TO B WRONG.
http://www.harakahdaily.net/bm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8588&Itemid=28
Isnin 9 Julai 2007 | 23 Jamadil Akhir 1428 Hijrah Kes Siti Fatimah: PAS, Umno perlu bincang bersama
Roslan SMS
Sun | Jul 08, 07 | 08:13:37 PM
Pada 23 Jun 2006 Siti Fatimah telah mengemukakan permohonan di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Melaka untuk keluar dari Islam dan menukar namanya dari nama Islam ke nama Hindunya atas alasan beliau tidak lagi menganut Islam, telah berkahwin dengan V. Suresh menurut agama Hindu dan kini mempunyai seorang anak Diviya Dharhini hasil dari perkahwinan itu.
Mahkamah walau bagaimanapun telah mengeluarkan perintah menahan Siti Fatimah untuk 100 hari mulai 8 Januari tahun ini (dan kemudiannya dilanjutkan ke 80 hari lagi) di Pusat berkenaan dan perintah tersebut disahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor yang diberi kuasa ke atas responden memandangkan pusat tersebut berada di Selangor.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9710/2
‘Revathi, that’s my name - forever’
Friday, 06 July 2007, 04:45pm
©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Andrew Ong and Ng Lin Fong
• Woman released from Islamic rehab camp
M Revathi, 29, still steadfastly wants to remain a Hindu, despite her six month detention by religious authorities and ongoing efforts to make her a Muslim.
“My name is Revathi. I want to hold on to that name - forever. I want to drop the name Siti Fatimah,” Revathi, sporting pottu (Hindu symbol) on her forehead, told reporters outside the Shah Alam High Court today.
Born Siti Fatimah Abdul Karim to Muslim convert parents, she was called Revathi Masoosai by the grandmother who raised her.
She married to V Suresh in 2004 according to Hindu rites and has a 18-month old daughter.
In January this year, Revathi was detained at the Malacca Syariah High Court when she attended a hearing over her application to have her official religious status be recognised as a Hindu.
She was detained at the court and subsequently held at the Ulu Yam religious rehabilitation camp in Selangor for six months until she was freed yesterday.
Speaking about her experience inside the camp, Revathi today described that she was subjected to ‘mental torture’ and claimed that she defied attempts to coerce her to follow religious classes.
“Their programmes are solely on religion. (There were also) prayer classes. I never attended (any of them). I only attended counselling. During counselling, they said I had to do this and that. They said I had to follow (religious) laws. I just buat tidak tahu (ignore).
“I argued that I had a right to choose my religion, but they replied that I should not talk about (my) rights,” said Revathi who is presently living with her Muslim parents as ordered by the religious authorities.
‘Many ran away’
She claimed that many had run away from the ‘jail-like’ conditions of the camp but she had not.
“A lot of people ran away, even though (the camp was for Muslims). Though I’m a Hindu, I could bertahan (bear with the conditions), because I’m upholding the good name of Hinduism,” she added.
During her detention, she was not allowed visits. Recalling the only time she got to see her husband during her detention, Revathi said:
“Even though I was not allowed to meet my husband, I got to see him (standing) outside the camp, without their permission. I saw his car and I ran towards the fence. It was only once (I got to see him during the detention). After that, they (from the centre) dragged me away.
“Before, it was not enclosed. Now, they used zinc (sheets) to surround the area. You can’t see inside and we won’t know who is outside,” she said.
The emotional moment where Revathi and Suresh were momentarily reunited was captured on film by Al-Jazeera and aired on April 23 in current affairs programme Everywoman.
Revathi was initially detained for 80 days at the camp but her detention was extended for 100 days twice. Her stint ended yesterday when she was presented before the Malacca Syariah Court.
‘Waste of my time’
She was ordered to live with her parents and undergo counselling. She lamented that she was “unsatisfied” with the decisions made by the court.
“They held me for six months, only to say that I cannot leave Islam. If that is the case, they should have told me earlier, so I don’t have to go into the centre.
“Who’s going to compensate for the six months I was there? (It is a) waste of my time! I was separated from my child and husband. How are they going to compensate?” she asked.
“I have a right to choose my religion. In six months, they cannot make me change my mind, how can they do it now?”
She also said that religious officials tried to force her to pray, eat beef and wear a headscarf.
"Because of their behaviour, I hate (benci) Islam even more now," she added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woman released from Islamic rehab camp
by Andrew Ong
A woman who had been forcibly separated from her Hindu husband and 18-month-old baby girl on the grounds of her religion has been released from custody in an Islamic rehabilitation camp yesterday.
However, the woman - Revathi Masoosai, according to her husband V Suresh, or Siti Fatimah, according to her parents and religious authorities - is prohibited from staying with her husband.
Yesterday, the woman was brought to the Malacca Syariah High Court where she was told that she was freed from the Ulu Yam rehabilitation camp in Selangor.
She had been held there for six months.
The court also ruled that she must stay with her Muslim parents, along with her child. The baby has been looked after by Revathi's parents since she was sent to the rehabilitation camp in January.
Revathi was also told that she could not convert out of Islam.
Suresh had previously claimed that she was not a practising Muslim, but a Hindu born to Muslim parents. The couple is from Malacca.
Revathi told reporters that the rehabilitation camp was like a prison and that religious officials tried to force her to pray and wear headscarf.
"Because of their behaviour, I hate (benci) Islam even more now," she added.
Case in court
The habeas corpus application today to seek her release was to have been heard this morning at the Shah Alam High Court.
However at the court proceedings, lawyers for the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Jais) Mohamad Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the matter has been rendered academic and redundant following her release from the rehabilitation camp yesterday.
Suresh’s lawyer Karpal Singh on the other hand told the court that the matter must be heard as it was a matter of public interest as it would set a precedence for similar cases.
In the end the court agreed with Haniff and dismissed the application.
Justice Su Geok Yiam said she allowed preliminary objections from Haniff that the Shah Alam High Court had no jurisdiction on grounds that Revathi was no longer in detention.
“The law is clear on this. If the subject of a habeas corpus application is released, then the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the application,” said Justice Su after a one-hour recess to make the ruling.
In an immediate response, Karpal said he would file an appeal at the Federal Court on Monday.
Representatives from the Bar Council, Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism and the Melaka Islamic Religious Council (Maim) were also present to observe proceedings.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9716/2
Syariah Court dismisses Revathi's application to renounce Islam
Contributed by Desmond Ho Chee Cheong
Friday, 06 July 2007, 08:01pm
MALACCA, Fri: Revathi’s (aka Siti Fatimah) application to seek the Malacca Syariah High Court’s order to renounce her religion came up for hearing at 4.00pm on Thursday 5 July 2007.
We were informed earlier on that the judge would hold his court in session at 3.00pm but we were kept waiting with Revathi who was dressed in a green coloured saree.
Tuah bin Atan was the syariah lawyer acting for Majlis Agama Islam Melaka, and the Bar Council held a watching brief through Nizam Bashir.
The Malacca Bar Committee showed its concern for the case and had in attendance a sizeable number of lawyers, including its Chair, Ng Kong Peng.
The learned judge was informed by Tuah that the maximum 6 months rehabilitation period has lapsed and would have expired at 12am that night and upon reading the progress report of the officer in charge of the rehabilitation centre in Ulu Yam, Tuah went on to state that there was a possibility of repentance on Revathi’s part and thus a recommendation was made for continual counseling sessions with the hope that she would return to embrace Islam.
The judge then asked Revathi whether she still insisted on proceeding with the application to renounce Islam and she answered in the affirmative. Nizam Bashir then requested the court’s indulgence to take into consideration that Revathi is an adult before delivering his judgment.
Revathi was then allowed to speak once again and she courageously told the court that she has two families and despite her filial duties to her parents, she also has a duty to her own family with husband. However, Tuah brought to the court's attention that, subject to proof, Revathi has only one recognised family, i.e. her parents.
The learned judge then informed the court that he would allow Revathi’s parents to speak in court . When both of them appeared, they informed the court that they wished for their daughter to be placed in their custody.
The learned judge then delivered his judgment and stated that in Islam there is no compulsion and there is a recognition of the concept of freedom of religion provided in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. However, this freedom of religion, according to him, meant that no one can be compelled to be a Muslim. The learned judge went on to state that once a person has embraced Islam, that person cannot leave Islam. He went on and remarked that in Islam, in the instance of a man, the punishment of death is permissible in 3 instances, namely, murder, adultery and apostasy. For a woman, in the event she renounces her religion, the sentence would be indefinite imprisonment until she repents. The learned judge explained that in Islam, religion is not merely between Man and God but between Man, God and community and a person renouncing Islam would affect the community. The learned judge apparently equated apostasy to treason in western civilization and stated that in many countries around the world, treason is a serious offence as it is of national security concern and punishable by the harshest penal sentence.
Despite Nizam’s earlier plea to take into consideration Revathi’s adult status, the learned judge dismissed the application seeking an order to renounce Islam and ordered Revathi to be placed in the custody of her parents and that she would undergo continual counseling sessions.
walski has kindly expanded my comments into a full post:
http://asylum60.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-self-incrimination.html
Monday, July 09, 2007
No Self-Incrimination?
Walski's Intro Note:
From time to time, reader's of myAsylum leave comments that are worthy of full posts. The following, from Juslo, is one of them, and was left in relation to two previous posts, here and here. The comment posted here has been edited slightly for style, flow and language, but with the contents essentially intact.
The fears of some of us about self-incrimination were right (unfortunately).
Wan Zafran has tried to assure us that the criminal provisions criminalizing apostasy would NOT apply to someone who is applying for an apostasy order at the syariah court, in his post, entitled Lina Joy, The Decision (Counsel’s Explanation).
But he was WRONG, it seems.
The syariah court system itself HAS ANSWERED the qeustions/fears we had - in the recent Revathi case.
It seems that it's NOT TRUE that the syariah criminal provisions punishing acts apostasy would not be applied to punish somebody for applying to the syariah court for an apostasy order. they DO apply.
In other words, Justice Richard Malanjum was CORRECT to say that to send Lina Joy to Syariah Court would be SELF-INCRIMINATION, and the majority of the Federal Court was telling us is a BIG FAT LIE.
So, the Lina Joy majority decision could be summed up as: go bang your head on the syariah court wall, don't come to civil court. If u bleed, KEEP banging. Any other person who still wishes to defend the majority's decision in Lina Joy, please show that I am WRONG... please. Because I WANT TO BE WRONG.
(Juslo's wrong proven right, and left wanting, in the full post)
Walski's in-post note: The following are excerpts quoted by Juslo to justify his statement above. Sources and links are provided for each of the articles mentioned.
From Harakah: Kes Siti Fatimah: PAS, Umno perlu bincang bersama
by Roslan SMS
"Pada 23 Jun 2006 Siti Fatimah telah mengemukakan permohonan di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Melaka untuk keluar dari Islam dan menukar namanya dari nama Islam ke nama Hindunya atas alasan beliau tidak lagi menganut Islam, telah berkahwin dengan V. Suresh menurut agama Hindu dan kini mempunyai seorang anak Diviya Dharhini hasil dari perkahwinan itu.
Mahkamah walau bagaimanapun telah mengeluarkan perintah menahan Siti Fatimah untuk 100 hari mulai 8 Januari tahun ini (dan kemudiannya dilanjutkan ke 80 hari lagi) di Pusat berkenaan dan perintah tersebut disahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor yang diberi kuasa ke atas responden memandangkan pusat tersebut berada di Selangor."
From The Malaysian Bar Council:
‘Revathi, that’s my name - forever’
Friday, 06 July 2007, 04:45pm
©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Andrew Ong and Ng Lin Fong
Woman released from Islamic rehab camp
M Revathi, 29, still steadfastly wants to remain a Hindu, despite her six month detention by religious authorities and ongoing efforts to make her a Muslim.
“My name is Revathi. I want to hold on to that name - forever. I want to drop the name Siti Fatimah,” Revathi, sporting pottu (Hindu symbol) on her forehead, told reporters outside the Shah Alam High Court today.
Born Siti Fatimah Abdul Karim to Muslim convert parents, she was called Revathi Masoosai by the grandmother who raised her.
She married to V Suresh in 2004 according to Hindu rites and has a 18-month old daughter.
In January this year, Revathi was detained at the Malacca Syariah High Court when she attended a hearing over her application to have her official religious status be recognised as a Hindu.
She was detained at the court and subsequently held at the Ulu Yam religious rehabilitation camp in Selangor for six months until she was freed yesterday.
Speaking about her experience inside the camp, Revathi today described that she was subjected to ‘mental torture’ and claimed that she defied attempts to coerce her to follow religious classes.
“Their programmes are solely on religion. (There were also) prayer classes. I never attended (any of them). I only attended counselling. During counselling, they said I had to do this and that. They said I had to follow (religious) laws. I just buat tidak tahu (ignore).
“I argued that I had a right to choose my religion, but they replied that I should not talk about (my) rights,” said Revathi who is presently living with her Muslim parents as ordered by the religious authorities.
‘Many ran away’
She claimed that many had run away from the ‘jail-like’ conditions of the camp but she had not.
“A lot of people ran away, even though (the camp was for Muslims). Though I’m a Hindu, I could bertahan (bear with the conditions), because I’m upholding the good name of Hinduism,” she added.
During her detention, she was not allowed visits. Recalling the only time she got to see her husband during her detention, Revathi said:
“Even though I was not allowed to meet my husband, I got to see him (standing) outside the camp, without their permission. I saw his car and I ran towards the fence. It was only once (I got to see him during the detention). After that, they (from the centre) dragged me away.
“Before, it was not enclosed. Now, they used zinc (sheets) to surround the area. You can’t see inside and we won’t know who is outside,” she said.
The emotional moment where Revathi and Suresh were momentarily reunited was captured on film by Al-Jazeera and aired on April 23 in current affairs programme Everywoman.
Revathi was initially detained for 80 days at the camp but her detention was extended for 100 days twice. Her stint ended yesterday when she was presented before the Malacca Syariah Court.
‘Waste of my time’
She was ordered to live with her parents and undergo counselling. She lamented that she was “unsatisfied” with the decisions made by the court.
“They held me for six months, only to say that I cannot leave Islam. If that is the case, they should have told me earlier, so I don’t have to go into the centre.
“Who’s going to compensate for the six months I was there? (It is a) waste of my time! I was separated from my child and husband. How are they going to compensate?” she asked.
“I have a right to choose my religion. In six months, they cannot make me change my mind, how can they do it now?”
She also said that religious officials tried to force her to pray, eat beef and wear a headscarf.
"Because of their behaviour, I hate (benci) Islam even more now," she added.
--------- o ---------
Woman released from Islamic rehab camp
by Andrew Ong
A woman who had been forcibly separated from her Hindu husband and 18-month-old baby girl on the grounds of her religion has been released from custody in an Islamic rehabilitation camp yesterday.
However, the woman - Revathi Masoosai, according to her husband V Suresh, or Siti Fatimah, according to her parents and religious authorities - is prohibited from staying with her husband.
Yesterday, the woman was brought to the Malacca Syariah High Court where she was told that she was freed from the Ulu Yam rehabilitation camp in Selangor.
She had been held there for six months.
The court also ruled that she must stay with her Muslim parents, along with her child. The baby has been looked after by Revathi's parents since she was sent to the rehabilitation camp in January.
Revathi was also told that she could not convert out of Islam.
Suresh had previously claimed that she was not a practising Muslim, but a Hindu born to Muslim parents. The couple is from Malacca.
Revathi told reporters that the rehabilitation camp was like a prison and that religious officials tried to force her to pray and wear headscarf.
"Because of their behaviour, I hate (benci) Islam even more now," she added.
Case in court
The habeas corpus application today to seek her release was to have been heard this morning at the Shah Alam High Court.
However at the court proceedings, lawyers for the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Jais) Mohamad Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the matter has been rendered academic and redundant following her release from the rehabilitation camp yesterday.
Suresh’s lawyer Karpal Singh on the other hand told the court that the matter must be heard as it was a matter of public interest as it would set a precedence for similar cases.
In the end the court agreed with Haniff and dismissed the application.
Justice Su Geok Yiam said she allowed preliminary objections from Haniff that the Shah Alam High Court had no jurisdiction on grounds that Revathi was no longer in detention.
“The law is clear on this. If the subject of a habeas corpus application is released, then the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the application,” said Justice Su after a one-hour recess to make the ruling.
In an immediate response, Karpal said he would file an appeal at the Federal Court on Monday.
Representatives from the Bar Council, Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism and the Melaka Islamic Religious Council (Maim) were also present to observe proceedings.
From The Malaysian Bar Council:
Syariah Court dismisses Revathi's application to renounce Islam
Contributed by Desmond Ho Chee Cheong
Friday, 06 July 2007, 08:01pm
MALACCA, Fri: Revathi’s (aka Siti Fatimah) application to seek the Malacca Syariah High Court’s order to renounce her religion came up for hearing at 4.00pm on Thursday 5 July 2007.
We were informed earlier on that the judge would hold his court in session at 3.00pm but we were kept waiting with Revathi who was dressed in a green coloured saree.
Tuah bin Atan was the syariah lawyer acting for Majlis Agama Islam Melaka, and the Bar Council held a watching brief through Nizam Bashir.
The Malacca Bar Committee showed its concern for the case and had in attendance a sizeable number of lawyers, including its Chair, Ng Kong Peng.
The learned judge was informed by Tuah that the maximum 6 months rehabilitation period has lapsed and would have expired at 12am that night and upon reading the progress report of the officer in charge of the rehabilitation centre in Ulu Yam, Tuah went on to state that there was a possibility of repentance on Revathi’s part and thus a recommendation was made for continual counseling sessions with the hope that she would return to embrace Islam.
The judge then asked Revathi whether she still insisted on proceeding with the application to renounce Islam and she answered in the affirmative. Nizam Bashir then requested the court’s indulgence to take into consideration that Revathi is an adult before delivering his judgment.
Revathi was then allowed to speak once again and she courageously told the court that she has two families and despite her filial duties to her parents, she also has a duty to her own family with husband. However, Tuah brought to the court's attention that, subject to proof, Revathi has only one recognised family, i.e. her parents.
The learned judge then informed the court that he would allow Revathi’s parents to speak in court . When both of them appeared, they informed the court that they wished for their daughter to be placed in their custody.
The learned judge then delivered his judgment and stated that in Islam there is no compulsion and there is a recognition of the concept of freedom of religion provided in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. However, this freedom of religion, according to him, meant that no one can be compelled to be a Muslim. The learned judge went on to state that once a person has embraced Islam, that person cannot leave Islam. He went on and remarked that in Islam, in the instance of a man, the punishment of death is permissible in 3 instances, namely, murder, adultery and apostasy. For a woman, in the event she renounces her religion, the sentence would be indefinite imprisonment until she repents. The learned judge explained that in Islam, religion is not merely between Man and God but between Man, God and community and a person renouncing Islam would affect the community. The learned judge apparently equated apostasy to treason in western civilization and stated that in many countries around the world, treason is a serious offence as it is of national security concern and punishable by the harshest penal sentence.
Despite Nizam’s earlier plea to take into consideration Revathi’s adult status, the learned judge dismissed the application seeking an order to renounce Islam and ordered Revathi to be placed in the custody of her parents and that she would undergo continual counseling sessions.
Walski's end-note: And so, the assertion that an application to apostasize made in the Syariah court CAN be self-incriminating, probably depending on which state court the application is made. The assurances made by Wan Zafran in his blog, as have been proven, are either empty assurances, or worse, the counsel who wrote the contents of that post did so knowing full well that it was untrue. Walski thanks Juslo for his effort in bringing this matter to the attention of Walski, and the bloggerhood. Again, Walski asks: Justice, or "Just Us"?
Posted by walski69 at 12:38:00 PM
12 comments:
if umno got cybertrooper to condenm barisan rakyat, this girl/guy also a member of anti-Islam trooper to tarnish Barisan Islam ..
Post a Comment