Screenshots

Bravo Jeff.I hope the Judiciary hears you loud and clear! Do we need Karpal to expose this further in Parliament?

Folks

See here a no-holds barred comment and compilation of commentaries on the decisions of the judges on the religous cases mentioned, entitled:

Malaysian Court Judges' Majority Decisions on Religious Issues: Making a Mockery of the Federal Constitution

http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2007/03/malaysian-court-judges-majority_31.html

Some of our fellow Malaysians are having domestic problem which in turn now become national issue. There are the real culprits. They have caused unnecessary fears among other fellow Malaysians.

Those espousing the superiority of Islam and Shariah over secularism and the common law invite trouble for themselves. As a non-Muslim I look upon the Shariah Courts as an extension of the institutions of Islam and just like a mosque would demand certain sanctities to be observed. I have been into Mosques before fully observing the requirements imposed by the keepers of the mosque. No problem there. But force me into one, and that includes the Shariah Courts as well, it will be sullied with all the curses I can muster and I shall observe the protocols that I am accustomed to according to my upbringing.

Now that will mean a contamination of the sanctity of an institution of Islam and there will be total disrespect to the elders and the judges who impose themselves on me. My conduct and actions will only demean everything Islam is supposed to stand for and the reverance and deference good innocent Muslims have for their faith and the institutions of their faith. This of course will begin a new round of debate and, who knows, a new battle or a war.

Do I want that? No!. Do I want to disrespect or dishonour Islam? No!. But you force it on one like Subashini, then those who force her deserve the contempt she can muster upon all the forces that impose on her. As it is there is already one, Shamala, I believe, who has displayed utter contempt for all of that force by physically removing herself and her children from the geographic and political jurisdiction of these forces. Indeed her action is a slap on the face and a shame upon these forces. If these forces had any sense of moral right in what they do, let alone legal right, they would and they should pursue Shamala to the very ends of this earth and impose on the host country she has escaped to to repatriate to the so called supreme law that they believe she is incumbent to submit to. No, they don't for they know that all of their power is only good for their little coconut shell they live under. By not pursuing what they claim to be, indeed they are shooting an own goal against their own faith,believes and their master! Its a major let down of the remaining faithful who don't care to indulge in this power play.

Let the legal eagles talk about the constitution, Shariah Law, Common Law, precedents, cases and judgements. An ordinary Joe like me only sees it all for what it is. We can, but only, use all these to teach our children of the horrors of this faith that is so alien to good sense and logic. It helps to show more clearly its true colours. As Crosby Stills and Nash sang, "Teach Your Children Well"! That is all I have got to say!

This crisis is created by the learned judges who are not using the Federal constitution as their guide. They are using they feelings and own judgement which is against the constitution and worse still putting innocent parties at a loosing end.

If they can't follow the constitution which I'm sure they took oaths to protect and honour, it is time they resign adn spare inncoent folks who now have no avenue for a fair and just trial.

the catholic church had issued a statement on 27 march for all churches to read out the statement beginning today for 7 days during mass time.

Subashini's marriage was contracted under civil law. The children were born when the marriage was in force under civil law. For the Court of Appeals to now say that Subashini must seek redress in the Syariah court means the Cout of Appeals considers the civil court is subordinate to the Syariah court.

In my opinion, this matter, and others which relate to overlapping areas between the civil courts and Syariah courts, can only be settled through legislation. It was Parliament which created this ambiguity, via the Constitutional amendment Article 121 (1A), which states that civil courts have no jurisdiction on "any matter" which falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah (Sharia, Islamic Law) courts.

It is getting very, very critical for this Article to be further "clarified" via additional legislation. Otherwise many judges in all likelihood will think as Muslims first rather than as civil law judges. Very sad, very sad.

Zorro has an update:
http://zorro-zorro-unmasked.blogspot.com/2007/03/breaking-news.html

Demon

That is a very narrow view.

It is about yours and rights in the Constitution.

Everyone of us will also fight for your rights as a citizen, and it does not matter whether you are Malay, Chinese, Indian or Orang Asli or Dayak, or your skin is brown, yellow, black or white, or if you are deaf, dumb and blind or you are a paraplegic.

One day, when your rights are trampled and thrown into the toilet, you will what this fuss is all about.

So be careful, if it can happen to others, it can happen to you and family.

So selfishness and self-interest is not good for you. Remember that till you hit the ground. And tell that to your descendants too, by the way.

this muslim.vs non muslim thing is getting out of hand.

And the govt of AAB just sit and do nothing. What are our elected reps doing...too chicken to raise objections.?

the catholic bishop of conference had issued a statement on this matter, and had directed all churches to read out the statement from today onwards during mass time for a week.

Lucia, this now means that the Catholic Church in Malaysia is trying to influence court decisions and is, for all practical purposes, entering political debate, right? I'm not saying it shouldn't. All I'm saying is: everyone is fighting to have their opinion prevail over others. And one of these opinions will ultimately have to be superior to others--be it secular, religious (which religion?), or something else. In any case, some people will be happy and others will feel aggrieved. And that's the way the cookie crumbles...

JEFF OOI says: This issue, if you retain a rational mind, does not relate to a party's win at the expense of the other's loss. Rather, it relates to a larger issue at stake. When the sanctity of the Federal Constitution is compromised, everyone is a big loser.

Is it really such form religious oppression? What kind of oppression do we have here? [ DELETED - Seditious ] Too much of unnecessary fears.

Jeff, in regard to your comment above, the Federal Constitution is a document that is open to interpretation. And who interprets these documents? The human beings.

JEFF OOI says: Interpretation of the Federal Constitution by people is a provision of democracy as there are conventions and legal framework, agreed over sue democratic process. Human failures, which are not unknown, are given due course of redress in a situation where democracy is in practice. Malaysia practises Parliamentary democracy, and the Federal Constitution, on which the Civil law system is based, is enshrined in such democracy framework sanctioned by the global world. Hence, the Feferal Constitution is the high law in this land -- unless and until the system is changed constitutionally. You have to recognise this fact, or the rest is hogwash.

Different people will interpret the document differently. Secular people will look at the Constitution through that lens, religious people through another (and here you have different interpretations of religion, which makes matters even more complicated). I was just making point that whichever opinion in interpreting the Constitution prevails, there will be those who agree with that interpretation and those who disagree. The thing is, both (or more) such parties will believe that it is they who interpreted the Constitution 'more correctly'. That's what I meant in my post above. Your insinuation that, somehow, I did not retain a rational mind was uncalled for. It's all about sharing opinions. What happened with 'thinking allowed'?

JEFF OOI says: You asked: What happened with 'thinking allowed'?. Don't provoke in such a childish manner. While thinking aloud is allowed here -- see, your commentary is published bared for all to see here -- are you thinking in the first place? Don't distort the issue, and hijack my bloig context into your intended polemic. If you don;t have the right mental construct to comprehend the issue, allow others who have what you don't to speak. I had long expected rabble-rousers like you.

Rocky

To add to what you said, which I believe you are being politically correct, here is what is commented, which everybody who knows about the case, is talking about quietly, and in the coffee shop.

Since our liberties are being put in question by the decisions of the court, it is time to call a spade a spade on this issue.

The comment below is posted here:
http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2007/03/update-court-of-appeal-grants.html

I past below the comment that was posted:

"" In the current controversy, the perception of the Malaysian public is this:
The wisdom of our civil court judges, especially our learned Muslim judges involved in these cases, is being influenced or coloured, knowingly or unknowingly, by their own religious sentiments and their personal prejudices, instead of being guided by their profound knowledge of the rule of law and the Malaysian Federal Constitution.

The lesson Malaysians are beginning to learn from this controversy is that situations WILL arise again and again where our learned Muslim judges will be faced with personal or religious dilemma within themselves when fronted with cases involving non-Muslims, Islam and the Syariah court.

And Malaysians expect, without any exception, that this uncertainty should NEVER be a factor, and be seen as NOT a factor, in the discharge of their duties as judges of our civil courts .

The honorable thing for these affected judges to do is to simply recuse themselves from these cases."

It seems strange that right until someone converts, he has free will. But the moment he has converted, the religion ergo the court can take over matters. That's the impression one gets.

What if Sarayanan had converted and decided not to get the children converted? Does the religion allow for that? If the religion does not allow for that, wouldn't that mean his free will to decide whether to get his children converted has been superceded? If that is the case, why doesn't the religion supercede everyone's free will and convert everyone en masse?

The last census says that half the population of this country are non-muslims. How then would the last question above be answered?

Secondly, you can't have a country where some believe in something and some others don't believe in the same thing, and both collide but cannot resolve because it is also believed that the constitution (or for that matter any other legal instrument) can be accepted or not accepted depending on one's view or interpretation of it.

It's like saying laws can be bent because one doesn't have to agree with how they have been written or can be interpreted.

Thirdly, which came first and over-arches all? the constitution or that amendment in parliament?

Last question:

is there a warehouse sale somewhere now? sure beats trying to figure out things without impugning anything malafiat.

Neil

The problem ith issues like this is that our Muslim judges in the civil courts have a problem, which only they themselves have to come to terms with.

Either they discharge their responsibilities as a Malaysian Judge, using the rule of law and the Federal Constitution or discharge their duties as a devout Muslim.

It is a personal conflict for these charges, the "pull" of their religion to act in one way, and the "forces" of the rule of law and the Constitution pulling in the other way.

If these judges were to enact their role as a secular Judge first, and as a Muslim second, this controversy would not have arisen at all, and would be dead on arrival at the doorstep of the civil court.

Unfortunately our judges tend to let personal sentiments override their wisdom and that is not the way it should be.

Yes, they should recuse themselves out of the case if they feel their personal prejudices are coming into play, but then again, they might even feel that they may be letting their religion down if they do so.

So this is their personal dilemma: Damn if I do, damn if I don't.

You would, if you are a very devout Muslim sitting in judgement.

The cost of that dilemma is the Federal Constitution and the fundamental liberties of non Muslims in the country.

I am not saying All our learned Muslim judges have that dilemma. But that would be a natural consequence.

Question is: Are there sufficient COURAGEOUS Muslim judges who would BE a secular judge first and be a Muslim second? That's the 64 million dollar question

clearly spelt out with usual frankness and honesty, Frank&Honest.

kittykad46, too (any kit-kat to spare? i am famish).

and you have my heartfelt sympathies, observer.

This issue is not going to go away. The term 'official
religion' has to be carefully explained. The rub is that those who will be doing it are listening to a different pied piper.

We can discuss until the cow comes home and there will be no result! The fact is that this episode smacks of the way this country has deteriorated over the last 25 years. One thing when it comes to race and religion, the head does not rule, it is the heart. The very fact is that when the institution is loaded by one-sided racial tilt and superimposed by religion, these judges are not going to behace secular first and then religious second. The question is the federal consitution is a secular law and it is the supreme law of the land. the problem comes when the law of god is applied. When you have someone talking about the law of god, no secular law can supercede and here comes the problem. For a moment, judges dare not come out clean and they still continue to sit in judgment and any judge worth his salt should have excused himself from hearing such a case, and this is the proper thing to do. Justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done so goes the saying. It is a pity that after going 50, this country is showing its old age goose-pimples!

It is clear that the Appeals Court decision in this case is based on religious inclinations and not the Constitution and the law but for the briliant mind of Justice Sri Ram, not only in this case but in many other cases. I hope Suhasini never submits herself to the Shariyah court evenif the Federal Court decision goes against her.That possibility is very likely considering the men manning the Federal Court and their lack of courage in protecting the citizens rights under the Constitution they are sworn to.
I am not a lawyer but can some lawyers, may be Syed Ibrahim, clarify whether Shariah court judges are competent in Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence to pass judgements like in the case of Suhasini?Are not these judges' knowledge confined to matters of Islam and Al-quran?

Who shifted the goalpost???

So, two parties decided to play badminton, then halfway through the game, one player decides to use a tennis ball instead, and that not being enough, decides that the umpire be changed to a tennis empire, and the aggrieved party who brought the attention of the problem to the Badminton Association, and they said, go to the tennis federation for a ruling???

Hmmm.......

I think the subtitle "'Erosion of non-Muslims' rights under the Constitution'" reveal lots of issue on the other side.

IMHO : Isn't this also mean the opposite does not enjoy the civil right under constitutions? Unfortunately, Kampung folks mindset don't take this as an "cultural revolution".

When particular ethnic cultures is decide by illiterate politikus and lower class village folks, it will be a disaster.

Our Muslim judges too like the majority of Malay Malaysians suffer from the holier than thou syndrome.They don't mind
taking justice for a guided tour than to be seen less Muslim lest missing the ticket to paradise in the hereafter.

In their divine pursuit they conveniently forget the hell they have created for Kaliamma,Shyamala,Revathy,subashini and other non Muslims who do not believe in their hereafter world.

The silent rewriting of the Federal Constitution is eroding the very fabric of
democracy,rule of law and human rights.