Insult Me

Yes, I'm aware that the article below is of poor quality. I'll re-do it if I have the time and energy. In the meantime it's a nice way to blow off steam - I really am irritated by the constant news of people being "offended" and how it's a major crime to offend someone. Ironically I'm writing about not letting your feelings affect your decisions in a bad way, but it gets more and more obvious towards the end that I feel very strongly about this. Don't read it, if you like. I've just been accumulating lots of "mots justes" to say for the past few months on how everyone should just get off their high horse and accept that people can criticise them if they want. And now this news? :(

The Sedition Act 1948 has had its fair share of victims in the past months, in what was supposed to be its final stretch. However, our esteemed Prime Minister, Mr Najib, has bowed to the pressure of the intolerant in a true show of democracy (or is it populism?) by reneging on his promise to get rid of it. He says it will be strengthened, instead.

 

(What was announced in 2012: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2012/07/13/DPM-Repeal-of-Sedition-Act-proof-that-Govt-walks-the-talk/

What was announced last week: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/11/28/Sedition-Act-here-to-stay-says-PM/ )

Personally I responded to the news with very choice expletives.

There are few if any good reasons for limiting freedom of expression.

One, factual inaccuracies and libel/defamation, for obvious reasons. E.g.: publishing a serious, widely circulated article saying that X-unproven-alternative-medicine has been proven to work several times and that the results are verifiable/can be independently reproduced. And those people who have so-and-so chronic illness should stop taking so-and-so drug and instead rely solely on X. This sort of thing is a danger to society, and should merit a hefty fine and a public retraction (and if it results in deaths, a trial of manslaughter should be in order).

Two, bullying or threatening. If an individual is facing harassment, he or she should have the right to keep harassers at bay. Think Anita Sarkeesian, who received death threats, not only to her own life but also against those she would be giving her talk to, a la Montreal Massacre. People who make these threats should be made to undergo a psych evaluation at least, and if needed jailed or kept in an asylum.

Three, issues of security – military plans, for instance.

Otherwise, so long as no physical harm comes to a person, we cannot judge the danger of words. There are many things we cannot prevent because we cannot measure. The problem with censoring with so wide a brush as the Sedition Act is that, more often than not, it is used against people who revolt against the status quo with their words. They express a different opinion from the state-approved Malaysian narrative, not necessarily in a bad way. But because they challenge the established order, these people are deemed threats to national harmony and peace.

I am not employing the slippery slope fallacy here: these things really happen. Take the case of Azmi Sharom, who merely expressed a legal opinion on the monarchy’s role in selecting an executive. Or that of satirical cartoonist Zunar, Malaysia’s answer to KAL. Even a very broad look at what they did cannot establish that they in any way caused lives to be put in danger.

In my opinion, the government should stop pandering to “fine feelings” and acknowledge that criminal laws should be less about courtesy and morality, and more about protecting human rights. I am not an expert (or even amateur) on the matter of law and jurisprudence, but I know that morality has always been a subjective concept, and in prosecutions of victimless crimes (consensual adult sodomy, for instance) nobody really gains – not society, not the parties involved.

The problem with outlawing insults should be obvious, but apparently a lot of people spontaneously lose brain function when insulted. The thing is, some things need to be criticised to improve. And so long as any criticism is interpreted as offensive or insulting, to religion or otherwise, and we jail the critics, progress will be hard because people are more and more unwilling to criticise the status quo. We’d stagnate. Or worse, retard.

Change is uncomfortable, sure, but it’s the only thing we can ever be sure of – that nothing ever stays the same. So why should our society? Why should we be stopped from making ourselves better, making lives more stable, and society more equal, and living more easy? Why should we not adapt to the ever-changing world? Because of fear?

How about we teach our children to be critical thinkers – to not let emotion adversely affect what should be rational decisions? How about they learn to see through fallacious arguments, to accept facts over feelings? How about we teach our kids NOT to take offence at every chance, instead of reinforcing through media that the more delicate our pride and the thinner our skin, the more people will give way to us – as if we are superior because we are infinitely able to make ourselves victims?

But of course, that sort of thing doesn’t translate into many votes especially in the short run, so why would those in power care?

On non-Muslim interest in Islamic issues

Warning: This blog is just a spur-of-the-moment creation after realising how helpful it is to write about things I want to understand. Any criticism is welcome, though constructive criticism is preferred, and spam will be removed.

If anyone ever sees this, anyway.

“Who are you to talk about Islam, when you are not a Muslim?”

I follow SIS on Facebook. The issues they fight for interest me, and I support most of their stands. They often critique the excessive power held by muftis and the insufficient protection of human rights when it comes to Islam in our country.

Reading the comments on their posts – indeed, on posts about anything regarding Islam in Malaysia, in general – I often come across names that are obviously not Malay names and unlikely to be Muslim ones. They are mostly supportive of the Sisters’ fight. And quite frequently, there will be people who reply to these non-Muslim-appearing posters: “You’re not a Muslim, why you sibuk?”

I am not a Muslim. I believe that there is possibility of there being a supernatural being, a (or many) Creator(s) if you will, but one so incredibly small and remote that we may as well act as if there isn’t such a being. For all practical purposes I call myself non-religious or atheist. But I am very interested in Sisters in Islam and their doings.

You see, I have a friend who is an atheist too. Only, he’s a Muslim. This makes perfect sense because in Malaysia, legal apostasy from Islam is not only frowned upon, it is almost impossible. This is not the only non-Muslim Muslim person I know, of course. And it's certainly the least of a Muslim-born Malaysian’s worries. A short read of the final chapters in Zaid Ibrahim’s “Ampun Tuanku”, will enlighten you on the dictatorship that is Islamic law (or what passes for it) in Malaysia.

“[The case of Sulaiman Takrib vs the State Government of Terengganu]  essentially gave fatwa the status of law, and it gave the fatwa committees the power to legislate unilaterally, bypassing the legitimate law-making bodies of the country. We must be the only Muslim country where a group of men, elected by no one, can make laws by issuing fatwa.

…

Activities that are accepted as part of a normal lifestyle – practising yoga, for example, or smoking, engaging in foreign exchange trading, wearing lipstick – have all been condemned by fatwa. … This is not religion they are preaching, but authoritarian rule by another name.”

I live in Malaysia. Many people I care about are Muslims, if not by faith then at least by birth. Should I be apathetic to their (lack of) civil liberties just because those who inflict these laws upon them happen to be of the same religion (and, often, race)? Should their private lives be interfered with, just because they were born into families whose religion they do not choose, and never can? 

It is in my interest that they are not subject to repression, just as it is in my interest that any man should be allowed to be interested and participate in traditionally feminine past-times or careers; it is in my interest that the working class of the country is given equal opportunity for success as far as possible, and it is in my interest that people who immigrate to this country are treated as people, not dehumanised as often happens (in our country and others too). I do not belong to any of these groups, but they make up the society that I live in. Even if we deny the existence of altruism, the fabric of society depends on people caring for other people. Many things that do not directly concern us still have considerable impact on our lives. A patriarchal society where activities considered feminine are laughed at will contribute to the perception that women are not equal to men. A poverty-stricken society will be mired in social ills and despair, in the case of the poor, due to the perceived impossibility of social mobility. So on, and so forth.

If these indirect reasons are not enough, perhaps more directly selfish reasons will justify my interest. How about fear? The radicalisation of Islam will doubtless erode our civil rights. In a competition to appear more pious than the next man, many Muslims have whipped out their magnifying glasses to identify “threats” or “insults” against Islam. (I remember reading the Tasawwur Islam textbook and discovering to my surprise that secularism was deemed a threat to Islam! If so, threats must be defined quite loosely indeed.) The past months saw death threats against a Muslim social activist who tried to raise awareness about dogs. More recently, the construction of a church was protested against, while the image of a renowned tourist attraction was removed from water bottles because it was deemed to “confuse Muslim youths”. Before, I would read such news with a hearty laugh at the sheer silliness of it all. Now I feel a slight tinge of fear. “Liberal” is no longer a compliment to intellectuals who are willing to think beyond their presuppositions, but an insult, as if to say such intellectuals are immoral.

As a Malaysian, I believe that I am justified in my support for Sisters in Islam. Just as surely, I know that this support may be deemed proof (by holier-than-thou Muslims with a persecution complex) that SIS is a deviant, secretly Shiite/Christian/atheist/anything-pejorative group. Let me clarify, then: I don’t support SIS because they “promote my atheist agenda”, whatever that means. I support them because they promote my other agenda – critical thought.

I remember being forced to memorise detail after detail of Islamic glory for SPM Sejarah. I remember that while Europe stagnated, their obsession with the afterlife quashing any desire for advancement, the Islamic world flourished because discourse was encouraged. Liberalism was embraced; people remembered that their final prophet never suppressed progressive thought, but welcomed it, and the greater understanding it brought. The very first revelation to the Rasul of God implored Muslims to read and write, underlining its importance in learning what they did not already know. Is this the proclamation of a Creator who wishes his creations to be ignorant, to follow laws blindly and be kept from sin only by the fear of human retribution?

Oh, yes. And before I forget, I'm at liberty to have opinions and state them on a public forum. While any person is free to disagree or dislike it, nobody can and should shut me up.