“Every time we draw a cartoon of Mohammed, every time we draw a cartoon of prophets, every time we draw a cartoon of God, we defend the freedom of religion,” – Gérard Biard,.
Firstly as a Muslim, I do not support the mass shooting at Charlie Hebdo’s office and it must not been done in the name of Islam because it is wrong according to the teaching of Islam Ahli As-Sunnah Wa Al-Jama`ah, as what we practise in Malaysia.
Now, it is always interesting to see how people interpret freedom of speech and freedom of religion and use them for their own agendas.
I do not understand why humiliating and disgracing religions can be regarded as defending freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion means the rights for everybody to manifest his or her religion in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; and not the rights for everybody to insult religions.
So people who support freedom of religion must respect these rights and not the other way around.
When one make fun and disgraces a religion, the person no longer respect the rights of the believers of that religion; hence there is no more freedom of religion.
Then talking about freedom of expression and freedom of speech, some people believe in total freedom and that they have the rights to do anything or say anything they like, including to purposely hurting or insulting others and there is no limit to how far they can go.
I cannot comment about the French law regarding freedom of expression and freedom of speech because I do not know about the constitution of the country; however as a civilised and responsible person I think that it is weird to purposely make fun and insult religion just because the law allows one to do so.
Just because my mother bought me a big box of my favourite chocolate, it does not mean that I should eat them all at once, because that will not be healthy; and so I must think before I do something.
It is a good thing because we must learn to respect each other and while some people love to insult others, most of them do not like to be insulted in return.
And while the supporters of Charlie Hebdo want others to respect their freedom of expression and freedom of speech, they themselves cannot respect the freedom of expression and freedom of speech of others.
They slam Pope Francis for saying:
“There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits,” and that “one cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”
And Gérard Biard denounced the Western publications that have declined to reprint his paper’s controversial cartoons, he told NBC that:
“When they refuse to publish this cartoon, when they blur it out, when they decline to publish it, they blur out democracy.”
Isn’t democracy means the right for everybody to choose what we want?
So if Gérard Biard and his supporters believe in democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of speech, they must not slam the Pope and those publications for not following their ideas.
My family were invited to a talk about home-schooling at an event organised by KAM, ‘Sembang Santai Home-Schooling’ in Shah Alam yesterday.
Apart from my parents, my elder sisters Aiman Amani and Aeshah Adlina, I was also called to talk on the stage.
Nobody told me that I was going to give a speech, so when I was called to the stage, I was rather surprised.
But as it was my second public speech, I was not that nervous except for the fact that my heart was thumping.
I gave a speech about something that really matters to me, the true definition of Freedom of Speech in Malaysia as written in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, the four sensitive issues and the Sedition Act.
To my surprise, during the Question and Answer Session, there are lots of questions that were directed to me.
Most of the questions were a bit hard to be answered since I was half nervous because I never thought that the participants would address their questions to me and that I’ve never thought of some of the things that were asked.
However, I tried my best to answer all of them. It was a proud moment for me when someone who stood up to ask me two questions told the audience that he has been reading my blog. Abang Mohd Hanif, who has actually been following my blog is also a blogger and I’m glad to get to know another wonderful and more experienced blogger. During the program, I really enjoyed the wonderful Qasidah that was performed by the delegates from Terengganu.
My sisters and I also performed two songs, Alhamdulillah by Dawud Wharnsby Ali and Khalifah Song, which we only had a day to practice.
I really wished that my father had told us earlier about it so that we can have more time to practice.
Right after the program was over, a lot of people started to crowd around me to take pictures with me 🙂
I really enjoyed the program and the chance to meet so many wonderful people and I hope that I can meet them again.
I want to thank KAM for giving me a chance to share my ideas.
It is a good way to for me to learn on how to express my ideas in front of other people and to answer unexpected questions spontaneously which are very important to me in pursuing my ambition to become a lawyer and a politician.
The opposition parties are very busy complaining about everything that they can think of instead of working to solve the problems in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan.
Now they and some human rights activists are fighting for a total freedom of speech because they want to be free to say everything they wish, including matters related to sensitive issues such as the Federal Constitution, the Royal Institution and others.
And lots of human rights activists do not respect the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
They use Article 10 of the Federal Constitution as the reason why they are free to say anything they wish; claiming that Article 10 Clause 1 (a) granted them total freedom of speech’.
Article 10 Clause 1 (a) says:
“every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”
Is it true that the Article 10 of the Federal Constitution gives us a total freedom of speech?
No, because Article 10 of the Federal Constitution says:
“10. (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)— (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;”
That means Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).
And Clause 2 (a) of the Article 10 says:
“Parliament may by law impose— on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), suchrestrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence;”
So, the oppositions and human rights activists who support them, only use Article 10 (1) (a) andpurposely ignoreArticle 10 (1) which says that the article is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4).
That means, they just skipped the part of the article that says there are restrictions to freedom of speech.
That is wrong because we cannot use only a part of an article of the Federal Constitution and skip the rest of the article as we wish.
DAP’s MP of Petaling Jaya Utara, Tony Pua Kiam Wee made a very silly statement in his Facebook page.
On Friday, February 14, 2014, JAKIM’s Friday sermon talked about why Muslims must not celebrate Valentine’s day.
Look at what Tony Pua wrote:
From what he wrote, he clearly try to mock JAKIM especially by writing:
“Oh no. I feel so unclean and immoral now I might just burn in hell.”
May be Tony Pua does not know that Friday sermons are read in the mosques and to be addressed to the Muslims and not to the non-Muslims like him.
Is it fair for a Malaysian politician like Tony Pua to mock other people’s religion especially Islam which is the religion of the Federation?
DAP always talks about Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and now what is Tony Pua’s right to interfere with another religion which is not his?
Freedom of Speech?
What would he say if a Muslim politician from UMNO make such an open rude statements to make fun of his religion?
On top of that, Tony Pua had clearly humiliate Article 3(1)of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that says:
“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”
Apart from mocking Islam, Tony Pua also failed to understand the phrase, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.
A very senior lawyer, Uncle Naser Disa says “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” means that people from other religions must practise their religions in peace and harmony with others from different religions especially Islam, which is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.
Is Tony Pua proud of mocking other people’s religion?
Actress Cindy Lee Garcia who acted in the film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’ sues the film producer for fraud and slander.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula alias Sam Bacile is reported to be the producer.
She also named Google Inc and its YouTube unit as defendants, asked that the film be removed from YouTube and said her right to privacy had been violated.
The suit accuses Nakoula, Google and YouTube of invasion of privacy, unfair business practices, the use of Garcia’s likeness without permission and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“This lawsuit is not an attack on the First Amendment nor on the right for Americans to say what they think, but does request that the offending content be removed from the Internet,” the lawsuit said.
Does the producer’s freedom of expression gives him the right to use and cheat the actress in expressing his freedom of speech?
And what about the rights of actress Cindy Lee Garcia?
I really pity the actress if she really was cheated by the producer.
And why did Sam Bacile cheated the actress if he thinks that it is okay to produce the “hateful” film?