Stop the violence, don’t limit freedom, activists tell Putrajaya after Paris killings

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 19 — Disagreeing with Putrajaya’s rationale that absolute freedom had led to the Paris terror attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo, several activists here have urged the government not to use the incident as reason to tighten control over the Malaysian media.

Like all crimes of murder, the Charlie Hebdo killings should be condemned, they said, and not justified simply as a knee-jerk reaction to the satirical magazine’s publication of religiously sensitive materials.

“The violence in Paris must be called out for what it is — a heinous crime that is not acceptable in any faith no matter the provocation,” Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan told Malay Mail Online.

The former Malaysian Bar president and prominent rights activist said the federal government should not use the Paris example to justify increasing control over free speech here, or turn such a fundamental civil liberty into a “meaningless right”.

Such justifications, she added, were wrong and done in “exceedingly poor taste”.

“What is wrong and irresponsible, in my view, is to link the exercise of fundamental freedom with violence and then choose to limit the freedom, rather than the violence,” she added.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, in reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, said that absolute freedom of speech would lead to extremism.

Claiming that his views were similar to that of Pope Francis’, the Malaysian leader said religious sensitivities must be respected and free speech must come hand-in-hand with a mechanism for people to answer to their irresponsible actions.

But Ambiga told the prime minister that nothing justifies violence.

“People must also remember that freedom of speech means hearing things you don’t like. So it’s highly likely that someone somewhere is offended every day by something that is said,” said Ambiga.

“I am of the view that even Perkasa is entitled to freedom of speech as long as there is no tendency to cause harm.

“The best way to respond to them is to either ignore them or present your argument against them,” the activist added, referring to controversial Malay right-wing group Perkasa.

Ambiga said in Malaysia, freedom of speech has been reduced to a “meaningless right”, citing the government’s plans to strengthen the Sedition Act 1948, which critics have denounced as a tool to quell dissent, and the investigation under the colonial-era law against lawyer Eric Paulsen last week.

Paulsen, co-founder of human rights group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), was recently arrested for sedition over his alleged tweet that accused the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) of extremism.

Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar tweeted on January 10 that the Sedition Act was necessary in light of the Charlie Hebdo killings and later, on the same day, tweeted that Paulsen would be investigated for sedition.

Like Ambiga, LFL co-founder Latheefa Koya said it was disgraceful to use a tragic event like the murder of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office as an excuse to further curtail Malaysians’ basic rights and liberties.

“It is being done for Umno’s narrow political purposes,” Latheefa told Malay Mail Online.

“In any event, no one ever suggested ‘absolute’ freedom. Freedom of speech can be legitimately curtailed, for example, by the law of defamation or laws on race relations. It is mischievous for Najib to suggest that anyone is demanding ‘absolute’ freedom.

“In fact, it is a typical tactic of BN (Barisan Nasional) leaders to claim that we are demanding ‘absolute’ freedom when, in fact, we are merely asking for basic civil and political freedom, including the right to criticise and question the government,” the human rights lawyer added.

Social activist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir said she did not believe that when he argued against absolute freedom of speech, Pope Francis had meant that religious sensitivities should be grounds for government oppression.

“Criticising religious authorities, especially those agencies set up by man-made laws, should be allowed,” Marina told Malay Mail Online.

“We are criticising human failures, not religion. We do a disservice to our religion if we allow these failures to epitomise religion.

“That would be like saying the inefficiencies and abuses are what Islam is all about,” added the eldest child of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Pope Francis had reportedly said there were limits to freedom of expression when it came to insulting or making fun of religion.

International news wire AP reported the pope as saying Thursday in a joking manner that anyone who cursed at his mother deserved a punch, remarking: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others”.

The Vatican later reportedly issued a statement Friday saying that Pope Francis was not justifying the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo.