THE Bar Council’s forum on religious conversion has raised hackles. The protesters’ behaviour has also raised hackles.
The problem has been couched so far in a clash of rights – the Bar Council has the right to hold the forum, the protesters have the right to protest. These rights are both guaranteed under the same law, the Federal Constitution’s Article 10 on freedom of speech and assembly.
But that isn’t really the problem. Both could, and both should, have gone ahead.
The Bar Council forum was a venue where various sides of the debate on religious conversion could come together and discuss this controversial topic.
To politicians who argue that this was "inflammatory", I suggest hanging out in a kedai kopi some time. This "inflammatory and sensitive" topic is being discussed through various levels of wisdom and ignorance around coffee, tea, dinner and breakfast across the country.
The Bar Council forum could have added new perspectives to this debate in a rational and learned manner. It could have played a role in moving the argument from pure emotion to a meeting of ideas, in finding a ground where Malaysians, Muslim and non-Muslim, can feel comfortable. It could never do this on its own – this forum could and should be part of an ongoing dialogue and discussion between all the strands from all the various religions on the role of religion in our country.
But this isn’t to deny the importance of what was happening outside. Protest plays manifold roles in modern society. Public protest can draw attention to otherwise ignored issues. It can help display public support for an issue politicians wish would just go away (as is the case in climate change, for example). It can show overwhelming opposition to stated government policy – as the reformasi demonstrations of the late ’90s did.
It can also be a peaceful way to vent emotion.
The protest at the Bar Council forum falls into the latter category. This is an important function. If angry people are peacefully allowed a place to display their anger, without intimidating others, it is far less likely that they will search for other ways to vent their emotion – other, more violent ways. The only problem was that this did not happen at the Bar Council forum. Reports say that the protesters were not only allowed to demonstrate close by the auditorium – which could cause a "gauntlet" that forum participants would have run, but also that the police actually allowed them into the forum.
If I had not witnessed this happening at an Article 11 forum in Johor, I would find this beyond belief. In Johor, the police even escorted them up to where the debate was taking place. It strikes me as a complete dereliction of duty.
The role of the police in this situation is to allow both sides to have their say. The Bar Council and guests are engaged in a legitimate exercise of their rights. Likewise, the protesters. The police are there to keep the peace.
This means keeping the protesters at a safe distance from the forum participants and vice versa. It means allowing the forum to take place, to take place through to the end, and ensuring that those who participated can safely disperse. They should be aware of the protests, but not feel physically intimidated.
Sadly this did not take place. The protesters outside had called the premature termination a success – just as they did in Johor. It is not a success. It is a failure. But it is not a failure of the Bar Council, just as it was not a failure of the Article 11 coalition in Johor.
It is a failure of the police to guarantee that everyone exercises their rights fully.
The Sun
22/08/08
No comments:
Post a Comment