Kemusykilan Bagaimana Pula Kalau Orang Buat Komen Jelik Terhadap Aspan

---

 

 

So my friend Aspan has been fined RM4500 for writing what he wrote. 
I have no intention of referring to or reproducing what the Court has legally deemed a crime.
We must obey the law. There are no two ways about it. If we do not obey the law that is the end of civilised behaviour. So we must obey the law.

So Aspan, please pay the fine. (If you can post your bank account number bro, I am sure many of your friends will grab the opportunity to show their fellowship. I dont have a Facebook account but please feel free to contact me).
Yes we have to obey the law but that does not mean that we must agree with the law or that we must like it. 
For example many law abiding people did not like the ISA and screamed for years that it should be abolished. Well the ISA has been abolished.
Maybe the people should start demanding that the law which fined Aspan RM4500 should also be abolished, especially the

Seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 Section 233 (1) (a) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Section 233 (3) maximum fine RM50,000,  jail up to one year My question is where is the equivalent law that protects an ordinary citizen like Aspan Alias if someone (anyone) makes an offensive comment (komen jelik) against Aspan? This is not a hypothetical situation - because everyday people throw all kinds of insults (aka offensive comments) against other people. 
So just by using the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you AND dont do unto others as you would not have them do unto you) then the law must also criminalise and prosecute anyone for making offensive comments about anyone else.


But if the law does do that then the Courts will be handling tens of thousands of cases  of  "he called him an idiot, she called her a bitch, he said that fellow was a bastard, dia mencaci 'haramjadah', dia maki 'kepala bapak' etc etc.  
So I dont think the law will be criminally prosecuting anyone at all (eg under Section 233 (1) (a) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998) if they made offensive remarks against an ordinary citizen like Aspan Alias, even if such offensive remarks annoyed the other citizens of the country.

So what happens to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ?
There must be justice in the law.
And an ordinary citizen like Aspan does not live in a castle nor is he surrounded by armed guards for his security. 
Granted we should not make offensive remarks against anyone. That goes without saying. 
But there is no need to criminalise and penalise anyone if they do make offensive remarks against anyone else or anything else (like a religion, a flag, the national anthem etc).
If the law does criminalise and penalise "offensive remarks" then the law should be fair. Penalise all such remarks - against all and sundry. The high and the low. 
But do we still need these laws? Do we still need the Blasphemy Laws? The 'Les Majeste Laws'? The Apostasy Acts? Exactly how matured are we as a society?

"On June 21, 1989, the United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to burn the American flag in a landmark First Amendment decision.  The Court decided in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, the protester who had burned the Amrican flag. Johnson’s actions, the Supreme Court argued, were symbolic speech, political in nature, and could be expressed even at the expense of a national symbol and to the affront of those who disagreed with him."
Do not burn any flags ok. 
But Gregory Lee Johnson burning the American flag did not diminish the American flag in any way. Plus the American flag did not know (and still does not know) that a fellow called Gregory Lee Johnson burnt it. 
A flag (for example) is a symbol. It is just symbolism - a mental picture. Perhaps with some imagination thrown in as well. 
How does it become a crime if someone does not share the same degree of regard towards your own mental pictures?  How does it become a crime if someone does not share the same degree of regard towards your own imaginations? 
 
In 2009 the United Kingdom formally abolished the sedition laws (which had not been used for more than a century) :

Apart from the fact that the development of England’s criminal and constitutional law pretty much rendered this offence obsolete and most likely in contravention of human rights legislation, part of the reason for abolishing it was to send out a message to the common law countries that both retain, and use this law.  
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Claire Ward, was quoted stating:
Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences – from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today… The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom…  Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech.The United Kingdom has become a better society without these "arcane and obsolete" laws. The British Monarchy is just as well regarded today as they were before. The Royal House of Windsor is possibly more highly respected and regarded than ever before. 

We have to mature as a society. Sekarang kita sudah dewasa.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
By Syed Akbar Ali 

---