THE ELEVENTH HOUR: liberty

The following is a Malaysiakini report:

‘Denying all her rights’

Ooi Kelly
May 30, 07 7:13pm

Below are some immediate comments from various concerned groups over the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss an appeal by Lina Joy today.

Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) president Meera Samanther said that the court’s decision “denied Lina Joy of her right to choose her religion, her right to choose her partner and her reproductive rights (in terms of bearing a legitimate child)”.

Meera also felt that the decision also denied Lina’s right of living in this country as Lina’s only option now in pursuing her rights to profess the religion of her choice was to leave the country.

“Malaysia is not honouring the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women treaty which was ratified in 5th July 1995,” she said.

Although disappointed with the court’s rule, WAO Executive director Ivy Josiah said that she was nevertheless encouraged by the dissenting judgement and hoped to educate the public further with it.

This what the rest had to say:

Zainah Anwar, Sisters In Islam executive director

suppy

For us, the dissenting judgement was significant. The Federal Court, the apex court of the country, is divided over this issue, as the country is divided on this issue.

Malik Imtiaz Sawar, Malaysian Bar Council
suppy

The fact that there was a minority judgement, a strong dissenting judgement, only indicated the need to re-address the issue.

I think that it’s sad to note at this junction, looking at the minority and majority judgement of this court and I say this in respective of the majority view, there is no clear answer in what she’s suppose to do.

Leonard Teoh, Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism

suppy

People like Lina Joy should not be trapped in a legal cage, not being able to come out to practise their true conscience and religion.

Teresa Kok, DAP member of Parliament

The verdict is a setback against religious freedom in Malaysia.

Paul Tan Chee Ing, Christian Federation of Malaysia

We note with much concern that this decision reflects a growing trend of decisions in the courts where civil courts are abdicating their responsibility of providing legal redress to individuals who only seek to profess and live their religion according to their conscience.

As a result of this decision, it is now more pressing for the government and lawmakers to revisit the relevant legislation and to reinstate the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts so that equal protection of the right to choose and express one's religion is accorded to all Malaysians, as enshrined in Article 11.

Rights movement Aliran

This decision, looked at from another point of view, undermines the judiciary itself. The judiciary cannot be technical in delivering its verdict. Fairness and justice should be part of any judgment and should not be sacrificed on technical grounds. Where is the compassion for someone who has turned to the judiciary for a solution to free her from her predicament? Can justice redeem itself? Is there hope for the ordinary person in our judiciary?

It is really troubling when an issue such as this is politicised and blown out of all proportion and pressure is mounted to deny justice.