Just for the record, I make no aspersions about Ambiga Sreenevasanis’s integrity. I don’t impute she’s a liar in any way.

As chairperson of Bar Council representing the Malaysian Bar that upholds human rights she has to articulate the position (which you agree) that the Dec 10 March was to commemorate Human Rights Day and nothing more. I don’t regard that as lying.

It however does not mean she did not appreciate reality, which is very much a function of perception whether by the authorities or the public watching or joining the march.

To sharpen clarity of what I am saying, take as illustration the point you raised, questioning my so-called “assumption that the police would give them permit” if applied for in the 2005 or 2006 marches organized by Bar Council.

Now assuming that you are right and I am wrong in that if the Bar Council had applied for permit in 2005 and 2006, they would not have obtained it.

Yet you will see the difference here - that in spite of that knowledge of not being able to obtain permit, the Bar Council had, with alacrity, in 2005 and 2006 proceeded with the marches without any misgiving of untoward events and even a thought that not having a permit would pose a problem.

Now the Dec 10 2007 situation was so radically different from 2005 and 2006 that the Bar Council agonized over the deliberations of whether to proceed with the march, as it did, in previous years without a permit, and finally decided to call off the march. The exact words issued by Ambiga on behalf of the Council were “the council’s decision was made after anxious consideration to the present circumstances that surround the event, particularly the interests of the public and the Malaysian Bar” –the key words being “ the present circumstances that surround the event”.

The present circumstances were very different from those in 2005/6, the main difference being in light of altercation of earlier marches, the present march was very perceived as a street march in protest against the government. Although the themes of the marches were different, they are perceived as sharing the common denominator that they are all street protests of grievances of sorts against the administration – something that powers-that-be have fixation is not our culture etc and determined to suppress.

It points to the fact that it is perception that ultimately counts – by that I mean perception by government or even public that the Human Rights March was somewhat different from previous years, given that rakyat now, in light of recent events and treatment esp of Hindraf’s protesters, actually have grouse to protest against the government.

The fact that Ambiga called off the march (since the Council would not be able to obtain the permit) as compared to proceeding with the march in 2005/2006 (even if permit would not have been issued then as you pointed out ) suggests that the Council recognised the different conditions operating today that would be reasonably perceived and construed as protest against the government. Otherwise the Council would not have called off the march since there was nothing wrong with it, just another commemoration of Human Rights Day.

In summary, in light of what has been widely considered high handed actions on authorities’ part in the Bersih & Hindraf’s marches I have no beef against the Bar Council’s deciding to march and protest against the authorities’ actions, especially using Human Rights Day for that expression. This is what I think Edmond Bon and other “walkers” wanted to do. My beef is that the Council was not opened about it. Say you wanted to protest, and if you dared defy law enforcement, do it. You would remember the Bar Council was very open and to the point when 2000 lawyers marched, the first time around to the Palace of Justice. But to say that on Dec 10 they were just intending to march for celebration of Human Rights Day as women groups like WCC and JAG would state the same for (say) Women Rights Day, pisses me because it is, at least to me, not transparent and reflective of the true situation as in earlier case of the walk to Palace of Justice. I expect lawyers who know the law and its limits and the risks of breaking it for higher moral purposes to not engage in sophistry of words and excuses to cover what needs to be done as a moral imperative.

COMMENT:
Tell that to Bar Council leader Ambiga, she said it is not a protest and I still believe her. Advancing or Highlighting a Common Cause year after year does not mean it must be a protest.

Now, let’s do the research on the word “protest”

Link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protest

to protest : to make a strong objection

Take the words of the banner that you have given earlier as example. I have clarified it previously.

The banners that you have stated does not have objection wordings directed specifically to our government or any party in Malaysia.

Instead it is highlighting of what constitutes as “human rights” and violations and that is also a way to advance a common cause like you said. Bear in mind, it did not say “our government” had violated human rights. Had it been that way, then only it is an objection to our government.

Regards,
http://sagaladoola.blogspot.com

COMMENT:
That is only your assumption that the police would give them permit.

JEFFREY SAYS:
In 2006 even Amnesty International Malaysia joined the Bar Council’s march for human rights from Dataran Merdeka to Parliament and then to Panggung Anniversari at Lake Gardens with volunteers from other groups including HAKAM and women groups like WCC and JAG.

COMMENT:
Well, again it does not mean they are protesting. The most important point is, the Bar Council had stated that the year 2007 Human Rights March is not a protest just like any other year. Refer to my links above.

JEFFREY SAYS:
Everyone was edgy. Just preceding Dec 10, there were three marches, ie the Bar’s Walk for Justice in protest of the Lingam video clip revelations, the Bersih March demanding electoral reforms and the Hindraf’s protest demonstration amid hues and cries of ethnic cleaning and Tamil LTTE in Sri Lanka – all without permits, and each occasion condemned by the government which condemnation is also on each occasion equally deplored by human rights activists and concerned citizens

COMMENT:
Walk of Justice is Walk of Justice. Bersih March is Bersih March. Hindraf protest is Hindraf protest. Human Rights Day is Human Rights Day walk.

All of them are with different themes/concepts. Please do not group everything as one. For example, Hindraf cause is not Bersih cause.

I do not take it or accept that Bar Council leader, Ambiga is lying when she said “Human Rights March is not a protest”. It has been mentioned that the march is annual. Furthermore, having banners during a march cannot be concluded as a protest. Almost all celebrations (religious, racial notwithstanding) and commemorations have banners.

I trust her.

JEFFREY SAYS:
No, the report stated “The marchers had carried banners that read “Lawyers for the freedom of assembly” and “Government that abuses human rights is terrorist.”

COMMENT:
The banner did not say “Our Government is abusing human rights and therefore our government is terrorist”.

It is a general term that could mean Pakistan, Myanmar etcetera.

Regards,
Sagaladoola

Everyone was edgy. Just preceding Dec 10, there were three marches, ie the Bar’s Walk for Justice in protest of the Lingam video clip revelations, the Bersih March demanding electoral reforms and the Hindraf’s protest demonstration amid hues and cries of ethnic cleaning and Tamil LTTE in Sri Lanka – all without permits, and each occasion condemned by the government which condemnation is also on each occasion equally deplored by human rights activists and concerned citizens as government’s clamp down on human rights esp. the right to assembly, which as events unfold led to the ISA detention of Hindraf’s organizers (lawyers) yesterday.

How could anyone suggest that there was anything to celebrate or commemorate on this year Human Rights Day? Whichever way one wants to slice it to justify the march, it would be perceived as protest! Look at the Malaysiakini’s report that Sagaladoola himself cited – what did they say? Was it against torture in Guantanamo detention camp or Abu Ghraib? No, the report stated “The marchers had carried banners that read “Lawyers for the freedom of assembly” and “Government that abuses human rights is terrorist.” We were, on Dec 10, at the jaws of a massive clamp down – and that Jaw just clamped down with invocation of ISA yesterday!

If circumstances in Dec 10 this year were the same last 2 years relating to Bar Council’s customary marches, why did the Bar Council agonized over the decision, pondered over whether it should apply for police permit when it never did such pondering before, and decide to officially call of the march leaving Edmond Bon (organizing person in Bar committee on human rights) and few others to carry on the token march in their individual capacities?
The official position of Bar Council in calling off the march expressed by its chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasanis that “the council’s decision was made after anxious consideration to the present circumstances that surround the event, particularly the interests of the public and the Malaysian Bar”.

What present circumstances was she talking about except a foreboding and the tense one prevailing between sections of rakyat and the authorities over freedom of assembly and human rights?

Sagaladoola is not right to argue that the march should not be construed as protest just because, theoretically, protest was not intended in minds of the lawyers marching and arrested. These Lawyers should know what Lord Blackstone said – that the Devil himself knoweth not what’s in the mind of man - so everything has to be judged on basis of what is reasonably perceived in the context and light of existing prevailing circumstances.

To say that this march was not protest - meaning ought not in light of prevailing circumstances to be perceived as protest – that it was marking Human Rights Day and celebrating it just like “Hari Raya Haji, Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Hari Raya Aidiladha” is baloney.

What do the banners “Lawyers for the freedom of assembly” and “Government that abuses human rights is terrorist” suggest? Why did Bar Council agonize over decision and call off the March ?

So Mr Sagaladoola – is it I who does not do research and jump to conclusion as you alleged or you, whose position to fight for human rights, I too share, who is actually indulging in a tortuous argument to advance a Common Cause that is not helpful at all?