Undegrad2,

Definition of flagellating as a verb
=========================

The meanings of flagellating in the context you used (as a verb) are as follows:

————————-
[1] flagellated, flagellating
1. To whip someone or oneself, for the purposes either of
religious penance or for sexual stimulation.
Thesaurus: beat, whip, flog, thrash, flay.
—————————–
[2] tr.v. flag•el•lat•ed, flag•el•lat•ing, flag•el•lates
1. To whip or flog; scourge.
2. To punish or impel as if by whipping.
———————–
[3] flagellate
verb [T] FORMAL
to whip someone, especially as a religious act
to whip; scourge; flog; lash.
———————–

Basing on the following online dictionaries:

General dictionaries General (5 matching dictionaries)
1. flagellating : Cambridge International Dictionary of English
2. flagellating : Dictionary.com
3. Flagellating : Online Plain Text English Dictionary
4. Flagellating : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary
5. flagellating : Dictionary/thesaurus
Medicine dictionaries Medicine (1 matching dictionary)
6. flagellating : Medical dictionary

The Constitution discussion.
=====================
I attempted to simplify the definition of the above word in the context you used as a verb. That word can mean some form of microscopic structures of microorganism, etc, etc., which were deliberately omitted.

Similarly, in the discussion of Article 10 of the constitution, in order to simplify things, I had deliberately omitted other irrelevant clauses — such as rights to freedom of speeches and associations — except for that pertaining to rights to peaceful assembly without arms – clause 1 (b).

I can see your concern about qualifications which allowed for restrictions of our rights as opposed to the American system, the First Amendments where you rightly pointed out “Congress shall not make laws against certain rights”.

That allowance for restriction had been abused after the 513 tragedy by Malay capitalists in bringing about the police permit as a prerequisite to legalize rallies, in the police act section 27.

My conviction is based on the purpose for the existence and good intention of the law which I had mentioned earlier in another thread, which I shall illustrate with the following analogy.

If I give you a diamond ring, I assume that you understand that you have the freedom to wear it whenever you wish without having to obtain my permission. Okay you may say that is the First Amendment, not applicable to our case.

In the case of our constitution, when I give you a diamond ring, I tell you that for your security, we need to discuss further whenever you wish to wear it.

Then Parliament came in to set conditions ostensibly for your security. Situation turned bad, 513 happened.

Our relationship soured. I tell you now that you must get my permission to wear that diamond ring, else I am going to whack you.

What would you do? The ring was given to you. It belonged to you, so you are going to wear it despite the fact that I did not grant you permission to wear it.

I said, remember, when I gave you the ring, we need to discuss about security? And now this is the outcome, you need my permission, else I am going to whack you.

I do not think it is right for me to restrict your freedom to wear the diamond ring. It is rightfully yours. You are entitled to think that when I said we would discuss about security at the moment I gave you the ring, it was in good faith in your interest. That means if you are going to wear the diamond ring in an unsafe place full of thugs, you let me know, I will engage bodyguards to protect you. I can not say “No you can not wear it. If you wear it, I am going to whack you.”

You will say “I don’t care whether you are going to give me permission to wear the diamond ring or not. I am going to wear it, and you can not stopped me by threatening to whack me. If you are worried that I may get robbed, you provide me protection, because I took it to mean in good faith when you said we need to discuss security matters when you gave it to me”.

So, when Parliament set conditions for the rally, it should be in good faith. The police permit should serve the purpose of ensuring that the applicants are protected from harm in their rallies. The police permit should not be denied arbitrarily. That is why, I had suggested that “Police Permit” should be changed to “Police Protection Permit” to reflect the spirit of the clause on security to provide protection rather than to deny or grant us our rights to peaceful assembly at the police’s — rather their political masters’ — whims and fancy, which has given rise to problems of double standards.

And as reported in yesterday’s papers, Abdullah attempted to defend KJ indirectly in talking about the Palestinian issue being of top priority for peace in the middle east, and threatening would-be demonstrators. He has political motives in trying to hoodwink us that KJ’s demonstration was justified, Bersih and Hindraf’s demonstrations were not justified.

Undegrad2,
It gives unfettered powers to Parliament to pass legislation and to the executive to determine what constitutes a threat to national security. Should we be concerned? Of course we should! — Undergrad2

Well said. Are you are civil, criminal or constitution law student or lawyer?

You are right. I was just stating my personal conviction as to why I do not worry about whether a rally is legal or not if police permit is denied. To me, there is no justification to label a rally illegal just because a police permit has been denied without reason.
I will be willing to participate in it, if the need arises. if I believe in the cause, and the rally is organized properly, with the world watching. I will not do it quietly for the purpose of doing just to defy the law, and get clobbered, kicked and dragged away by 5 FRUs and nobody knows about it. That will be a great waste of time and asking for trouble.

Godamn Singh, DiaperHead,
Yes, I have just taken my allergy medications. Rashes and hives appeared suddenly upon reading your comments. However, no resentment as promised. You both have good sense of humor.

Jeffrey,
Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah is entitled to his opinion as much as we are entitled to our opinions. However respectable a person, it is not incumbent upon us to agree with him.

If the Hindraf & Bersih rallies were truly illegal being against the spirits of Article 10 of the Constitution, I have nothing to say but to agree that he was perfectly right in holding to his opinion. But, it appeared to me that the justification and grievances were real to them, and that the denial of the police permit had violated their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly. So I beg to differ with him on their right to peaceful demonstration despite denial of police permit.

I have some exposure to research methodologies and simple logical reasonings. I am not a genius, IQ at 135, I am an ordinary person like all of you. We shall use common sense, and not jargons that most of us do not understand.

Perhaps, I may explain my position using simple syllogism as follows:

I suppose Cambridge Lee’s and your argument was as follows:

A=B, C=A, therefore C=B, where B is the major term, A the middle term, and C, the minor term.

A=Rallies without police permit
B=Illegal
C=Hindraf&Bersih rallies

You argue that since Rallies without police permit are illegal, and Hindraf&Bersih are Rallies without police permit, therefore Hindraf&Bersih rallies are illegal.

This line of reasoning can be dangerous as shown below:

An ass is obstinate
Godamn Singh is obstinate
Therefore Godamn Singh is an ass

Godamn Singh, just borrow your handle. please take it good
humoredly. No offence intended.

Jokes aside, I am not relying on the above Godamn Singh syllogism in this discussion.

The problem with the police permit-legality syllogism is that I can not link A with B. I can not accept it without protest. It is controversial, and against the spirit of Article 10 of the Constitution.

I maintain that section 27, especially subsections (2), (2A) TO (2D), (4), (4A), (5), (5A) to (5C), (7) and (8) of section 27A of the Police Act 1967, contravene the spirit of Article 10 (1) (b) of the Constitution pertaining to “all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms”, and as such I consider it null and void. Since, it is my opinion. It is not falsifiable.

Of course you may say that considering it null and void does not really make it null and void. That is beside the point. My action is based on my conviction and not what the powers-that-be says. That is important and not a purely academic pedantic argument on what the Powers-that-be want us to believe, with threats of arrest and court orders. Acceptance without protest would lend it credence.

In the 16th-17th century, Galileo Galilei was forced to recant publicly his theory that the sun was at the center of the solar system and say instead that the earth was at the center of the universe, he had to say it but he knew that it was not true, otherwise he could be flagellated — Undergad2, nothing sexual, purely religious flogging, like in Passion of Christ. He spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

If you are incarcerated, and the condition for your release is to say publicly that “yes it is illegal to hold rallies without police permit”, you may have to comply even though you know that the permit should be void for contravening the spirit of Article 10 (1) (b) of the Federal Constitution. But, this would be extreme transgression to 17th century Inquisitional attitude.

Jeffrey,

I can see that it you will wait until the day your factor D is repealed in Parliament, then only you will agree that rallies without police permit is legal. It is very safe to hold this view, with the protection of Powers-that-be. I am not waiting for that to happen to change my conviction, and I believe nothing will change for the better in waiting perhaps a lifetime in a worse case scenario.

On the other hand, who knows, it may be pretty soon with the active involvement of SUHAKAM, other human rights organizations, the Malaysian bar council, NGOs and other civil societies. But, if they are ignored because the populace is cowed by threats of arrests because the Powers-that-be supported by intellectuals said so, we may have to wait a lifetime.

I suggest that we end this discourse, else nobody will take part in mass rallies to air their grievances because highly respected bloggers scared them into believing that what they planned to do is illegal. Let disgruntled people based their decisions on their own convictions. A person can be right, dead right. Living dead.

The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. The application of Algebra may even obfuscate the truth.

Article 10(1)(b) and 10(2) does not mention anything about Police permit. 10(2)(b) mentions something about restrictions, which I interpret to be in good faith, which is the reason for its existence.

Besides my personal convictions on the spirits rather than the letters and good intentions of constitutional laws, what also matters is the perception of law enforcement, on whether rally without police permit=illegal.

Does it ever occur to you to ask if it is illegal to deny police permit without justification because it infringes on our constitutional rights?

If rally without police permit=illegal, then consequences=”Yes”

If consequences=”No”? then what? You don’t care whether it is legal or not, because it is just a futile academic exercise to debate on it.

A proven illegal act must have consequences, else it can not be illegal. There is no doubt that shoplifting, murder and rape if proven can not escape consequences provided by the penal codes and CPC. We can not challenge their legality.

Ask yourself, why are the leaders and those 2000 people who participated in the Walk of Justice by the Malaysian Bar not arrested if rally without police permit is illegal? Their conviction that what they did was right was so strong that they were not bothered whether it was legal or not. They told the police, if they wanted to arrest them, go ahead.

But, why are those arrested in the Bersih demonstrations not charged with illegal assembly, but some silly charges of endangering the lives of Children under the Child Protection Act? Why are the leaders, such as YB Lim, Anwar Ibrahim and Hadi not arrested and face consequences for taking part in illegal assembly? Their faces were shown on TV.

If an illegal action is committed, and there is no consequence for it, is it illegal then? The answer is not important anymore.

If so, there must be uniformity.

If the Powers-that-be have their fingers on the pulse of society and are smart, Section 27 of the police Act, which came into being out of the exigencies of May 13 would be scrapped off immediately to remove any doubt whether a rally without police permit is illegal.

It is a matter of time before that happens. Precedence had already been set where there were no consequences for “illegal” peaceful assembly.