Helen Ang, a columnist with Malaysiakini, defends here Haris Ibrahim whom she is honoured that he considers her a “friend”.
She is defending here something else as well when she said “there developed a smear campaign against Haris for not supporting the (Hindraf) march. And it is all just because Haris was not prepared to walk with Hindraf because “the movement’s non-inclusive approach was polarising and its language had alienated the racial majority”.

Haris is a western trained lawyer. Naturally he upholds constitutional principles and Rule of law and also tries to reconcile with his own beliefs as a Muslim. He took what he considered a rational objective approach, that as what tsn said, if Hindraf wanted to effect change by street power it ought to take an inclusive approach embracive of all Malaysians especially the majority race rather than just for Tamil Hindu in a language (ethnic cleansing) alienating the majority race.
I think that is fair enough.

But large sections of people fed up of the government do not take kindly to Haris’s approach for reasons that Bigjoe touched on above. People have reached a point of exhaustion of patience. They want change; they want it now; they want it concrete; and they want the results visible and present. They argue Hindraf’s street protests have brought results : the national government as well as public attention is now riveted unto the Indian’s plight which were it not for the intemperate actions and language of Hindraf, nothing else would have accomplished this – not the talk of law, not the talk of logic, not to talk of constitution for they are all talk and not action and when dealing this government action speaks louder than words…..

We see this kind of what, in my personal opinion, a highly emotional and radical approach based on exhausted patience even amongst some commenters of this blog accusing the other commenters who take the Haris’s approach of talk, talk and talk only of constitution, of law and too much talk means no action!

For a moment it is not necessary for me to discuss which approach is better in Malaysia. We may have different views.

Suffice to say, lets bear and argue our differences of opinion and approach with civility and respect : there’s no need to get personal, and emotional and hurl insults just because the other is of a view or approach that emotionally does not resonate with our own; worse still, condemn the other’s approach, leaning on the objective or rational, as mere sterile logic, a kind of intellectual masturbation and “talk cock” that conceives no concrete offspring in terms of change to the country.

Why the smear campaign against Haris for not supporting the march, Helen asks? Just like Libra2 ask, “What has Haris parental heritage got to do with his thoughts and actions”

Haris may not be on Muslim fundamentalists’ hit list as Helen dramatized as our Count Dracula said but he is on the same side fighting the conversion cases on 121(1)A, the Article 11 movement to safeguard our constitutional guarantees to faith freedom etc as stated by Helen.

Our Nathaniel of PKR,who had a run in with police over a comment left on his blog on fee-for-freedom involving some political bigwig, is, as Helen says, representing “antipodal schools of thought on the (Hindraf) rally in relation to Haris. But they can still be civil with each other bound by common cause though divided by difference of approach on how to advance the common cause.

There’s no need for smear campaign against Haris.
The real divide is not between people of same Cause though divided by different approaches like Haris and Nathaniel…

The real divide is between :-

· One group comprised of people who are racial and religious demagogues and bigots, powerful political and corporate vested interests and reactionary forces supportive of present BN hegemony or the advancement of further Islamisation; and

· the other group comprising passionate, often young but educated or rather Western educated Malaysians including those at forefront of NGOs (SDisters-in Islam & women groups), Blogs (eg Jeff Ooi Rocky Bru, RPK, Nat Tan etc), Professional bodies like Bar Council, lawyers like Edmond Bon, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Haris Ibrahim, acdemics like Farish Nor or Azly Rahman and many others engaged in the struggle and contestation of the public space and discourse arena for the soul of Malaysia, and which direction she is heading.

For the second group who are communicating and interacting through public forums, gathering, avenue of blogs and sometimes even on the streets for the same Cause of saving the country from clear and present danger of going the other way in abandonment of secular constitutional principles, curtailment of fundamental liberties and upholding of diversity and plurality on the road to greater racial institutionalization and political Islamisation, the least the members of this group could do, as between themselves, inter se, is to maintain unity and a modicum of civility in negotiation of their differences of approach in how the Common Cause may be served instead of lapsing into a smear campaign or other personal insults and aspersions.

If members of this group cannot appreciate diversity of points of view and accord to the others within the same group of differing views and approach the freedom of speech and thought (without smear and abuse) what right have they got to fight for these same lofty principles of freedom of speech and thought and the value of diversity against the vested interests in government, the reactionaries and the enemies of the Open Society?