Agreed, as Freddy said, one “must act responsibly and know what he is getting himself into before he converts” so everyone should bear the consequences of his own action but if one’s action adversely and unfairly affect a significant other who is without fault. Like for example a husband initially married on promise of monogamy under civil law to a wife relying on that promise, and wife marries on the premise of secular law inclining to favour a woman with custody of children if marriage breaks down and to circumvent these arrangements entered into the husband converts to enable to take more than one wife and to take the children away to be brought up as Muslims : is that fair to the other (wife) who has not converted? When she seks redress, he is told that article 121(A) provides that Sharia will aply, civil law takes back seat, and husband will have his way contrary to all earlier solemn arrangements he has entered into to build around a family life with the wife. Is the process of law fair to wife?

If after 50 years of independence – and after many many Malaysians of all races have become more educated and tertiary educated – racism and religious extremism have got worse about which neither ruling or opposition coalition could do much about – then what is there to say that for the next 50 years it would likely get better? I think it might get much worse!

The issue is whether those who for political mileage would construe every issue as either religiously or racially sensitive when it is not should be appeased and their views no matter contrary to logic or facts should be held in higher regard just because they are justified on some race or religious grounds. Who is arbiter and defines what is an insult or not – the organisations that say it is an insult? Is that all, is it a neutral and fair arbiter?

As far as I know the so called injustices brought about by conversion cases are addressed by whether non muslim or muslim stakeholders concerned with the issues in forums like the one organised by Bar Council because there are simply no other avenues perceived neutral to arbitrate or adjudicate objectively and independently based on fairness. The normal recourse to civil courts has been blocked as existing civil courts’ decisions related to conversions have already deferred to the jurisdiction of Sharia courts by interpretation (or misinterperetation) of the purport of article 121(1)A of the Constitution. Neither government nor civil courts want to look into 121(1)A so that is why civil society, Bar Council and even Sisters in Islam would still want to discuss about the purport, interpretation and ramifications of this provision including unjust consequences to non muslim family members that 121(1)A has brought about. It is also not just an issue of who is right or wrong in interpreting 121(1)A. It is the attempt by intimidation and threat of demonstrations and violence to stop all rational discussions about it – never mind that these discussions canvass a broad spectrum of differing views – that is the worrying issue and portends ill for the country in terms of freedom of expression and the serach fopr balance and compromise via discussion.

Ensuring Independence of Judiciary is probably the most important thing as you said because unless we have fair judges of intellectual merits and moral fortutidue to decide right , we’re done for : just like Olympic games, imagine the referees not fair!

But doing something about the Judiciary is immediately govt’s call. Only now because of Lingam’s Enquiry Zaid is proposing some kind of Judicial Apointment Commission and even that final decison on judges apears vested in PM.

For politicians to relent to demands of rakyat for fair and independent judiciary the conventional wisdom is that the rakyat (broad sections of it) wiould be vigilant about such issues and threaten the politicians that unless they implement the reforms, they won’t receive their votes next round.

So ultimately it is gras rot pressures and education of gras roots oin what is important right and fair in a multiracial country is key without which how could real democracy take root?

Bar Council is carrying out its primary function in organising such forum giving all stakeholders of such issues of whatever differing views an oportunity to discuss air and argue rationally the issues even pertaining to conversion cases. It is part of educating the rakyat process so that they could after discussing pros and cons pressure the govt to effect the real changes that are right and fair.

So is the case of the Muslim NGOs opposing the amendment of 121(1)A. Even if you and I don’t agree with their position, I concede that they too have a right to construe that 121(1)A should be retained, and to even influence those who would hear them so that they could together lobby the government not to amend 121(1)A whatever its injustice.

But they should not use threat of violence/public security and demonstration to stop the Bar Council’s forum.

They are entitled to participate in forum though and argue their positions. But they should not stop those of contrary views from exercising their right to freedom of expression to try to educate the public another way.

Of course these protesting NGOs would argue that Freedom of Speech is not unlimited but subject to sentitivity and should not be insulting to their religion.

But the question is the content, nature of discussions, composition of participants insulting to their religion? Is not there an objective test that reasonable people can agree whether or not it is insulting or we must take their view for it?

If interfaith discussions are insulting then why police gave permit to hold forum till 12 noon?

Are we living in a totalitarian state where a section can tell another not to discuss because it is perceived “insulting” to a small vociferious section against all forms of discussion?

I believe they are stopping the Bar Council from carrying out its primary function of promoting rational discussion on such controversial issues that surely canot forever remain buried on arguments that they are controversial or sensitive.

Controversial and sensitive to who?

The Bar Council canot be faulted for not caring about Judicial Independence. For one it has spoken and called for it. For two, Bar Council representatives were in the arena to participate in the Lingam RC enquiry (they cross examined even Mahathir) and the Commissioners eventually made findings questioning Judiciary independence.

Regarding the forum, it was a lawful one for which police permit given. The forum itself is an expression of democratic right to freedomm of expression. It was public forum given police permit and hence lawful. All are allowed to participate.

Is it right for a small minority to gather outside in an ilegal assembly threatening public security and even storm the building if the lawful forum inside did not stop because the topic was one the protestors did not like?

What are illegal assemblers given more understanding and rewarded with what they wanted in stoping the forum in denial of those in the forum who have the law on their side (in terms of having police permit) and the constitutional right of freedom of expression on their side and the moral motivation of promoting justice in conversions also on their side?