No such thing as liberté sans frontières

By MT Webmaster Last updated Apr 9, 2016

The trouble is most people do not know where the limits of these freedoms are. Well, simple really. Your freedom ends where my nose begins. You have all the freedom in the world just as long as your exercising your freedom does not hurt me.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My good friend Azmi Sharom said that freedom is a right and not a privilege (SEE NEWS ITEM BELOW). This is what civil liberties is all about. Well, yes and no. We cannot make general statements or have blanket rules. We need to be a bit more specific because it all depends on what we are talking about.

For example, you have the freedom to have sex with anyone you want — but then only if it involves sex between two consenting adults. If one of the partners is consenting but is not an adult but is only 13 years old, then you do not have that freedom to have sex with him or her. That would be a crime of statutory rape.

Then again, if one or both partners are Muslims, and are not married to each other, sex between these two would be a crime under the Sharia law. And if both partners are of the same sex that, too, would be a crime — as would oral and anal sex, even between husband and wife.

So there you have it. You have freedom to have sex but then this freedom comes with many restrictions. And sex with animals is also a crime even if you happen to own that goat you are having sex with.

Hence freedom is not exactly a right. If it is then you can do whatever you want with it since it is your right. Freedom is a privilege. And if you abuse this privilege your freedom will be taken away from you — as Anwar Ibrahim has found out twice in his life.

What about the freedom to express myself? Is that an absolute right? Of course, libertarians like me would say freedom of expression is a right. Okay, what if I express myself, as is my right, by burning the Bahasa Malaysia Bible that uses the Allah word?

I am expressing myself and am telling the world that Allah does not have a son. So the Bahasa Malaysia Bible that says “Jesus the Son of Allah” is blasphemy. And I am exercising my right of expressing my opinion. And I further say that anyone who undermines Islam is an enemy of God and, therefore, we have the right to take his/her life in the name of Allah (like they do in Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, etc.).

I am sure the libertarians would be the first to protest and to demand my arrest. I am asking Muslims to kill non-Muslims who declare war on Allah by publishing Bibles that say Allah has a Son named Jesus. But then is that not my right to say all that? Or does my freedom to express my opinion come with terms, conditions and restrictions?

Okay, we also have a right to criticise, especially criticise our leaders. But do our leaders not also have rights? Are we not equal before the law according to the Constitution? So what about our right to not be slandered or suffer fitnah? Do we not also have that right? Or do only those who fitnah us have rights?

I can go on and on for a few more pages giving you a list of examples. But I think you get my point. There is no such thing as liberté sans frontières (freedom without borders). Everything has boundaries, freedoms included.

In America, you have a right to own a gun. It is in the Constitution. But you lose that right when you point that gun at me and pull the trigger. In fact, you even lose your freedom because then you will end up in jail.

So, America, the land of the free, is not 100% free after all. I am not free to carry a gun into the White House when I visit it as a tourist. So where is my freedom when the Constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms?

*****************************************************

Freedom a right, not a privilege, forum told

(MMO) – The belief that imposing restrictions on civil liberties is necessary for national security is a misconception that should be rejected, law academic Azmi Sharom said today, insisting that freedom is a right and not a privilege.

Speaking at a forum entitled “Liberty or Security: You Choose”, Azmi said the government has to do more to convince the public why it needed to enact more restrictive laws, and said the public had every right to reject them should they curb their right to hold those in power accountable.

“This is a common misconception — the need to balance security and liberty. Freedom is a given, not a privilege like what some clown said,” Azmi told the forum, without specifying who he was referring to.

“Freedom is a right. If they want to have more security laws, they must justify to us why. We don’t have to justify to them (why we can reject them) as freedom is our right,” he said, drawing applause from the audience.

In a March 3 blog posting, Multimedia and Communications Minister Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak said freedom of speech has its limits and must be seen as a privilege that can be taken away if abused, instead of an absolute right.

Despite his pledge to improve civil liberties prior to the 13th national polls, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s government moved to introduce more security laws and amend existing legislation like the Sedition Act that critics say effectively widened state powers to crack down on dissent.

Recently, Salleh confirmed Malay Mail Online’s report that the government plans to regulate the Internet, including having news portals and blogs registered.

He said the proposal was needed to curb the dissemination of false news and rumours, for the sake of “national security”.

Amnesty International Malaysia executive director Shamini Darshni said such laws are intended to intimidate critics from voicing their discontent, but urged them not cave in.

“I think they want you to be afraid of or unsure about posting something, but you have to keep on posting it,” she told the forum.

Azmi went on to say that for those in power, freedom is viewed as an irritant and a threat to their dominance.

“To them, human rights is an impediment,” he said.

Almost a year ago, government lawmakers passed amendments to expand the Sedition Act to include offences committed on the Internet, which has been an opposition-dominated campaigning platform that was said to have contributed to its growing influence since 2008.

The move met fierce opposition as critics alleged the amendments were clearly aimed at silencing dissidents, but Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi insisted that they were necessary to protect Malaysians on the Internet.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK