The criminality of the ‘Nothing to Hide 2.0’ forum
The ‘Nothing to Hide 2.0’ forum this Sunday is a criminal act. Therefore Najib does not need to layan the forum. Instead, Najib can ask the police to serve a notice on the organisers that they are harassing and stalking him and are causing him distress — and hence they are committing a criminal act that can open them to possible arrest and indictment. In the UK the organisers would find the police on their doorstep for a lesser offence like what happened when Clare Brown sent the police to my house.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
(FTM) – Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad will announce a programme he has planned “for the people’s benefit” at the Nothing to Hide 2.0 forum organised by PPBM Youth. PPBM Youth exco member Mohd Ashraf Mustaqim, who revealed this today, said the programme would be a surprise.
The forum is scheduled to take place in Dewan Raja Muda Musa, Shah Alam, at 3pm this Sunday. Ashraf also said the official letter inviting Prime Minister Najib Razak to attend had gone unanswered. He said the letter was sent to Najib’s office on July 19 but the organisers were still hopeful the prime minister would make a surprise appearance despite the silence on the invitation. (READ MORE HERE)
Clare Rewcastle Brown of Sarawak Report sent the police to my house with an order to stop mentioning her name in my articles and to stop publishing her pictures in Malaysia Today. This is because mentioning her name and publishing her pictures is causing her distress and mental anguish, said the police. I was then served with an order, which if I ignore can result in my arrest and indictment in court.
In the UK this is a crime and the police would be on your doorstep by now
Britain has very specific laws regarding harassment and stalking, which you can read below. Even non-lawyers would be able to understand what the write-up below means, as the law is very clear about what constitutes harassment and stalking, which include repeatedly making false and malicious assertions and repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim.
Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. What also needs to be noted is the UK Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations are not oppressive if they could easily be rebutted. And you cannot argue that what you are doing is for the good of the country just like you cannot bomb a mosque to stop the spread of terrorism on the argument it is for the good of the country.
The law also says the conduct might appear innocent, but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim. So what PPBM is doing is a crime. Why do these Pakatan Harapan people have no respect for the law? And yet they tell us they want to bring law and order to the country when it is they who break every law in the book.
Pakatan people have nothing to hide: they cheat on their spouses openly
************************************************
British laws regarding harassment and stalking
Harassment
In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the ‘causing alarm or distress’ offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and ‘putting people in fear of violence’ offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.
Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.
The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.
A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.
Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.
Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as ‘stalking by proxy’. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.
Mahathir has nothing to hide: he does not want Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister
Stalking
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created two new offences of stalking by inserting new sections 2A and 4A into the PHA 1997. The new offences which came into force on 25 November 2012, are not retrospective, and provide further options for prosecutors to consider when selecting charges. The Home Office issued guidelines in relation to the stalking offences.
Whilst there is no strict legal definition of ‘stalking’, section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking. For example, following a person, watching or spying on them or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including social media.
The effect of such behaviour is to curtail a victim’s freedom, leaving them feeling that they constantly have to be careful. In many cases, the conduct might appear innocent (if it were to be taken in isolation), but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim.
Prosecutors should note that the examples given in section 2A (3) is not an exhaustive list but an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence.
Prosecutors should note that stalking and harassment of another or others can include a range of offences such as those under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. It is important when considering this type of offending to look at all relevant legislation when formulating charges.
