By Ida Lim (TMI)
August 22, 2012
Umno Youth deputy Ibdilillah Ishak shows a copy of a police inform lodged upon interest of a wing's chief, Khairy. Picture by Choo Choy May
KUALA LUMPUR, August twenty-two The weight of proof is upon Umno Youth to uncover which it is not a publishing house of argumentative remarks suggesting which a opinion for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will outcome in Christianity apropos a country's central religion, due of new amendments to a Evidence Act, lawyers have said.
Umno Youth has claimed which a chairman who put up a print with a argumentative remarks was "unauthorised" to do so as well as which a page was not its central Facebook page.
The poster, which was uploaded final Saturday as well as taken down a same day, appeared to suggest which votes for sovereign antithesis Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will means Islam to be replaced by Christianity as a country's central religion.
It had read: "Jika anda setuju untuk jadikan KRISTIAN sebagai agama rasmi persekutuan Malaysia, teruskan sokongan anda kepada Pakatan Rakyat. (If we agree to have CHRISTIANITY a central religion of a federation of Malaysia, continue supporting Pakatan Rakyat.) 'God bless we my son'."
If Umno Youth is brought to court over a "unauthorised" Facebook post, it would be a test case for a newly-enforced Section 114A of a Evidence Act which has already seen drawn out antithesis from a public.
A shade constraint shows an lengthened thumbnail of a anti-Christian print upon a "Pemuda Umno Malaysia" page.
Section 114A makes even coffee shops charity giveaway Wi-Fi services liable for any insulting or criminal acts of customers using computers duri! ng their premises.
The new law creates a hypothesis which any purebred user of network services is reputed to be a publishing house of a publication sent from a mechanism linked to which network service, if he cannot uncover otherwise
The Section additionally provides which any "person whose name, sketch or pen name appears upon any publication depicting himself as a owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to tell or re-publish a publication is reputed to have published or re-published a essence of a publication unless a discordant is proved."
Civil liberties counsel Syahredzan Johan told The Malaysian Insider which Section 114A would impose a hypothesis which Umno Youth had published a poster, but notes which "this significant hypothesis is not tested in court" yet.
"But say, for whatever reason, Umno Youth is charged underneath a Sedition Act for promoting sick will between a Muslim as well as Christian communities, a significant hypothesis would operate," Syahredzan said.
"All a prosecution would need to prove is which a Umno Youth is stated to be a owner or director of a Facebook page," he said, observant which it is "quite easy to do so" as a page "represents itself as Umno Youth's".
Once which is proven, Umno Youth would be "presumed to be a publishing house of a post" as well as would then need to "rebut this presumption", he added.
"This is a perfect e.g. of a stupidity as well as injustice of Section 114A in operation."
The budding minister had upon Twitter final week pronounced his Cabinet would review a law after several organisations together with a Malaysian Bar chose to black out their websites to vigilance their antithesis to a law.
A day later, however, Information, Communications as well as Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim voiced which a law will stay.
Foong Cheng Leong, a Kuala Lumpur Bar IT committee co-chair, agreed with Syahredzan, observant which "if we follow (Se! ction) 1 14A, looking during subsection 1, it seems which a hypothesis of actuality is which Umno Youth is a publishing house of a poster."
He pronounced there is an "impression which it's a bona fide Pemuda Umno page", observant which a Facebook page, which has over 50,000 "likes", features Umno Youth's trademark as well as a party boss Datuk Seri Najib Razak's photograph.
Foong pronounced which Section 114A is unclear upon a number of things, observant which it "does not contend when a hypothesis is rebutted."
"We do not know if a police inform is enough to plead a presumption," he said, observant which "we're left during a unknown stage."
"Can a media go as well as tell everybody which Pemuda Umno is a publishing house of a poster? Can a media tell it as actuality because in a law it's reputed as fact?" he asked.
When asked if there was any law for Umno Youth to fall back upon in court, a counsel pronounced there is "no exemption underneath (Section) 114A" as well as "the usually thing they can do is come out with proof it's not them."
Lawyer Faisal Moideen shared Foong's view, observant which "making a police inform might not be enough because it seems to be a unclothed denial."
However, he shielded a law as well as stressed which it does not impose a hypothesis of guilt but usually a hypothesis of actuality of publication.
"At a end of a day, it doesn't mean they have committed a crime," he said, adding which "it takes more than just publication to have a chairman guilty."
Based upon his reading of a law, he pronounced "you do not have to uncover who did it, we have to uncover we didn't tell it" to plead a presumption.
Like this:
Be a first to like this.
More < b>Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
No comments:
Post a Comment