宪法专家 阿兹巴里 批评
上诉庭“阿拉”案裁决违宪
来源: 《当今大马》英文版2013年10月15日新闻
译者：朱信健
（原文为英文，如中、英文两个版本有任何抵触或不相符之处，以英文版本为准）
宪法专家阿兹巴里表示，上诉庭禁止天主教会周报《先锋报》使用阿拉字眼来称呼上帝的裁决是错误的。
他告诉《当今大马》，上诉庭法官在判决中，把伊斯兰教作为官方宗教的规定，变成针对每个人的基准，违反了《联邦宪法》第3（1）条文宗教自由的意义。
这位国际伊斯兰大学前法学讲师指出，《联邦宪法》第3（1）条文清晰的表明，尽管伊斯兰教是官方宗教，非穆斯林可以在没有限制的情况下，自由地实践 他们的宗教信仰。
他说，这项裁决的影响是它可能使到非穆斯林感到“不安全”（unsafe），而这是违反《联邦宪法》第3（1）条文的本质的。
阿兹巴里也指出，上诉庭昨日的裁决，听来像是一项“政策决定” （policy decision）——一项没有严格遵循法律的决定。
他表示，我国的法官在处理重大的案件上，就如大部分国家的法官一样，不认为他们有能力背离行政部门所采取的路线。上诉庭裁决这个案件，和我们见过的一些案件，如防范性扣留、选举诉求以及阿坦图雅谋杀案没有太大差异。
“和其他许多裁决一样，法官只是跟随部长所需要的“（国家）安全和公共秩序”（security and public order）来做决定。简单而言，法官都是不愿意积极主动的。” 他说，“
显而易见，他们仍然停留在政府拥有绝对权力，借口“（国家）安全和公共秩序”而为所欲为的战争时期的决策方式。”
没有证据证明使用阿拉字眼的危害
阿兹巴里指出，在没有证据证明使用阿拉字眼可以危害国家安全和公共秩序的情况下，法庭作出禁止使用阿拉字眼的裁决，让政府藉此干涉基督教徒所奉行的宗教信仰方式。
“我不相信在基督教徒之中使用阿拉字眼将会给穆斯林制造问题。其中的一个理由是基督教徒有他们自己的教义，他们不会去向穆斯林宣教。”
“而穆斯林本身也有着他们的宗教师多年来研究与发展的教义。这就是穆斯林不会被（不在穆斯林之间流传的）《先锋报》使用阿拉字眼所影响”的保证。他也形容判词中有关基本自由权利的条款一定要与《联邦宪法》第3条文同读的说法是“惊人的”（startling）。
他说，联邦宪法里唯一允许凌驾基本自由或人民权利之上的条款，是对付颠覆行为的第149条文和有关紧急状态的第150条文。
上诉庭法官（对关联条文）诠释令人不安
阿兹巴里指出，法官坚称联邦宪法中阐明伊斯兰教是“联邦的宗教（the religion of the federation）”的第3（1）条文和允许立法保护穆斯林免于被改教的第11（4）条文之间有关联是令人不安的。
“大多数人认为联邦宪法第3（1）条文是表明联邦政府的特征或意识形态的条款，但不是用来判断或作为非穆斯林的基准。我认为这是在这条款最后加上叙述‘其他宗教实践可以和平与和谐地进行’（other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony）的原因。”
“我发现，上诉庭不去专注宗教自由的权利，反而去强调（与此案）较无关的联邦宪法第3（1）和11（4）条文之间关联的做法是很奇怪的。”
“实际上，联邦宪法第11（4）条文可以在没有第3（1）条文支持下单独地被解读。”
他告诉《当今大马》，上诉庭法官在判决中，把伊斯兰教作为官方宗教的规定，变成针对每个人的基准，违反了《联邦宪法》第3（1）条文宗教自由的意义。
这位国际伊斯兰大学前法学讲师指出，《联邦宪法》第3（1）条文清晰的表明，尽管伊斯兰教是官方宗教，非穆斯林可以在没有限制的情况下，自由地实践 他们的宗教信仰。
他说，这项裁决的影响是它可能使到非穆斯林感到“不安全”（unsafe），而这是违反《联邦宪法》第3（1）条文的本质的。
阿兹巴里也指出，上诉庭昨日的裁决，听来像是一项“政策决定” （policy decision）——一项没有严格遵循法律的决定。
他表示，我国的法官在处理重大的案件上，就如大部分国家的法官一样，不认为他们有能力背离行政部门所采取的路线。上诉庭裁决这个案件，和我们见过的一些案件，如防范性扣留、选举诉求以及阿坦图雅谋杀案没有太大差异。
“和其他许多裁决一样，法官只是跟随部长所需要的“（国家）安全和公共秩序”（security and public order）来做决定。简单而言，法官都是不愿意积极主动的。” 他说，“
显而易见，他们仍然停留在政府拥有绝对权力，借口“（国家）安全和公共秩序”而为所欲为的战争时期的决策方式。”
没有证据证明使用阿拉字眼的危害
阿兹巴里指出，在没有证据证明使用阿拉字眼可以危害国家安全和公共秩序的情况下，法庭作出禁止使用阿拉字眼的裁决，让政府藉此干涉基督教徒所奉行的宗教信仰方式。
“我不相信在基督教徒之中使用阿拉字眼将会给穆斯林制造问题。其中的一个理由是基督教徒有他们自己的教义，他们不会去向穆斯林宣教。”
“而穆斯林本身也有着他们的宗教师多年来研究与发展的教义。这就是穆斯林不会被（不在穆斯林之间流传的）《先锋报》使用阿拉字眼所影响”的保证。他也形容判词中有关基本自由权利的条款一定要与《联邦宪法》第3条文同读的说法是“惊人的”（startling）。
他说，联邦宪法里唯一允许凌驾基本自由或人民权利之上的条款，是对付颠覆行为的第149条文和有关紧急状态的第150条文。
上诉庭法官（对关联条文）诠释令人不安
阿兹巴里指出，法官坚称联邦宪法中阐明伊斯兰教是“联邦的宗教（the religion of the federation）”的第3（1）条文和允许立法保护穆斯林免于被改教的第11（4）条文之间有关联是令人不安的。
“大多数人认为联邦宪法第3（1）条文是表明联邦政府的特征或意识形态的条款，但不是用来判断或作为非穆斯林的基准。我认为这是在这条款最后加上叙述‘其他宗教实践可以和平与和谐地进行’（other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony）的原因。”
“我发现，上诉庭不去专注宗教自由的权利，反而去强调（与此案）较无关的联邦宪法第3（1）和11（4）条文之间关联的做法是很奇怪的。”
“实际上，联邦宪法第11（4）条文可以在没有第3（1）条文支持下单独地被解读。”
Court wrong in 'Allah' decision,
says law expert
says law expert
Source: Malaysiakini News
The Court of Appeal was wrong in its decision banning Christian weekly Herald from using the word ‘Allah' to refer to God in Bahasa Malaysia, said a constitutional law expert.
"By linking religious rights under the chapter on fundamental liberties with Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which effectively makes Islam the benchmark for everybody, this runs counter to the general meaning of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution itself," Abdul Aziz Bari told Malaysiakini today.
"The plain meaning of Article 3(1) is simply this: that despite the fact that Islam has been made official religion, non-Muslims may go on practising their religions freely without restriction," said the former Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) law lecturer.
He said that the implication of the decision is that it might make non-Muslims feel "unsafe" and this is contrary to the essence of the Article 3 in the constitution.
Abdul Aziz also noted that the court decision yesterday sounded like a "policy decision" - a decision that is not strictly based on law.
"Like in most countries, the judges - in critical cases - do not feel they have the strength to depart from the line taken by the executive. Not too different from what we have seen in cases involving preventive detention, election petition and Altantuya (Shaariibuu)'s murder," he said.
"Like many, many other decisions which the minister claimed 'security and public order', the judges just went along with them. In short, the judges were not willing to be proactive here.
"They obviously still live under the wartime decisions where the government has the absolute power to decide anything under the guise of security and public order," he said.
No evidence
Abdul Aziz said that with the court decision, the government has interfered with the way Christians practice their religion when there is no evidence that using the world ‘Allah' can jeopardise national security and public order.
"I do not believe the use of ‘Allah' among Christians would create problems for the Muslims. For one thing, the Christians have their own doctrine and they are not out to tell the Muslims about it.
"As for the Muslims, they have their own doctrine that has been developed by their ulama for ages. This is the guarantee that the use of ‘Allah' by Herald - which is not circulated among Muslims anyway - will not affect Muslims," he said.
Abdul Aziz also described the judges' statement that fundamental liberties provision must be read along with Article 3 of the Federal Constitution as "startling".
"The only provisions that is allowed by the Constitution to override provisions for fundamental liberties - or human rights - are Article 149 on power to deal with subversion and Article 150 which deals with emergency," he said.
"The fundamental principle is that the court is there to protect and enhance the provisions for fundamental liberties, not to narrow them down. It is wrong for the Court of Appeal to do that."
Link disturbing
According to Abdul Aziz, the alleged link asserted by the judges between Article 3(1), which declares Islam as "the religion of the federation", and Article 11(4), which allows the legislatures to protect Muslims from being proselytised (converted) is disturbing.
"The most one could say about Article 3(1) is that the provision declares the federation's character and perhaps, ideology.
"But Article 3(1) is not one to be used to judge or becoming benchmark for the non-Muslims. I think this is the reason why the phrase ‘other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony' is being added towards the end of the provision.
"I find it strange as to why the Court of Appeal did not concentrate on the right to religious freedom and instead chose to highlight the link between Article 3(1) and Article 11(4), which has less relevant here.
"In fact, Article 11(4) could stand on its own without the support from Article 3(1)."
"By linking religious rights under the chapter on fundamental liberties with Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which effectively makes Islam the benchmark for everybody, this runs counter to the general meaning of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution itself," Abdul Aziz Bari told Malaysiakini today.
"The plain meaning of Article 3(1) is simply this: that despite the fact that Islam has been made official religion, non-Muslims may go on practising their religions freely without restriction," said the former Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) law lecturer.
He said that the implication of the decision is that it might make non-Muslims feel "unsafe" and this is contrary to the essence of the Article 3 in the constitution.
Abdul Aziz also noted that the court decision yesterday sounded like a "policy decision" - a decision that is not strictly based on law.
"Like in most countries, the judges - in critical cases - do not feel they have the strength to depart from the line taken by the executive. Not too different from what we have seen in cases involving preventive detention, election petition and Altantuya (Shaariibuu)'s murder," he said.
"Like many, many other decisions which the minister claimed 'security and public order', the judges just went along with them. In short, the judges were not willing to be proactive here.
"They obviously still live under the wartime decisions where the government has the absolute power to decide anything under the guise of security and public order," he said.
No evidence
Abdul Aziz said that with the court decision, the government has interfered with the way Christians practice their religion when there is no evidence that using the world ‘Allah' can jeopardise national security and public order.
"I do not believe the use of ‘Allah' among Christians would create problems for the Muslims. For one thing, the Christians have their own doctrine and they are not out to tell the Muslims about it.
"As for the Muslims, they have their own doctrine that has been developed by their ulama for ages. This is the guarantee that the use of ‘Allah' by Herald - which is not circulated among Muslims anyway - will not affect Muslims," he said.
Abdul Aziz also described the judges' statement that fundamental liberties provision must be read along with Article 3 of the Federal Constitution as "startling".
"The only provisions that is allowed by the Constitution to override provisions for fundamental liberties - or human rights - are Article 149 on power to deal with subversion and Article 150 which deals with emergency," he said.
"The fundamental principle is that the court is there to protect and enhance the provisions for fundamental liberties, not to narrow them down. It is wrong for the Court of Appeal to do that."
Link disturbing
According to Abdul Aziz, the alleged link asserted by the judges between Article 3(1), which declares Islam as "the religion of the federation", and Article 11(4), which allows the legislatures to protect Muslims from being proselytised (converted) is disturbing.
"The most one could say about Article 3(1) is that the provision declares the federation's character and perhaps, ideology.
"But Article 3(1) is not one to be used to judge or becoming benchmark for the non-Muslims. I think this is the reason why the phrase ‘other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony' is being added towards the end of the provision.
"I find it strange as to why the Court of Appeal did not concentrate on the right to religious freedom and instead chose to highlight the link between Article 3(1) and Article 11(4), which has less relevant here.
"In fact, Article 11(4) could stand on its own without the support from Article 3(1)."
No comments:
Post a Comment