Freedom of Religion

======================================================================================================================================================================================= The Coalition Called Article 11:
Myths and Facts What is Article 11 in the Federal Constitution?
It guarantees the freedom of religion. Article 11 reads as follows: ?
1. Freedom of religion.
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.
(3) Every religious group has the right -
(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
(5) This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

?What is the Article 11 coalition?

Article 11 is the name of a coalition of civil society groups from diverse backgrounds and interests. Why was the coalition formed? It was formed in May 2004 in response to cases that highlighted the problems faced by some Malaysians, which involve the interpretation of some provisions of the Federal Constitution.

Two examples are: Shamala was a Hindu mother whose husband converted to Islam. He converted their two infant children to Islam without her knowledge or consent. The civil High Court refused to give effect to Shamala's rights as a parent of the child, and ordered her to raise her children as Muslims and not expose them to her own Hindu faith. It said that since the children are now Muslims, the Syariah Court is the only qualified forum to determine their religious status, even though the judge acknowledged that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction to hear Shamala's case since she is not a Muslim. As a result, Shamala did not have any avenue to seek relief. Moorthy, the Malaysian hero who climbed Mount Everest, died in December 2005. The Islamic religious authorities obtained a Syariah Court order, in his widow Kaliammal's absence, declaring him a Muslim when he died. Kaliammal tried to have her deceased husband declared a Hindu at the time of his death, but the civil courts refused to hear her case. She was therefore left with no remedy and no access to justice. What is the mission of the coalition? Article 11's mission is to ensure a Malaysia that: upholds the supremacy of the Federal Constitution; protects every person equally, regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender; and is firmly established in, and upholds, the rule of law.

What does Article 11 hope to achieve?

We aim to promote awareness towards, advocate for and contribute to achieving a Malaysia where all Malaysians in our daily lives: affirm the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land; strive to build national unity; affirm the right of every person to full and adequate access to justice; recognise the need for a judiciary that is impartial, independent, and an equal arm of the government; recognise that the Federal Constitution embodies an agreement among the various communities; respect the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection for every person in a multi-racial, multi-religious Malaysia; seek to protect fundamental liberties for all; respect the freedom of thought, conscience, belief and religion of every person; and ensure that Malaysia does not become a theocratic state.

What activities has the coalition engaged in thus far?

Open letter In June 2006, Article 11 handed over to the Prime Minister an open letter entitled eaffirming the supremacy of the Federal Constitution? bearing approximately 20,000 signatures. The letter calls upon the government/judiciary: to uphold the supremacy of the Federal Constitution; to ensure governance in accordance with the Federal Constitution and premised on the universal values of all Malaysian peoples; to reaffirm that Malaysia shall not become a theocratic state; and to recognise the proper position of the judiciary within the Constitutional framework, as an independent and equal arm of Government.

See http://www.petitiononline.com/constsup/petition.html for the open letter.

The coalition has repeatedly asked to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the open letter and other issues of concern, but no reply has yet been received. Public forums Since 2004, Article 11 has been involved in organising five public forums that have focused primarily on the rights that the Federal Constitution, as the supreme law of Malaysia, guarantees to all persons living in Malaysia. The forums also highlighted the plight of various individuals who are unable to have access to justice. Unfortunately, two of those forums were disrupted by protests organised by a group calling itself Badan Anti IFC (BADAI), which incorrectly accused Article 11 of attempting to revive the Interfaith Commission (IFC) and of insulting Syariah law and Islam. Although a Minister had called the actions of the mob stuupid?

(see http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/51104),
and in spite of the increasing public support for the forums, the Government nevertheless went ahead and called for a halt to further forums on interfaith issues. Court and media advocacy Coalition members have represented persons who require assistance to pursue legal remedies. We have also appointed lawyers to hold a watching brief in court cases relating to lack of access to justice and freedom of religion. As part of the coalition's media advocacy work, members have granted interviews and released press statements and letters to press editors. Since the Government's gag order, Article 11 forums have been halted, and its statements are no longer carried by the press. On the other hand, groups opposing Article 11 continue to have access to the media and various other machineries to perpetuate disinformation about the coalition. Public education Article 11 has conducted briefings for groups and individuals who want to know more about their rights under the Constitution and about the coalition. Was it a mistake for Article 11 to discuss highly charged and sensitive?

issues in a public forum setting?
No. The public forums were closed-door sessions held in a regulated indoor setting, and all attendees were required to register. The forums featured activists, academics, lawyers and politicians as speakers, who discussed the Federal Constitution and related matters. The forums themselves proceeded smoothly, and nothing untoward happened during the meetings that caused any problem. The only disruptions originated from outside the forums, caused by persons unwilling to engage in rational dialogue and unwilling to allow others to exercise their freedom of expression. The issues may be sensitive?but they were always handled in a mature, professional and rational manner. Moreover, discussing sensitive?issues in an open and responsible manner is in fact the way to foster mutual understanding and true harmony. Avoiding discussion because an issue is sensitive?

will perpetuate its sensitivity and enhance the prejudices that will exist and grow among respective groups or communities because opportunities for dialogue are absent. What does Article 11 plan to do, in light of the protests against the forums?
We cannot be united if we do not talk to one another about what is troubling us. Suppression of debate will not resolve problematic issues nor cause them to fade away. It is important that we discuss and explore different viewpoints to facilitate solutions to the issues that jeopardise our national unity. Article 11 hopes to engage in rational dialogues with all concerned to clarify the misconceptions about the coalition, and to continue with its public education activities. Article 11 also hopes to meet the Prime Minister and other decision-makers to discuss issues of concern. Does Article 11 aim to establish the IFC? This is not one of Article 11's objectives, although some of the individuals and groups that had participated in the IFC initiative are also involved in Article 11. The IFC was intended to be a statutory body with a conciliatory function to promote the national unity of the people of multiple faiths in Malaysia. Despite the misinformation spread by irresponsible persons, the proposed IFC was not intended to have adjudicatory functions. Article 11 is a separate initiative. There is no discussion about the IFC in Article 11's public forums or other activities. Does Article 11 oppose the position of Islam in Malaysia? No. Article 11 respects Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, which states that islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.?We also uphold Article 4(1), which provides that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. Does Article 11 and its activities interfere with, or insult, Islam? No. None of the forum speakers or Article 11 coalition members questions the application of Syariah law to Muslims in the area of their personal and family law. The coalition, however, is concerned about the areas of conflict between Syariah law and civil law, and their negative impact on the rights of all individuals. Does Article 11 aim to reduce the power of the Sultans and religious authorities? No. Article 11 has the utmost respect for the Sultans as constitutional monarchs, and for the religious authorities who are subject to the Federal Constitution and are bound to uphold the rule of law. Does Article 11 aim to reduce the status of Syariah Court? No. What we advocate has been the position in Malaysia since independence and will not reduce the Syariah Court's scope within the Federal Constitution's framework. However, in any case where one party to a dispute does not profess Islam, or where the State Legislature has not expressly legislated on the subject matter of the dispute, then the correct position should be that the civil courts must be the ultimate decision-maker. If all parties to a dispute profess Islam, and the subject matter of the dispute is one of purely Islamic personal law and which has been legislated upon by the State Legislature, then the civil courts can rightly decline to interfere with a dispute before the Syariah Court. The current situation is problematic because individuals who do not profess Islam are being nevertheless told to go to the Syariah Court for redress, i.e. to go to a court to whose jurisdiction they are not subject. What is Article 11's stand on apostasy?

The coalition believes that the clear provision in Article 11(1) of the Constitution, that every person has the right to freely profess and practise ?his religion? must be fully respected. We do not encourage Muslims to renounce Islam, and we acknowledge that Article 11(4) restricts the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. Laws can be put in place to ensure that persons who convert out of their religion do not evade any lawful obligations to their families and communities. It is not suggested that such laws would prevent, punish or deter the conversion itself, but such laws must ensure that conversion does not provide an escape route from obligations already incurred. Is Article 11 seeking a repeal of Article 121(1A) of the Constitution? No. Article 121(1A) states: the [civil High Courts] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.?This just means that if a matter is properly and exclusively within the Syariah Courts' jurisdiction, the civil High Courts will not exercise jurisdiction over it. This proper interpretation does not take away anything from the Syariah Courts' proper jurisdiction. The jurisdictional conflict that has arisen is not due to the written law but to a distorted reading of Article 121(1A).


======================================================================================================================================================================================= Background to the formation of Article 11 In April 2004,

the civil High Court in Kuala Lumpur granted custody of 2 young boys aged 2 and 4 years to their Hindu mother. The judge imposed one condition - she was not to expose her sons to her Hindu faith. The 2 boys were previously, without her knowledge or consent, converted to Islam by her estranged husband, himself a recent convert to Islam. The same court had earlier dismissed an application by the Hindu mother for a declaration that the conversion of the 2 young children to Islam violated her parental right to co-determine the religious upbringing of the children. The reasoning of the court was that it had no jurisdiction, as the children were now Muslim and the correctness or otherwise of their conversion was a matter for the Syariah Court. Shamala's case brought home the point that the constitutional role of the civil High Court as the protector of the rights of the ordinary citizen was fast becoming illusory. The implications of this case, however, became the rallying force that drew together a small number of concerned NGOs and members of civil society. This group noted that besides Sharmala's case, there were other cases that had impacted the right of belief and the right to practise one's belief as guaranteed under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. By May 2004, Shamala's case had given life to a coalition of NGOs, which has come to be known as Article 11.

above is articel is from the www.article11..