THROUGH last week's decision by Judge M. M. Edwin Paramjothy, Malaysia asserted a degree of clarity on a moral issue that continues to befuddle the West: free speech.
Paramjothy imposed RM15,000 worth of fines on Zamri Bin Abd Razak for offensive comments he posted two years ago on Facebook insulting Hinduism. In his judgment, Paramjothy rightly stated that "freedom of speech is a prized privilege guaranteed by the constitution".
"But the limits of freedom end where religion and religious beliefs are insulted or outraged. Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society," the judge said.
In just 45 words, the judge succinctly resolved any question that might exist about the appropriate limits on free speech in democratic societies.
As we know, the West, which does not hesitate to penalise speech deemed offensive by other groups, refuses to honour the religious sentiments of not only their own citizens, but of people of faith around the world.
The judge was correct when he said that "the crime of insulting one's religion is committed not only against the person, but also against the values and functions that the religion and its followers represent". Thus, any public religious slur is immediately global in its implications, and offends millions.
Recently, in the West, we have seen deliberate insult of the Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) become a virtual litmus test for one's belief in free speech, as if the right to mock Muslim faith and our most beloved figure is the greatest linchpin of freedom of expression without which the entire concept of free speech would be nullified.
But this, of course, is a fallacy and a redirection, and Malaysia has now provided the West with the rebuttal. If one believes that free speech can only be upheld by speaking the unspeakable, the hurtful, the outrageous, the blasphemous, one has failed to grasp the purpose of that freedom, and has transformed it into a means of oppression.
We can deduce that with the rapid decline of religious belief in Europe and the United States, not only have they lost the ability to relate to those for whom faith is precious, but they have also injected sacredness into their own secular beliefs as a replacement for religion.
Thus "Enlightenment" principles like free speech have become sacrosanct and immune to the use of logic in their implementation. This is particularly true with regard to obliging public respect for religions, since, after all, they represent competing moral belief systems.
Reasonable discussion of religion, criticism, debate and intellectual dialogue are all responsible exercises in free speech, and no religious community is averse to them. However, there is no right to abuse, defile, and offend religious sensibilities held dear by hundreds of millions of people.
For people of faith, their religion is a fundamental element, indeed, a defining element, of their identity; often more so than their race, ethnicity, colour, or gender. Yet, all of these other identity characteristics are treated as off-limits in the West for ridicule and derision, but religion is excluded from such respect.
In Malaysia, however, we know that belief in freedom of speech does not require us to surrender belief in our religious creeds, nor to degrade their sanctity. Rather, we sensibly understand that freedom of expression is supposed to benefit the people, not harm them; enrich, not degrade their public discourse, and to prevent, not enable their persecution.
The court's decision last week should be applauded for its wise articulation of the proper application of the principle of free speech in a modern, diverse society. Freedom of speech should be exactly that and not a platform for hate to rear its hideous head. There's still room for respect and honour.
The writer is founder of Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy (CENTHRA)
