it WAS a mob

remember the article i posted by my friend, martin jalleh – ‘of stunted minds, swollen head and shallowed characters‘? that article appeared in aliran latest issue and it also appeared in malaysiakini, though under another heading, ‘wanted: protection from mob rule‘.

well, it seems that, there was one fatimah idris, who had responded to martin’s article here, where, among other things, she insisted that the ‘mob’ is not a mob. well, no fear, trust martin to come up with good valid points to rebuke her. i met martin yesterday afternoon and he told me he had responded to fatimah and will be sending me the article. well i received it when i got home in the evening, and here i present to you his article (click on ‘more’ to read).

i would like to highlight one paragraph from martin’s article:

Equally ‘prejudiced” was the police who told the organizers that the forum had to be cut short or cancelled because they felt that they might not have been able to control the crowd, which they claimed was threatening to storm the hotel. They strongly implied that the safety of the participants was at stake. If it was not a “mob” would the police have “adviced” that the forum come to an abrupt end?

yep. the police feared that these group of demonstrators would turned voilent and stormed the hotel where the article 11 forum was held. see? wouldn’t we refer to them as ‘mob’ then? if they were peaceful demonstrators, they wouldt have allowed the forum to go on while demonstrating outside. there wouldn’t have been so many police, including the riot police, if they were not a ‘mob’. remember i was right there in the thick of action and had taken a few shots of the mob.

enough. click on ‘more’ to read martin’s say. btw, xypre of reduced and recycled blog has also responded to fatimah’s letter very well.
Puny Minds Trying to Play God

Fathima Idris is free to describe my article as she please. I want to assure her that I will not send a mob to harass, heckle, hinder or hamper, or even threaten to harm her for expressing her opinion. She has the right to be heard and to be protected from the herd mentality she condones.

The thrust of my article or “emotional diatribe’ as she has decided to call it, was a point-by-point rebuttal of Mohd Azmi’s justification and her inferred support of the mob that disrupted a legally-held forum.

I had asserted that the protestors had a right to demonstrate but were wrong in trampling on the rights of the participants of the forum. May I reiterate, and we must make this very clear, there must be no place for the mob in Malaysia.

“They say attack is the best form of defence”, so began Fathima Idris. Who was it that first worked up the mob to “attack” the constitutional rights of the participants of the forum? Who was it that fanned the emotions of the crowd to even threaten to storm the forum site?

They also say, dear Fathima Idris, that the best form of attack is to keep on throwing doubt and suspicion on those you disagree with and eventually some of it may stick and look like the truth. From her previous correspondence on the subject, and like Mohd Azmi, Fathima Idris has proven to be very adept at this.

All she has done so far is repeatedly cast aspersions on the intentions of Article 11. Earlier she had smelt a rat (but acted like a mouse when she had the perfect opportunity to expose Article 11’s supposed “masquerade” at the forum), then she claimed to have seen a Trojan horse and now she has hallucinations of “arrogant and condescending preachers”.

Why did Fathima Idris shy away from choosing the intelligent and civil way of discourse, debate and dialogue at the forum? Was she afraid that an intellectual engagement, especially with the three invited Muslim speakers would reveal her ignorance and prejudice? Is she on an ego trip to portray herself as a hero of the Muslims? Alas, it is so easy to cast a slur on the motives of others.

Referring to my article she adds: “His insistence in calling the demonstrators “a mob” surely belies his prejudices when, on all accounts, none of the photographs in the media attest to this being the case. ”

The eyewitnesses (participants’) accounts, recorded in the current issue of the Aliran Monthly speak of “a mob”. I had in my article quoted Shad Saleem Faruqi, a respected constitutional law professor who said he had “witnessed first-hand the triumph of mob rule over the rule of law…(and) an unlawful group of intimidators…” (The Star, 18 May 2006). But of course Fathima Idris probably considers them “prejudiced”.

All the English newspapers in town (yes, “on all accounts”) called the demonstrators a “mob”. The editorial of The Sun (16 May 2006) by inference described them as an organized mob which “unlawfully impose their will on others”. The editorial of the New Straits Times called them a “mob” which used “intimidatory tactics”. The Star described their action as “mob behaviour which must not be tolerated in any civilised society”. Prejudiced, they all?

Equally ‘prejudiced” was the police who told the organizers that the forum had to be cut short or cancelled because they felt that they might not have been able to control the crowd, which they claimed was threatening to storm the hotel. They strongly implied that the safety of the participants was at stake. If it was not a “mob” would the police have “adviced” that the forum come to an abrupt end?

On her questioning of Article 11’s real motive in holding their roadshows, I would leave this issue to Article 11 to respond. However I wish to add that like any civil group, Article 11 has the right to organize, conscientise, and even send a petition (if that is their real intention of having roadshows) to the government. And Fatima Idris and her ilk have the right to do the same.

Why, S M Mohd Idris the president of both CAP and SAM (who appears to have condoned the mob) has spent practically his whole lifetime sending petitions and memoranda to the Government. And of course, there is the fact that as Pak Lah has put it, in his response to the incident in Penang: “what they talked about was not in contravention of any laws because at the end of the day the Government will decide on the matters” (Star, 17 May 2006).

Further, why not leave the public to judge for themselves as to the sincerity of Article 11’s intentions. Unless of course Fathima Idris and her ilk think that we are stupid and are incapable of discerning and deciphering the truth.

Fathima Idris adds: “But of course Martin Jalleh and his ilk think we are stupid and are “evidently not even aware what the forum was about”. First of all I do not at all think of anyone as being “stupid”.

Secondly, I had referred to Mohd Azmi’s “clever” jibe at Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, who had described the protest as wrong and stupid: “It’s not stupid to protest but it’s stupid to comment without listening to what people have to say…” I then pointed out by way of a question that his logic was an inference that it would be “stupid’ to protest without first listening to what the speakers at the forum had to say.

Since she appears to rely very much on photographic evidence, Fathima Idris should take a look at some of the pictures of the posters held by the protestors: IFC, a Zionist scheme; IFC insults Islam; Fight Liberal Islam; Oppose the IFC; Don’t mock Allah’s laws. The forum was definitely not on the IFC.

Fathima Idris accuses Article 11 of “stage managing this whole thing to register its own view”. The same can be said of Fathima Idris, Mohd Idris and Mohd Azmi using the consumer and environmental platform to push their own agenda and brand of Islam.

Fathima Idris and her ilk considers it their duty to dominate, dictate and decide on(and even disrupt) what non-muslims (and other muslims) can and cannot discuss, dialogue and do. They impose their views on us. They intimidate us with a mob. . They insult our intelligence. Can anyone be more “arrogant”, “condescending” and “patronising” than this?

Alas, as is always, the greatest casualty in religion is God himself — as he watches from above puny minds trying to play God.

Martin Jalleh (21 June 2006)