OMG .... The "Hudud" debate- yet, Again!!

***************************

"I say the wiser non-Muslim stance would be to hold that 

if syariah is what Kelantan Muslims want 

and if we are given a cast-iron guarantee 

that it will not be implemented on us, 

we would not object to Muslims wanting it,”

-Bishop Paul Tan

*******************************************

In response to my post commending Bishop Paul Tan on his comments wrt Hudud, I got a comment, as follows:-

" The implication for ALL MALAYSIANS is grave and disastrous.
It's the initial inroad into "instituting a creeping, historically regressive and anti-democratic clericalism" which will eventually affect us all regardless of creed. The Bishop is at best naive if he thinks that it will only apply to Muslims."

First of all- let's see this debate/rhetoric for what it truly is ...
PAS is UMNO's greatest adversary- not PKR or DAP.
For PAS, "Islam" is at the same time, their strength and their Achilles Heel - unfortunately, PAS doesn't see the latter.

This is a conflict which Mahathir manufactured, to play the "politics of fear" (much like the old "May13" rhetoric) on the electorate & split the vote bank to UMNO's benefit and PAS's loss.
It is also a potent diversion from all that ails the Najib administration.
Sadly- the PAS Ulamas in their usual defensive political naivete/ stupidity, has fallen for it (and yes- OMG .. yet again!!)- hook, line & sinker!!
It really reveals the lack of political sophistication in PAS, thus revealing their weakness- and not "strength", as these PAS stalwarts believe- in their chest-thumping bravado!!
One wonders at times if they're that stupid ... while they seek to champion Islam.
They really need to brush up ...

Now wrt Paul Tan's comment-
He is I presume, well aware of the repercussions of Hudud, just as he is of being perceived as an opponent/enemy of Islam. If you noticed, he never discussed the "wisdom" of Hudud.
He's responding to the rhetoric in the best possible way to "douse the embers", lest they flare up- which could be what some "grand ol' man's" "politics of fear", to distract the people from the issues of the day and benefit Umno at the coming polls.

He makes it quite clear that while they (Non-muslims) are entitled to their opinions, it is vital that non-Muslims are not to be seen to be "interfering" in Islamic affairs, lest they're accused of being "enemies of Islam" by some myopic individuals (who are into pixelated armpits or obnoxious kafirs on television).
The "no-objection" he expressed, came with a caveat - "if we're given cast-iron guarantees that it will not be implemented on us"- and that is the most important part, which many would tend to overlook.

He merely said that the Muslims are entitled to what they want.
It is a debate to be had among the Muslims- on the nature of Islam.
So now, the Muslims have to decide for themselves, on what the nature of the religion they practice is.
Is it one of brutal retribution for "sins"?
Or is is one of compassion and respect for the sanctity of life?
Is it virtuous to deprive a man of of the free will which God himself has given? Does it really address the "evils" they presume is perpetuated by other systems, or does it actually make things go "underground"?
Would we be seeing greater frustrations and violent actions from the people exposed to violent actions in public?

These are probably questions the two schools of thought Paul Tan mentions, might consider - and makes quite clear his hopes in “I pray the Mutazilites win the debate....", - meaning that hopes that TGNA sees the facts of the matter with "reason", as "this is not a question that is going to go away but it is not a question that will continue to be framed in the same terms as it is today in Malaysia”.

As for me personally, I agree- in that Hudud isn't going to do us (Muslims & Non-Muslims alike, any good. I think these guys who talk about wanting Hudud, have lost the big picture, and are mind-bogglingly naive to actually want it for themselves

However, if Muslims insist on such brutal punishment on their own brothers is the most virtuous thing they can do as Muslims, who am I to say otherwise. Who knows - maybe Malaysia can one day be a hub for Plastic Surgery, Orthopaedic Hand/foot surgery.
Maybe we can even capitalize on it in our Tourism Malaysia calendar ... for fetishists as a blood sport and put public humiliation/ stoning high on the list................

Yup- the implications are "grave & disastrous".

**********************************
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual,
it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master.
The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects
a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."
- Frank Herbert

*****************************

P.S
I've written about this issue long ago .... and many times too.
While I may not have addressed this issue too directly in many cases, they're there if you read through it carefully.

You may find some of what I wrote, if you were to click the "Religion" label on the sidebar. You may also read what I wrote replying to RPK back in 2008, in "Ignorance + Freedom = Chaos" to get the gist of what I try to say .....

Hudud? Let It be provided ... (Well said Your Grace)

“Between the contention that the Federal Constitution is a colonial imposition and the obligation of Muslims to support syariah, 

I say the wiser non-Muslim stance would be to hold that if syariah 

is what Kelantan Muslims want 

and if we are given a cast-iron guarantee 

that it will not be implemented on us, 

we would not object to Muslims wanting it,”

Bishop takes nuanced stance on hudud

Terence Netto
Sep 23, 11
2:17pm

 

The reignited debate over the implementation of hudud law in Kelantan has drawn a nuanced response from what at first glance would be considered an unexpected quarter.

Catholic Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing, in remarks made to Malaysiakini today, held forth on the subject and has come up with a stance he thinks is calibrated to meet the challenges the question of Islam poses to Malaysian society.

“One would think I should lack the presumption to weigh in on the discussion, being non-Muslim and belonging to a religion that subscribes to the separation of the secular from the religious spheres,” said the titular head of Catholics in the Melaka-Johor diocese.

“But Islam is, above all, a political question, and support for syariah, of which hudud is a part, is an obligation for the Muslim. Therefore a non-Muslim citizen such as me, and a religious leader at that, ought to have a say on this matter,” asserted the Jesuit-trained prelate.

“I say it's time to allow Muslims in Kelantan, if they so desire, to implement syariah only for them and with that the hudud enactments provided non-Muslims are exempt from its implementation,” said the bishop who is concurrently president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Malaysia.

“Between the contention that the Federal Constitution is a colonial imposition and the obligation of Muslims to support syariah, I say the wiser non-Muslim stance would be to hold that if syariah is what Kelantan Muslims want and if we are given a cast-iron guarantee that it will not be implemented on us, we would not object to Muslims wanting it,” he argued.

“Bear in mind, this is not a question that is going to go away but it is not a question that will continue to be framed in the same terms as it is today in Malaysia,” continued the bishop.

“What do I mean by this?” asked the cleric who obtained his doctorate from Ecole Etude Science Sociales whose degree is from Sorbonne, the 'Harvard of Europe' in medieval times.

“You take the Arab Spring that has roiled nations in that arc from Tunisia to Syria. Do you see it as an Islamic uprising or a democratic insurgence?

“I hesitate to claim that it's a democratic rising of peoples. You cannot tell for sure, but it is not specifically Islamic in character.

Enduring debate
“I take the long view and see it all as part and parcel of the enduring debate between the Mutazilities and the Asharites in Islam.

“The former holds that you need reason to explain the world; the latter that God does not need reason and that He is all power and will.

“I pray the Mutazilites win the debate. I don't know if that extraordinary man, the Kelantan menteri besar (Nik Aziz Nik Mat), is a Mutazilite or an Asharite. Sometimes he sounds like a Mutazilite, sometimes like an Asharite.

“But that ambiguity is a good thing. It shows he is not dogmatic. I say let him and all who hold with him have their way so long as non-Muslims have iron-clad guarantees of their exemption.

“I am in favour of Kelantan Muslims having hudud implemented for them only.”

UNDI LAAA ...... JGN TIDUR!!

************************************************ ************************************************

Bill of Rights .... only with ABU, though!

The current debate raging throughout Malaysia is on the reforms that Najib Tun Razak is introducing and the repeal of the ISA. I wrote about this matter in an earlier article two days ago (READ HERE). Maybe it is time we discussed some of those details which we should be looking at as part of this reform agenda. Of course, this is not complete but can be the beginning of the foundation of Malaysia’s new Bill of Rights. I hope Najib will sincerely consider these proposals, which have been given in good faith.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

I. Equality
1. Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
2. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. 
3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

II. Freedom and security of the person
Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right: ­
i. not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
ii. not to be detained without trial;
iii. to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
iv. not to be tortured in any way;
v. not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.

III. Privacy
Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have: ­
i. their person or home searched;
ii. their property searched;
iii. their possessions seized;
iv. the privacy of their communications infringed.

IV. Freedom of religion, belief and opinion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
2. Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that: ­
i. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
ii. they are conducted on an equitable basis;
iii. attendance at them is free and voluntary and without compulsion or force.

V. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes: ­
i. freedom of the press and other media;
ii. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
iii. freedom of artistic creativity;
iv. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) above does not extend to: ­
i. propaganda for war;
ii. incitement of imminent violence;
iii. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

VI. Freedom of assembly, demonstration, picket and petition
Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.

VII. Freedom of association
Everyone has the right to freedom of association.

VIII. Political rights
1. Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right: ­
i. to form a political party;
ii. to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party;
iii. to campaign for a political party or cause.
2. Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution.
3. Every adult citizen has the right: ­
i. to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do so in secret;
ii. to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.

IX. Citizenship 
No citizen may be deprived of citizenship.

X. Freedom of movement and residence
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.
2. Everyone has the right to leave the country.
3. Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in, the country.
4. Every citizen has the right to a passport.

XI. Labour relations
1. Everyone has the right to fair labour practices.
2. Every worker has the right: ­
i. to form and join a trade union;
ii. to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union;
iii. to strike.
3. Every employer has the right: ­
i. to form and join an employers' organisation;
ii. to participate in the activities and programmes of an employers' organisation.
4. Every trade union and every employers' organisation has the right: ­
 i. to determine its own administration, programmes and activities;
 ii. to organise;
iii. to form and join a federation.
5. Every trade union, employers' organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining.

XII. Arrested, detained and accused persons
1. Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right: ­
i. to remain silent;
ii. to be informed promptly: ­
            a. of the right to remain silent; and
            b. of the consequences of not remaining silent;
iii. not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person;
iv. to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than: ­
            a. 24 hours after the arrest; or
            b. the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 24 hours, if the 24 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a day which is not an ordinary court day;
v. at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released.
2. Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right: ­
i. to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;
ii. to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
iii. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
iv. to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released;
v. to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment;
vi. to communicate with, and be visited by, that person's ­
            a. spouse or partner;
            b. next of kin;
            c. chosen religious counsellor; and
            d. chosen medical practitioner.
3. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right: ­
i. to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
ii. to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
iii. to a public trial before an ordinary court;
iv. to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
v. to be present when being tried;
vi. to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
vii. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
viii. to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
ix. to adduce and challenge evidence;
x. not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
xi. to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
xii. not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
xiii. not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
xiv. to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing;
xv. of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.
4. Whenever this section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands.
5. Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.

XIII. State of emergency
 A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when: ­
1. the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and
2. the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.

Animal Abuse- A symptom of a bigger problem?

****************************************

****************************************

While many Malaysians are busy debating who were the freedom fighters, and absent minded Professors allege that Malaysia has never been colonized, I've been pondering on the issue of animal abuse, trade and abandonment. In doing so, I cannot say that I have found that "eureka moment" to explain it all- but quite a few thoughts came to mind.

Somebody once said that "the true test of a democracy lies not in the rule of the majority, but in the protection of the legitimate interests of the minorities". Taking it to another level, maybe we could go so far as to say that the true test of a democracy is probably in the protection of the legitimate interests of the marginalized/weak/and voiceless and vote-less ... animals included!
Why should animals not be included, when they themselves have inherited the earth/environment just as we did? Are they to blame for being born or bred in an environment of man's manipulation?

Now let's consider this- How exactly is the slave trade (or human trafficking) any different from animal trade/abuse?
I propose that there is none.
In both cases, the victims were nothing more than commodity, with nothing more than a "price" on their head- condemned to serve their masters. Those without a "price" were basically "irrelevant" and could be disposed off without remorse.
Both had financial interests at stake.
Both thrived on ignorance.
Both bred violence.

One could propose that this matter of animal abuse/cruelty is but symptomatic of a greater disorder which afflicts society as a whole- regardless of creed, color, political affiliation, gender, education or socioeconomic stature ....
Is it which is something bigger and far more fundamentally wrong with society, than many  believe it to be? Could it be that "Animal Abuse" is actually a "disease of ignorance and immorality"?
I wonder if this (as yet) non-tangible "immorality" could eventually translate into social problems which may in turn result in disrupting human well-being? Is it a sign of the moral degradation at a very fundamental level which breeds the very social illnesses we all all deplore today.

Let's talk about it in the Malaysian context ....
Malaysians have become a heartless lot over the last 30 years- thanks to Mahathir's "Malaysia Boleh" policies where only money mattered. Cases of criminal abuse of man and animal has been on the rise ever since the so-called "economic miracle"  ... "money at whatever cost" mantra we lived by.

All the social ills we face today are due to the same cause- a moral degradation of the society we live in.

Under our Federal Constitution (and society at large) animals are not regarded as "living beings part of society". They are "property"- which are nothing but "commodities", to be "used and disposed off" as man pleases (it is worse still, when there isn't a price tag on the immorality of the abuse or on the "unpriced" animal). 

It is this perception and attitude/approach that breeds and perpetuates the problem, and THAT has to change.
So, when animal rights activists lobby for a change in the system they are actually up against the juggernaut of "popular wisdom". It is a "perception war" wherein animal rights activists have to fight to change mindsets of the people around us- and it takes more than just rescue operations.

Politicians have yet to understand the need for animal protection. It would however be naive of activists to alienate them if they could help to bring about changes in the future. Legislation and judicious enforcement is of primary importance- and for that, lawmakers (aka politicians) play a critical role. It would therefore be wise of activists to find allies rather than adversaries in parliament.
Yes- as Shenaaz Khan says of DVS, “They will come out to look like valiant protectors but they’re completely and utterly incompetent. All they’re good for is coming out with statements"

So why is this happening?

The only answer I can think of is that- they do not see the social ramifications of their in/action. So, as long as they don't understand that there will be a socio-political price to pay for their neglect, they may not see the "political worth" of animal rights advocacy.

************************************

************************************

I believe, much more can be done by all Animal welfare organizations.
They probably need to rev-up their campaign and take it to a notch higher (than the regular animal rescue, euthanasia,adoption).

Maybe animal welfare groups should attempt addressing the root causes of these problems, and to go beyond the usual symptomatic solutions  which could unwittingly be further "feeding" the cycle of events.


Among other things, through adequate legislation they could:-
a) Demand punitive action upon (clearly defined) actions of cruelty/abuse- equivalent to that against humans (ie criminalizing it)
b) Demand that animals be regarded living beings with rights to care, rather than just "property"
c) Control of unlicensed animal breeding
d) Control of trade in all animals/ pets
e) Control of pet ownership through Conditions, Guidelines and licensing
f)  Demand the "policing"/monitoring of owners
g) Demand more funding for education programs
f)  Get celebrity/political/corporate patronage to assist in these education programs

It definitely does take lots of hard work and perseverance from all parties concerned. Animal welfare NGOs, in caring for these voiceless beings, may hopefully help Malaysia one day become the "Masyarakat Madani" we all hope for.

The Malaysian witch hunt

Opinion
~TMI

September 13, 2011

SEPT 13 — With news of the death threats against a Malay man for saying he’s gay, ridiculous 8TV commercials over Ramadan belittling Malaysia’s minorities, the death of Malay transsexual who was never able to change her name and gender, the raiding of a church dinner attended by some Muslims, and the false accusations against Arlene Tan for being some radical anti-Islamic blogger — Malaysia is… struggling.
With regards to Arlene Tan, I don’t think enough people realise the seriousness of this moment in Malaysian history — especially people who can really help.
I have heard this attempt to persecute non-Muslims being called “the Malaysian witch hunt.” That pretty much sums it up. Good people are being targeted because they think differently and do not conform to the norm.
This isn’t anything new in human history — whether it be race, gender, sexuality or religion — but I like to think that humanity has progressed past this.
When Arlene Tan was accused of being some sort of anti-Islamic blogger named Makcik Hajjah Sitt Al Wuzara (whoever that is?), she immediately started receiving death threats including creepy phone calls late at night, and Internet hate pages directed at her.
A very sweet intelligent caring person was being “put on trial” — guilty until proven innocent. In reality, she had done nothing wrong, but a large group of emotionally-driven individuals didn’t seem to care about the facts.
Since these accusations, Gaysec (the self-proclaimed hacker group) has admitted Arlene isn’t Makcik Hajjah Sitt Al Wuzara, but in their opinion she is still a sceptic and non-Muslim so she has problems which make her worthy of being targeted. Many people in this country seem to think that because one is a sceptic/freethinker, that person must be anti-Islamic or full of hate.
What concerns me is the fact so few people came to this Malaysian woman’s defence. When I asked my moderate Muslim friends to stand up for Arlene, many didn’t feel it was their responsibility.
According to them, the group that falsely accused her is not of “their ways,” and is misusing Islam — a religion that preaches tolerance. But, isn’t that all the more reason to say something?
I think it is these accepting, open-minded moderates from all beliefs who need to speak up and defend people like Arlene from being wrongfully attacked. It is Malaysians — specifically Malaysian Muslims — who need to say “Stop — these people live in our country too — and deserve the same rights as us.”
The problem is, these moderate citizens fear being labelled anti-Islamic so they stand idly by and let things happen. Luckily, some brave people, Muslim and non-Muslim, have spoken up in Arlene’s defence.
When I told one of my good friends from Canada, a critically-minded Muslim who is attending Harvard, about these crazy events in Malaysia — he laughed in disgust. He said the Muslim world is paranoid, and he doesn’t think it is going to get any better. I hope he is wrong.
Just when I thought the whole thing with Arlene as was over, more baseless accusations are being thrown around. Hawa Othman, the co-founder of Unscientific Malaysia (a website that is basically Malaysia’s hope for a more rational, scientific society), has been accused of being some anti-Islamic troll. This is obviously ridiculous, as I know Hawa for her experiments on fruit flies (she is a scientist) and her soft-spoken demeanour.
Sceptics, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, brights, humanists or whomever else, are not ANTI-ISLAMIC. These people have an interest in facts, research, science, and understanding. They generally think rationally and want peace.
Unscientific Malaysia as an organisation follows the principle of “question everything.” This means that Islam, like Christianity, homeopathy, ghosts and aspartame, is included. Many Muslims in Malaysia are members of Unscientific Malaysia — this doesn’t mean that they are not devout followers of their faith — it just means they like to question the world around them.
If some confused individuals are out there spreading hateful messages on the Internet, these hateful messages should simply be ignored. They are looking for attention — so why are we giving them an audience.
They must be enjoying these false accusations — watching their pseudonyms being published everywhere, yet nobody knowing who they really are. It is impossible to stop hateful messages from existing because the Internet allows for anonymity. However, it is possible for a rational person to tune this type of junk out.
It seems so convenient to frame the freethinking/sceptic community as being similar to like these anti-Islamic blogger types. The average person in Malaysia does not know enough about the non-religious so they just follow whatever these self-proclaimed righteous groups tell them to.
My friends at Unscientific Malaysia are simply trying to better understand the world around them — through science — whereas a religious person might be interested in understanding it through whatever religion it is that they follow. People from both groups generally want Malaysia to be a better place.
It is time that citizens in Malaysia demonstrated peace and tolerance to a threatened minority group. If this doesn’t happen, Malaysia and the people inside its borders have failed at protecting its own and doing what is right — two ideas that I think a just God would support, and according to my Muslim friends who are good people, Islam would definitely support.
If blind accusations can be used as tools against good people, then you or I could be next. Imagine waking up one morning, and just because you are who you are or think what you think, you are accused of being someone you aren’t, doing something you didn’t do, you have all your personal details released, receive death threats, become the subject of hate pages on Facebook made specifically against you, and so on. Is all this acceptable? A good citizen would of course say this is unacceptable!
It is also important for the international community to see that Malaysia is an accepting country, full of accepting peoples — not just a country with a 1 Malaysia slogan and little evidence to back it up. Nobody, male or female, religious or non-religious should have their basic human rights infringed upon.
It wasn’t Christianity that killed 50,000 women during the Witch Hunt, it was paranoid people. Similarly, I believe Islam is not the reason my friends have been targetted, it is paranoid people acting under the guise of Islam.
We are all in this together and in the words of Martin Luther King Jr: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

M'sian "Animal Rights Activism" - Quo Vadis?

For a long time, I wished to have a dog in my life- simply because it is an "enriching" experience. When the right situation came- I got my dogs ... two lovely Beagles (Mojo & Chopper).

About a year ago, I was introduced to the predicament faced by animals under the hands of the authorities- thru the senseless actions of some animal haters and the MPS enforcement officers. Believe me, the senselessness of people and the relevant authorities can be quite mind-boggling ....
(Looking at the state of the nation today, one cannot help but reflect on how right Gandhi was when he said that “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”).
The MPS has ceased "operations" for now, although MPS still refuses to license my dogs despite the fact that their legal advisors say that the dogs can be licensed. That is a job in progress, and we still wish to push forward towards getting it sorted out amicably- instead of confrontational methods. But that isn't what I wish to write about ...

After getting in touch with a few NGOs/Societies which care for animal welfare, I'm almost jaded by the attitude of some of these agencies. Somehow there seems to be a "disconnect" between the general public, legislators, educators and the Animal Welfare activists. One even went so far as to say that it isn't their role to educate "politicians"!

What is their brand of activism- I wonder ...
Is it all about about crying over abused animals and rescuing them? Is it raving and ranting at perceived ghosts under the bed? Is it about demonizing all those who do not agree with you?

Or is is about educating the public about love & compassion?
Is it about creating awareness through various channels, barring none?
Has the Animal Rights/Welfare got a political platform to pursue their agenda?

Anyways- the following was a response from me to MDDB on their FB page today after "somebody" posted a very "polite & intellectual" (duhhh!) reply to Latheefa Koya.
Anyway, much of it should also apply to many of the activists who have yet to show much results in preventing (not just rescuing) abuse of animals after all these years of hard work.

***********************************

Dear MDDB,
I have been removed from the MDDB's adoption page by a certain commenter/admin, and I bear no grudge/ ill-intent towards him/her for it.

On the page, a political statement was made, and I only gave a different viewpoint in the thread. I also posted a response from Latheefa, in response to that statement- simply becos- I presume that you had valid reasons for your stance, and "could take as good as you give".
My intention in saying what I did, is towards achieving the same goals which you yourselves fight for.

I'm all for preventing animal abuse- ever since I've been awakened to this phenomenon.
With regard to all quarters which have done their good work towards alleviating the distress of defenseless animals- Kudos to you!!
You have my utmost appreciation & respect.

But I'm quite disappointed with the hostile methods employed by certain quarters who do not seem to be able to capitalize on the admiration & respect for their works, and instead turn people off through their anger & hostility which they hurl at their potential allies.
How does one prevent abuse when one is abusive themselves towards those who differ on the methods towards achieving the shared goal?

Is "activism" about "putting out bush-fires" alone, by going around saving animals in distress- which will be a never ending story- or does it also involve legislation and education of the masses to prevent the occurrence of the abuse?
Should you not be able to rationalize, intellectualize, philosophize in order to spread the love/goodwill towards educating the general public?

Sad- some believe that the way forward based on "1st world" model of activism is to refrain from educating the people (politicians included)....
just threaten that you'll "complain",
then try intimidating, failing which- hurl verbal abuse- call them psychos, use 4-letter words, curse, rave & rant ....
then ban the fella who doesn't agree with you,
alienate those who you fear may "steal the thunder" from you or do not share your opinions and shut them up .....
and then ask for support!!

In any struggle, there will be differences between the various parties fighting for a similar cause.
Why focus on differences and bicker, when you can share your common interests and stand together?
Why focus on the past and crib about apparent "betrayal/neglect/disregard"?
Why make adversaries when you can make allies?
Why make enemies when you can make friends?
Should you not be encouraging participation through inclusiveness, rather than maintaining exclusivity?
Should you not raise yourself above the fray?

So what if someone gets some "mileage" out the/ an event?
Would it not help the cause, (even if not us personally) if we have one more platform- no matter how big or small- from which we can fight for the same cause?

Maybe MDDB should re-think their strategies ...
Meanwhile- I wish you all the best in your endeavors.
God Bless.

PS
You may ban me if you like, 'cos it doesn't really matter- as there are many other platforms for me to air my viewpoints.
Take care.