The recent satire video clip on Kelantan hudud law by BFM, featuring its journalist, Aisyah Tajuddin, made it to several headlines and stirred debates.
In its statement, BFM emphasised that the video was aimed at offering “a satirical commentary” on whether the Kelantan government should put the implementation of hudud as its priority.
The BFM has since taken down the BFMKupas video clip in collaboration with Projek Dialog. Unfortunately, “damage” has been done.
The clip drew great attention in the country and hundreds of derogatory criticism about Aisyah. The criticism ranged from doubting her faith to calling for her to be beaten, burned alive, raped, and even killed.
In the meantime, it also revealed the police selectivity in handling such issues.
After some pressure, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Abu Bakar announced from his Twitter that, “Kes BFM, @PDRMsia akan siasat kedua2 pihak, Penyiar BFM dan yg ugut Penyiar. Penulis Skrip Penyiar juga akan dipanggil.”
(In the BFM case, @PDRMsia will carry out investigation on both parties, the BFM station and those who threatened the station. The scriptwriter will also be summoned.)
The discourse has shifted away from the core issue – hudud law. On the contrary, the debate now is about freedom of expression.
Although I believe strongly in advocating for free speech, but the reactions towards Aisyah left me uneasy.
Personally, I don’t find the video clip any good. In fact, I think the script was somewhat badly written.
But death and rape threats are simply too much. As a matter of fact, it is alarming to see the extent of how violent the people can be.
Whether you agree or disagree, nobody should be allowed to making such threats to put off others from debating issues of national interest.
Yes, we are allowed to have contrasting views on the video, but as a responsible citizen, we should not tolerate such form of intimidation.
Hate speech such as this is not new.
Last year, the representatives of Council of Islamic NGOs offered a reward of RM1,200 to anyone who managed to slap Teresa Kok due to their unhappiness over her Chinese New Year video.
There have been attempts to regulate hate speech and, there was also proposal from the Communications and Multimedia Ministry to set up a social media council.
However it is a dilemma on how to balance freedom with respect for others. Moreover, it is not easy to control or censor Internet to ensure public morality.
This is because if we were to control hate speech through legislation, there is possibility that it could backfire and become a form of government repression instead.
Having said that, discrimination needs to be rejected, to ensure that bigotry has no place in our society, and at the same time, to balance freedom of expression against the basic human rights of others.
More importantly, we must not confuse hate speech with freedom of speech.
Hate speech is not only the source of violence. Hate speech itself is a symbol of violence.
For one thing, when we do not allow our citizens to speak freely, the risk is that they are more likely to turn to violence.
Shutting up a person does not diminish hatred. In truth, it hides it. – March 23, 2015.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
Comments
Please refrain from nicknames or comments of a racist, sexist, personal, vulgar or derogatory nature, or you may risk being blocked from commenting in our website. We encourage commenters to use their real names as their username. As comments are moderated, they may not appear immediately or even on the same day you posted them. We also reserve the right to delete off-topic comments