Non-Muslim parents can’t sue Firdaus over ‘secret conversion’ video, court told

Non-Muslim parents can’t sue Firdaus over ‘secret conversion’ video, court told

KUALA LUMPUR: Eight non-Muslim parents have no basis for compelling preacher Firdaus Wong to remove a video allegedly promoting the secret underage conversion of minors into the faith, the High Court heard today.

Lawyer Norazali Nordin, appearing for Firdaus, said citizens do not have a remedy for a breach of constitutional rights against each other.

“A private individual can only sue the executive or government representatives in public law,” he said at the hearing of the originating summons brought by the parents.

The lawyer said he was relying on a Federal Court ruling in the case of Beatrice AT Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & others (2005) to back his argument.

“It was held in that case that a violation of the Federal Constitution does not entitle one citizen to initiate proceedings against another,” the lawyer submitted before Justice Amarjeet Singh.

DISYORKAN UNTUK ANDA :

Maruah Negara Di Calar, Tanah Rakyat Di Jarah Tapi Hadi Tetap Sibuk Dengan Fatwa Politik

Norazali said the parents, as private individuals, should have filed their suit under private law.

“The plaintiffs (parents) have failed to disclose a valid cause of action as the alleged constitutional infringement is between two private parties,” said Norazali, who was assisted by Syahidah Hanum Ghazali.

He also said the plaintiffs’ claim that the video was harmful was pure conjecture.

Norazali said they had presented no evidence demonstrating that their minor children had been converted to Islam without their knowledge and consent.

He said his client’s actions did not amount to a private nuisance as the case did not involve the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their land.

DISYORKAN UNTUK ANDA :

Benarkah Melayu Sedang Terbangsat Di Bumi Sendiri

“A breach of public nuisance is caught by criminal law, and it is for the public prosecutor to act,” he said.

In reply, counsel M Visvanathan said the content of the video that Firdaus uploaded infringed Article 12(4) of the constitution which states that a parent or guardian shall decide the religion of a person under the age of 18.

He said the plaintiffs were seeking a declaration and an injunction to compel Firdaus to take down the offending video and prohibit him from posting similar footage in the future.

“The contentious video offends not only the rights of the plaintiffs but also of other non-Muslim parents,” said Visvanathan, who was assisted by Sanjay Nathan and Pushan Qin Nathan.

He said Firdaus’s statement had threatened and undermined the right of the plaintiffs to exercise their constitutional right to determine the religion of their underage children.

DISYORKAN UNTUK ANDA :

Kenapa Mahathir Bela Ismail Sabri Dalam Kes RM170 Juta

“(It is clear from) the video recording that Firdaus had also been engaged in the covert conversion of non-Muslim children,” he said.

He urged the court to issue a declaration that Firdaus had violated the rights of the plaintiffs, and restrain him from repeating his act.

Visvanathan said a High Court has the power under Section 25 and the Second Schedule of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to issue such an order to any person to enforce the rights conferred under Part 11 of the constitution.

“The courts will be impotent if an aggrieved party does not get the remedy for a breach of fundamental constitutional right,” he said.

The lawyer said the plaintiffs filed an originating summons seeking a remedy under public law as the public prosecutor had refused to prosecute Firdaus despite the countless police reports made against him.

Amarjeet will deliver his ruling on July 10