Sedition law is against spirit of democracy Fear of sedition must not hit freedom of speech
As long as we have uneducated , ignorant and biased Inspector-General of Police (IGP) ,and , freedom of speech of the common man will be suppressed. Rogues and rascals can say or do anything against the Constitution and get away with it ,but not those who express their thoughts without going against what has been enshrined in the Constitution. observed that freedom of speech should not suffer because of a threat of invoking sedition against an individual for expressing his views. a draft of guidelines to be issued to the police saying it will bring clarity in investigations but added that "while it is necessary that innocents should be protected, the guidelines should not fetter the police''. Can Najib take care of the apprehension that an individual may suffer because of abuse of power by the investigating agency. if there is no safeguard, power can be misused anytime.,If adequate safeguards are not there, it may prevent people from not expressing themselves. Freedom of speech should not suffer because of the threat of invocation of the section. a person is entitled to bail, that people would not like to get into the hassle and would rather not speak if the government is going to book them for sedition. lack of safeguards cannot have a gagging effect. "As a country, we have spoken when we were not independent... while sedition can be invoked if it leads to violence, safeguards should be taken that the violence is against the state and not against the individual who is charged with violence. there is no data available that "it has become a habit'' to register sedition cases and also no case is made out that "in general it caused fear in minds of people not to express themselves
the words "annoyance" and "inconvenience" to apply to any online content. Without doubt this section was draconian and absolutely against online freedom of speech, not just in theory but in actual practice as well. There had already been arrests in respect of this Section and the fear of legal harassment cast a big cloud over the cherished values of freedom of expression. No civilized nation should be sanctioned by law to arrest a citizen merely on the ground of annoying or inconveniencing somebody else with their expression online. There are always remedies against the well-defined exceptions to freedom of speech as per the Constitution.Of course, I do not buy into simplistic sedition charges, but what a silly comparison. In the hands of certain forces, those documents can mean different things.
Laws not only set boundaries within which people may act, they also create incentives to act or refrain from doing so. Badly drafted laws can have unintended consequences, which make them counterproductive despite noble intentions. In this context, Prime Minister Najib Razak should pay heed to the plaintive cry of Malaysians that has repeatedly asked for changes in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota) and the most draconian provision of Sedition Act The amendments to the Sedition Act extend the maximum jail term to 20 years from the current three years and establish a minimum three-year jail term for certain case the definition of "sedition" remains open to wide interpretation and abuse by the government, which has a history of using security laws to stifle dissent.
Sedition is said to have occurred when any attempt is made to bring the government of the day into disaffection . Mohandas Gandhi was convicted of sedition by the British Imperial government in 1922. Arguing his own case, Gandhi told the judge that he had no affection for the British government and, moreover, he felt it was his duty to inform his fellow citizens as to why he had no affection for it. While convicting Gandhi, the British judge felt it necessary to apologize to Gandhi for his act, to which he was bound by his duty as a judge.
Such stories are part of the folklore of sedition, and create the impression that sedition is about well-known or relatively resourceful people standing up to a bumbling state power. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most important lesson i learnt in jail was that there are vast numbers of people accused of sedition and incarcerated for this reason. To take just one example, several hundred very ordinary men and women participating in the peaceful anti-nuclear agitation in Kudankulam have been charged with sedition.
The state today stands guarantor, under the doctrine of eminent domain, to a country-wide process of expropriation of common property resources -- land, water, forest, minerals and traditional knowledge such as knowledge of biodiversity. Communities, whose survival is dependent on their access to common property resources, find their survival threatened by this process of expropriation. Resisting this process becomes key to the survival of these communities , and the law of sedition is one of the important resources deployed by the state in order to suppress this entirely legitimate resistance. Communities cannot be expected to acquiesce in their own extinction, but the state seems perfectly prepared to deploy its resources, both juridical and military, in order to ensure that its writ should run.
The application of sedition is also contrary to the spirit of a democratic polity. After all, the process of building up political alternatives has to be based on holding -- and advocating -- views that are contrary to those held by the current holders of power. Sedition serves the power holder very well, because any heterodox opinion can promptly be limited by being safely put away. Human rights workers and their organizations across the country have come together to press for repeal of the sedition law and other similar laws. They are jointly engaged in a signature campaign, and a series of public meetings, to petition Parliament for the prompt repeal of these archaic and antidemocratic legal formulations, which constitute a real danger to the development of a genuinely democratic polity.