Branding “God” and Other Judicial Decisions – The flip side of the rule of law

Branding “God” and Other Judicial Decisions – The flip side of the rule of law:  Last week, I participated in a high level round table on strengthening national rule of law capacity.  It was an initiative of the Rule of Law for Development program run by Loyola University Chicago’s School of Law, and was hosted at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.  The participants were fantastic – a select group representing Open Society, the World Bank, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Oxfam and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. 

Everyone was in violent agreement on the importance of strengthening the rule of law in developing and transitioning States.  But they expressed increasing concern over the way in which nations are using “rule of law” to justify suppressing dissent, limiting transparency, and restricting individual freedoms such as free speech and freedom of religion. 

So it was in light of that discussion that I did my usual morning news scan, and the one that really caught my attention was a decision by the highest court in Malaysia that Christians cannot use the word, “Allah.” http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/06/top-malaysian-court-dismisses-allah-case-20146232448487953.html.  Had I not been thinking about the roundtable, I probably would have missed this story as it wasn't widely reported in the U.S.  But the more I read, the more it concerned me.

Basically, what happened is this: Christians in Malaysia have been using “Allah,” the Arabic word for God, in their Malay-language Bibles and other publications for basically as far back as anyone can remember.  And then in 2007, citing concerns about public order, the Malaysian Home Ministry threatened to revoke a Catholic newspaper’s license unless it stopped using the word.    An appeals court later decided that the newspaper had a constitutional right to use the word, and anti-Christian violence ensued.  The high court reversed the ruling.  Apparently, there is a risk of, for want of a better term, brand confusion when talking about God that might cause Muslims to think they can convert.  So Christians are prohibited from using it. 

To be fair to the ruling, the court is trying to clarify that the ban only applies to the newspaper, but the basis for that distinction is really unclear.  It’s arbitrary and has the effect of limiting freedom of the press in addition to limiting free speech -- and belief.  And (potentially) interfaith dialogue that may be important to conflict resolution in a religiously-pluralistic Muslim country that is, like so many others, experiencing increasing tension between religious groups.  Because how do you search for common ground if you aren't allowed to speak the same language or share the same words?

In cases like this one, upholding the rule of law means that the State protects individual rights, with even greater vigor than before, to make a demonstration that they matter.    The non-rule of law approach, disguised as "upholding the rule of law" because it comes out of a court, is to restrict individual rights because there is risk.  It's a balancing act, and Malaysia got it wrong.