Shameful cradle snatching

Julius Yapoo, a Sabahan rubber tapper, was shocked and cried when he saw his 16-year old daughter in a tudung. He is Christian and so has been his daughter ...

... well at least until she went to stay at a school hostel where the the school warden made her embraced Islam without any prior knowledge of, let alone consent from her parents.

Free Malaysia Today

Julius Yapoo had allowed his daughter to stay at the hostel because their home is 15 km from the school where the gravel road made travelling time even longer. To top that, there is no available public transport between his home and the daughter's school.

FMT reported Penampang MP Darell Leiking commented: “Once in the hostels, the schools bear full responsibility for looking after the children. The school concerned has not respected the sanctity of the family. They have not arranged a meeting between the parents and the child until today.”

Sadly, it has been a conversion of a minor by stealth. 

The school teacher claimed the kid converted to Islam voluntarily. Yes, and I am the Emperor of Shambala.

Pray (excuse the unintended pun) tell me, what glory has this illegal conversion of a minor without her parents knowledge or consent brought for Islam, which is probably the world's greatest SOCIAL religion, one which promotes the compassionate social objective of zakat, the emphatic discipline of fasting and the supranational (non-racist) Ummah Wahida (which originally embraces all the people of the book)?

But today Islam stands in its greatest danger from some of its own followers, as we Malaysians only know too well.

Note: my respect for Islam is qualified from being automatically extended to its priesthood caste (wakakaka) nor to those of its so-called practitioners who kill, murder, steal, plunder, rape, lie, oppress, cheat (including politically) by the disrespectful misuse of the name of Islam.

My term for an illegal conversion of a minor by stealth is 'cradle snatching'.

This reminds me of another case in 1986 when a Malay school teacher supposedly eloped with his underage Chinese student, Susie Teoh. Her father discovered she was missing from home and learnt of her conversion to Islam.

From the Aliran Monthly 2004, we read:

Susie Teoh was 17 years and 8 months when she became Muslim. Her father Teoh Eng Huat, a Buddhist, could not locate her and he took the Jabatan Agama in Kelantan to court. He applied for a declaration that, as father and guardian to the infant, he had a right to decide her religion, education and upbringing and that her conversion to Islam was invalid. The case was covered by the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961, a federal law of general application, Art. 11 (1) (freedom of religion), and Art. 12 (3), (4) (right to education) of the Federal Constitution.

The High Court ruled that the father's right to decide the religion and upbringing of the infant (under 18) is allowed "subject to the condition that it does not conflict with the principles of the infant's choice of religion guaranteed to her under the Federal Constitution." In other words, the infant has a right to choose her own religion if she does it on her own free will.

With respect to the last line above, what a lot of crock as we will see shortly when we visit the judgement of the Supreme Court.

It's almost akin to saying having sex with a minor is statutory rape UNLESS the sexual act was consensual, or in the pseudo-immortal words of our Appeal Court in 2012, sex without force, cohesion or violence.

Yes, it had happened here in Boleh Land, that is, having sex minus force, cohesion or violence with an underage girl of 13 and then escaping imprisonment for statutory rape, for a lucky f* someone who was said to have a "bright future", but not for f* him who presumably hadn't been deemed to have a "bright future". Both are f* maggots!

What more, in the Susie Teoh case, the High Court's rule about"... subject to the condition that it does not conflict with the principles of the infant's choice of religion guaranteed to her under the Federal Constitution" was quite amazing considering the minor, Susie Teoh herself, was not even in court to testify if she had voluntarily become Muslim. How?

Continuing with the Aliran Report which saw the father taking the case to the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the High Court and held that "in all the circumstances and in the wider interests of the nation no infant shall have the automatic right to receive instruction relating to any other religion other than (her) own without the permission of the parent or guardian".

Shouldn't this obvious point be f* clear in the first place? But wait, then didn't we have the bullshit about the bloke who was allowed to statutorily rape an underage 13-year old and escape unscathed because he has a "bright future"?

Continuing with the Aliran Report - The Supreme Court, however, did not proceed with the declarations sought by Teoh Eng Huat as these were "only of academic interest" as Susie Teoh had reached the age of majority by the time the case was heard in the Supreme Court in 1990. 

Thank you, High Court.

But a legal commentary said of the Supreme Court ruling, thatthe judgment remains fundamental in seeking a balance approach between a child’s right and parental authority and to provide basis for further argument should the same problem arise, in other words, forming a legal precedent ... which helps us understand the frustrated plight of Julius Yapoo and the illegal misappropriating his right as a parent in the insidious conversion of his daughter, a minor, by stealth.

Let me express my concerns of unscrupulous proselytizing of minors (not necessarily by religious authorities but by individuals acting on his/her own) by paraphrasing Pope Leo X's notorious statement "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" as follows:

"What profit has not that fable of parental authority over minors vis-à-vis the latter's illegal conversion brought us!"

Yesterday TMI reported that The teacher allegedly responsible for the conversion has been transferred to another school in Sabah and was not faulted for any wrongdoing after claiming that the student had wanted to embrace Islam voluntarily.

... was not faulted for any wrongdoing ...! Haven't we seen this f* bullshit before, time and time again?

I leave you with TMI's report that Kula Segaran, who is also the Ipoh Barat MP, said that in the case involving the Sabah schoolgirl, by nature of the fact that she was a non-Muslim and a minor before the alleged conversion took place, the Shariah court had no jurisdiction over her.

"Furthermore, no right-thinking Malaysian would buy the story that the girl went to school and converted willingly.

"The state education department should stop pretending as though this is not an issue, they should haul up and discipline the person who converted her."

Amin!