“I don’t have a drinking problem ‘except when I can’t get a drink.” 
― Tom Waits

COMMENT | The cancellation of Better Beer Festival 2017 has nothing to do with social ills or any of that other claptrap that Islamists claim is destroying the moral and social fabric of this country.

This has everything to do with robbing people of their choices. When Amanah’s Bukit Raja MP Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud uses Prohibitionist-era arguments as a “moderate” stance against speaking out for freedom of choice, it demonstrates that when it comes to freedom of choice and religion, the latter always wins.

Apparently, alcohol and smoking are evil but collecting taxes on them is good. Using those taxes to fund or reward religious schools that are safety hazards and contribute to the death of 21 children is good. Using such taxes from other such “Islam”-defined social ills to subsidise religious pilgrimages is good.

They use Islam to rob us of our choices then fund the radicalisation programmes that create Facebook users who claim “Until she’s dead too people can see the shape of her vagina and aurat,” when chastising a local medal-winning gymnast for wearing a sports uniform.

It would seem to me, that the more pious a Muslim in this country, the more obsessed they are with:

1. The shape of a certain private part

2. Western singers

3. Cancelling concerts

4. Sex in private between consenting adults

5. Homosexuality

6. Banning beer festivals

7. Banning books

8. Reminding non-Muslims that Islam’s position in this country means that all other religions are subservient to it.

Zaid Ibrahim, perhaps the only Muslim in the opposition who always has the courage to speak truth to Islamic power, is right when he claimed that Muslim men are allowed choices in their sexual proclivities, but frown upon anyone else having choices in any other areas of their lives.

Malaysiakini columnist R Nadeswaran makes it clear that the Islamists do not care about sexual deviancy amongst the umrah but have no issue sticking their noses into the choices that non-Muslims make with regards to their lives.

When Nades writes “Nasrudin and Riduan should be looking at the pious types who don’t drink beer, who say their daily prayers, and prey on their daughters,” the real Islamic response to this criminal problem would be that all Muslim men should be banned from having female children.

Now this “solution,” while stimulating, may not be the burning issue that some would latch on to. Alcohol is a scapegoat for most social ills in this country. Some people because of their religious beliefs have this puritanical idea about alcohol and people who choose to consume it, but I would argue that because it is a safe bet when it comes to curtailing choices, it sets the stage when the political sensitivities of the Muslim majority becomes the basis for the erosion of rights of the minorities.

This has been happening for decades and it will only get worse.

Incremental erosion

This beer festival is for non-Muslims. It is a stupid thing to say because we know that some Muslims exercise their choice to consume alcohol. We also know that, because of their social status, the state never seems to sanction these privileged Muslims. We know that Muslims who are sanctioned are those who do not have the protection of money and power.

Most importantly, we know that the rights of non-Muslims do not mean anything to powerful Muslims cabals. This is true in all Islamic state unlike secular Western states or non-Western countries which strive for the same.

I wrote about the lie that Islamic law does not affect non-Muslims: “I have often argued if Islamic law really did not affect non-Muslims in this country, then why won’t Muslim politicians put this down in writing and ensure that every single case where a non-Muslim crosses paths with Islamic law, the non-Muslim and the case reverts to the civil courts. If religious laws really did not affect non-Muslims as the Islamists claim, why are there so many cases where non-Muslims are denied justice in syariah courts?”

Well, this is worse. Now you do not even need Islamic law. Apparently, the political sensitivities of certain Muslims are enough to curtail our rights as non-Muslims. And what have I always said about the Muslim component of the opposition? Have I not always reminded rational Malaysians that they will never side with the secular imperatives that would ensure that our country does not slide into an Islamic extremist manure hole? Have I not argued that when it comes to the bitter bit, non-Muslim rights would be shoved under the Islamic bus?

Of course, I do not think there will be a huge protest outside Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) because let’s face facts, the demographic most affected by this are probably nursing hangovers. However, the mistake people make is that they think that this issue is inconsequential.

As usual, people think they are safe. They confuse the incremental erosion of their rights as either a situation when there is time for a change or that they view rights as something that could be differentiated and challenged on a case-by-case basis. This is a strategic mistake because the process of Islamisation is by its very nature incremental.

Trust me, when they are done with the easier targets, they will come after you. After all, the kind of Islam they promulgate, they do not want non-Muslims to have choices.

If that is not an existential threat, I do not know what is.

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.