The criminality of the ‘Nothing to Hide 2.0’ forum

The ‘Nothing to Hide 2.0’ forum this Sunday is a criminal act. Therefore Najib does not need to layan the forum. Instead, Najib can ask the police to serve a notice on the organisers that they are harassing and stalking him and are causing him distress — and hence they are committing a criminal act that can open them to possible arrest and indictment. In the UK the organisers would find the police on their doorstep for a lesser offence like what happened when Clare Brown sent the police to my house.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

(FTM) – Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad will announce a programme he has planned “for the people’s benefit” at the Nothing to Hide 2.0 forum organised by PPBM Youth. PPBM Youth exco member Mohd Ashraf Mustaqim, who revealed this today, said the programme would be a surprise.

The forum is scheduled to take place in Dewan Raja Muda Musa, Shah Alam, at 3pm this Sunday. Ashraf also said the official letter inviting Prime Minister Najib Razak to attend had gone unanswered. He said the letter was sent to Najib’s office on July 19 but the organisers were still hopeful the prime minister would make a surprise appearance despite the silence on the invitation. (READ MORE HERE)

Clare Rewcastle Brown of Sarawak Report sent the police to my house with an order to stop mentioning her name in my articles and to stop publishing her pictures in Malaysia Today. This is because mentioning her name and publishing her pictures is causing her distress and mental anguish, said the police. I was then served with an order, which if I ignore can result in my arrest and indictment in court.

Britain has very specific laws regarding harassment and stalking, which you can read below. Even non-lawyers would be able to understand what the write-up below means, as the law is very clear about what constitutes harassment and stalking, which include repeatedly making false and malicious assertions and repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim.

Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. What also needs to be noted is the UK Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations are not oppressive if they could easily be rebutted. And you cannot argue that what you are doing is for the good of the country just like you cannot bomb a mosque to stop the spread of terrorism on the argument it is for the good of the country.


The law also says the conduct might appear innocent, but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim. So what PPBM is doing is a crime. Why do these Pakatan Harapan people have no respect for the law? And yet they tell us they want to bring law and order to the country when it is they who break every law in the book.


British laws regarding harassment and stalking


In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the ‘causing alarm or distress’ offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and ‘putting people in fear of violence’ offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.

Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as ‘stalking by proxy’. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.




TELEGRAM: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen

TWITTER: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen