This is because the debates in Parliament are watched live on YouTube and read online almost immediately.
“Using the same principle, we should cancel all debates. What if 50 or 80 people are not happy with debates in Parliament, bringing banners? It could also be a security threat.
“We are inflicted with paranoia. If a debate between a 91-year-old man and Nazri is a threat, then everything else is a security threat.”
He said this to FMT when asked to comment on the cancellation of the debate which is scheduled to be held at the Karangkraf Complex in Shah Alam on April 7.
Azhar, popularly known as Art Harun, said police, including the Federal Reserve Unit, had in the past succeeded in securing public order during Bersih rallies although they were hundreds of thousands of people who participated in them.
“We have seen our police doing their job effectively. We tend to brand everything as a security threat. We have to stop this, otherwise there is no end to it.”
He added it was crucial not to pass laws that loosely defined security threat which could see authorities invoking it as and when they perceived it as right.
The lawyer said a security threat should in its ordinary meaning mean “anything that poses an imminent danger to the nation” as not every threat was a security threat unless it could have an impact on the nation.
“Laws which are not well defined can be abused. That is the crux of the matter,” he said.
Sosma lacks definition
Azhar also gave the example of how the much-criticised Internal Security Act (ISA) was replaced with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).
Azhar said Sosma lacks definition especially with terms like “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” and “attempts to commit sabotage”.
“What does it mean? Thus, we see Maria Chin (Bersih 2.0 chairperson) being detained under Sosma for activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy when in fact she was fighting for parliamentary democracy.”
Former Bar Council president, Ambiga Sreenevasan weighed in on the issue, saying Karangkraf, the organiser of the debate between Mahathir and Nazri, had previously organised several talks in the same premises as the proposed debate.
“They have been organising so many (debates). I have been invited to one before, just after the Bersih 2 rally (in 2011).
“Generally, what they (authorities) are doing does not make sense. They cannot curtail it (debate) with a vague notion of a security threat. It is a fundamental right to speak,” she told FMT.
Aside from the validity of any police restriction on the debate taking place, the excuse given by police in denying the organiser a permit did not seem to carry any weight as well.
Police had said on Saturday that they denied the permit after 18 police reports were made by residents around the area saying the event could affect public order and safety.
However, checks by FMT found no private residences nearby.
The only residential properties close to the Karangkraf Complex in Section 15, Shah Alam, where the debate was to take place, are the police and fire and rescue department quarters.
Aside from these, the nearest housing estates are located in Sections 16, 18 and 19 in Shah Alam, all of which are more than 2km from the industrial area where the Karangkraf Complex is located.
Karangkraf managing director Hussamuddin Yaacub was reported to have told local Bahasa Malaysia daily Sinar Harian on Saturday that he had received a letter from Shah Alam district police chief ACP Shafien Mamat on the cancellation.
Hussamuddin was bemused as police had earlier given their approval for the debate to go on.