I refer to the Malaysiakini report Al-Islam case: Church seeks AG's explanation .

The attorney-general said that, ‘The actions of the two reporters may have hurt the feelings of the people but I was satisfied that they did not intend offend anyone. It was an act of sheer ignorance’.

I beg to differ. Clearly, the Muslim journalists' conduct satisfied both the physical and mental element of Section 298A(1) of the Penal Code. All first-year law students know that ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’. In addition, being Malaysians who are highly learned, investigative journalists for a ‘religious/theological’ magazine, they should have known the basic Malaysian Roman Catholics' practices, rituals and sacred meaning of taking the Holy Communion.

They are investigative journalists and therefore are knowledgeable in comparative religion. By virtue that they are Malaysians, they possess the knowledge of the basic Catholic religion and the various Malaysians cultures. Because they are doing a research and investigative story on churches and Malay Christian converts, they should already have some background knowledge of the basic Catholic practices.

How can it be concluded that they are ignorant? Being in the position of a religious investigative journalist, ignorance of such basic facts is no defence either. By saying that they are ignorant it would mean that they are not fit for the job or that Al-Islam vicariously negligently employed the wrong people. The physical element of the offence has clearly been proven and is not disputed by the fact that they took photographs of the desecrated holy communion.

According to the Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine and become instead the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ. The empirical appearances are not changed, but the reality is. The consecration of the bread and wine represents the separation of Jesus's body from his blood at Calvary. This is called the ‘Transubstantiation’.

This means the action of the two Muslim journalists are likened to desecrating the body of Jesus Christ in reality. That is an utmost insult to the Catholics. It is like stepping on God. It is worse than bringing a pig into a mosque. Such action clearly causes feelings of enmity and ill-will on the grounds of religion. Thus, this satisfies the physical element of Section 298A(1)(a) of the Penal Code.

I submit by virtue of their positions mentioned above, they are no stupid laymen having no brains. Indeed, the journalists are men of knowledge and are fully aware of the consequences of their action. Hence, objectively, they had or should have had the 'knowledge' which denotes awareness of certain facts with absolute conviction or certainty as to the existence of the possible response by the Catholics following their actions.

On the basis that they should have such awareness, one can infer their true intention of committing such offences. Thus, the mental element is established here. Even if they were plain stupid or rash or acted negligently, they are still considered to be culpably blameworthy. We name their reckless action as 'wilful blindness' which means that the journalists were aware of an obvious means of acquiring knowledge but had shut their minds to those means.

They know with absolute certainty and conviction of the existence of certain facts but those facts are insufficient to enable them to know the proscribed harm that will occur as a result of their act, or in crimes involving circumstances, that those circumstances exist.

Although deliberately shutting their minds to obtain more knowledge, yet the law should regard them as morally and legally having the same level of blameworthiness as to one who had actual knowledge. This is because they knew with high probability that the facts existed but had deliberately refused to confirm them in the belief that ‘where ignorance is safe, 'tis folly to be wise’.

I am sure that the AG is aware that the motive or desire of the journalists is immaterial to the concept of knowledge. There are cases that have shown that such a person would still be convicted for knowingly causing harm even though they may have wished for that harm not to be caused. Clearly, the actus reus and the mens rea are established and hence, a prima facie case is at hand.

The AG must bring forth the case for the court to decide and hear out what these journalists have got to say in their defence. My advice to them is to use their sheer ignorance as a mitigating factor.