The Ma Ba Tha has thus far directed most of its energy towards social and religious issues, particularly those relating to Islam’s role in Myanmar. The Ma Ba Tha has benefited from the foundation built by the 969, but formally it has been just two years since the Ma Ba Tha’s official founding date. Within those two short years, it has already had significant impact. It has forced religious and social issues to the forefront of the 2015 political agenda, mobilized support behind the government’s bid to delegitimize the Rohingya, and helped pass a series of sweeping laws that are widely seen as targeting the Muslims. It is important to note that what the Ma Ba Tha propagates is often not explicitly ‘hate speech.’ However, as detailed in a study by Oxford University and MIDO, “Hate speech is [no longer] necessary in order to construct a narrative of Muslim threat.” 14 Instead, a range of anti-Muslim fears and prejudices are so ingrained in Burmese Buddhist society today that many see a credible existential threat from a population that by most current estimates is unlikely to exceed 5 to 10 percent.15 16 17 18 This fear has significantly lowered the barrier for potential mass violence against Muslims by rationalizing a need to ‘protect the Burmese race and religion’ from imminent threat and mobilizing support behind a series of restrictive and discriminatory policy measures. The proliferation of antiMuslim stereotypes and narratives has propelled sectarian tension where small triggers in the form of rumors and false information can quickly become ‘viral’ and incite mob violence. For example, the Meiktila riot of March 2013, which was one of the country’s worst incidences of sectarian violence, began with a petty brawl at a gold shop and resulted in at least 4519 and up to 100 deaths20, and 1,500 destroyed homes.21 The Ma Ba Tha is by no means the only propagator of anti-Muslim sentiment in Myanmar, but it is likely the most effective one. Its media apparatus is one of the most powerful and organized in the country, and has demonstrated an impressive ability to mobilize an advocacy arm to support the transformation of its message into tangible policy and legislative action. The most notable success has been the ratification of the four ‘Protection of Race and Religion Laws’ in 2015, which the Ma Ba Tha helped draft, and then aggressively lobbied for. The four laws are widely seen by activists as targeting key tenets of Burmese Muslim society. They include: 1. The Population Control Healthcare Bill: Approved on May 19, 2015,22 the bill mandates that women in certain regions wait 36 months before having another child.23 Local authorities are given the power “to request a presidential order limiting reproductive rates if it is determined that population growth, accelerating birth rates, or rising infant or maternal mortality rates are negatively impacting regional development.” 24 Human rights activists have expressed concerns that the population law is primarily designed with the Rohingya in Rakhine State in mind,25 where it is widely believed that the high Muslim birth rates pose an imminent threat in making the Buddhist Rakhine a minority in their own state.26 2. The Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Bill: Approved on August 26, the bill regulates the marriages of Buddhist women to non-Buddhist men, including requiring parental consent for those under 20.27 It also allows local registrars to publicly post marriage applications and solicit objections.28 Human rights activists claim the bill is a “blatant attempt to curb interfaith marriages” and is a “potential trigger” for more anti-Muslims violence.29 The law also restricts Muslim husbands married to Buddhist wives from “committing deliberate and malicious acts…with intent to outrage feelings of Buddhists;” violations could end in divorce, with the husband losing “his share of jointly owned property, owe his wife compensation, and be denied custody of the children.”30 3. The Religious Conversion Bill: Approved on August 26, 2015,31 the bill states that those wanting to convert to a different religion would have to apply to a local “Registration Board” that is regulated by the government.32 According to Human Rights Watch, “Allowing local officials to regulate private faith so closely is a pathway to repression of religious freedom…In 7