Paul Lismore


Rédigé par Paul Lismore le Mercredi 7 Novembre 2018

" The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, Annals

It is not the stupid amendment to Section 46 (i)(i) of ICTA that annoys me; far from it. In the land where transparency has no meaning to our politicians and almost everything is done behind closed doors, I always expect our governments to pass laws that are quite ignorant and which are often impossible to implement.

The amendment to ICTA  has shown that the law is often best kept out of the hands of people who claim to practise it : lawyers who see the law as the primary route to undeserved wealth and status in Mauritius through deception, the psychopathic need to ingratiate themselves with the donneurs bouttes, lack of professionalism, and an absence of the ethics and principles that ought to guide that noble profession.

It is a pity, although it was entirely predictable that this stupid amendment would be ratified by the person charged with defending our constitution and who probably thinks that Section 12 regarding our constitutional right to freedom of expression is something trivial.

Chana Puri has behaved in the slavish and unconscionably crass and craven manner we have come to expect of individuals given a rollover jackpot lottery ticket for life and who call themselves our "President"...He has shown us that he is not our President but rather the President of the small number of people who nominated him.. 

Has the Attorney General and those wonderful drafters of the amendment in the State Law Office and the zombies who voted for it ever heard of "  "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, which literally means “an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is also guilty”?"

How can any court prove that the writer of anything had in mind at the time of writing that his/her words were likely to cause annoyance, humiliation,inconvenience,distress, or anxiety" to another? "Annoyance, humiliation, inconvenience, distress, or anxiety" are all subjective feelings which the writer himself cannot possibly feel on behalf of the person he writes about.

Let me give a few examples of how laughably stupid this amendment is and how it will, in my humble opinion, be impossible for any criminal court to adjudicate upon:

1/ All decent people will feel a great deal of anxiety, distress, and annoyance about the enormous debt we have been lumbered with by successive governments and how this debt will get much worse with the electoral bribes that will be in the next budget.

This will cause terrible inconvenience to our children,and to at least two more generations after ours, who are the ones who will have to repay those debts. This will inevitably distress the parents of these children when they think about their future.

Now, the above is true when you look at the facts and figures of our economy. Shouldn't Pravin Jugnauth be the first accused under this stupid amendment when he rolls out his electoral bribes in the next budget? Of course, one cannot impute any motive and say that at the time he delivered his budget speech, he knew it was likely to cause us "annoyance, humiliation,inconvenience,distress, or anxiety"....

So, why does this stupid AG and the zombies believe that what most decent people write is likely to evoke these feelings in those they write about, to such an extent that they deserve up to 10 years imprisonment?

When our courts find it difficult to imprison those deviants who like to fuck underage girls and give them 'community service' instead, we are going to send people to prison for up to 10 years for committing the terrible crime of putting pen to paper?

Let me give a few more examples which might seem funny to some but which easily come under the ambit of this stupid, retrograde, and repressive amendment. Remember, logic does not come into this amendment! It is all about subjective feelings and nothing else, which is the very antithesis of logic and legal validity.

1/ I get terribly annoyed, inconvenienced, distressed , anxious and feel humiliated when politicians and idiots (those two words are interchangeable...) show terrible linguistic deficiencies in not recognising the simple difference between a fake profile and the use of a pseudonym or nom de plume. Ayo! Mo plorer boukou kan zot servi zis sa " argument" la kont moi. Larmes sitan koule ki mo kapav renpli Mare aux Vacoas ar sa, mo dire ou. 

Therefore, should I sue all these idiots?

2/ ALL our governments and the vast majority of our politicians have made us feel annoyed, inconvenienced, distressed, and anxious when 90% of their promises made before elections turn out to be fake. We feel humiliated that those we elect to power continue to tell us lies whilst robbing us blind at the same time, and there is nothing that we can do about it until the next lot of fake promises come up at the next elections. Should we sue them as their victims? These are real crimes that they commit against us, not crimes of thought and expression...

3/ Victims of crime and their families feel terrible annoyance, inconvenience, distress, anxiety, and humiliation at having to fork our a fortune to lawyers in order for their cases to be completed hopefully in the next...ten years!

Doesn't it annoy you then when the same people tell us we live in an etat de droit which sees the theft of a few lychees from a useless Commissioner's garden demands full justice the next day? Or when the wife of Etienne Sinatambou felt so humiliated and talked of 'threats to kill' and then fails to give evidence in a case that has taken 10 months to complete? Should they all sue these serviteurs du pays in our criminal justice system?

4/ Decent, well qualified individuals cannot get the jobs that they applied for because those posts have been reserved for the relatives and zombies of our politicians, and are even given to those who did not apply for the job, a la Naila. Annoyance? I would be terribly pissed off!

5/ Our money is used to institute commission lor commission....and when it suits the PM, these reports are kept away from the very people who paid for those commissions, i.e. us. Don't you feel humiliated?

The examples are too numerous to mention here in order to show how stupid this amendment really is. So, why have they enacted it?

One very simple reason: THE NEXT ELECTIONS! L'Alliance Lepep won the last one helped largely by the Virer Mam video, which now looks dated, the videos of Harish Boodhoo a few days before polling day, and a general feeling of disgust towards the excesses of the Ramgoolam government and the stupidity of Berenger in concocting an alliance of cynical opportunism.

People now feel more disgust towards this government than towards the last one, as this one has given us a new benchmark in incompetence, nepotism, and corruption.

So, they stupidly believe that curtailing our freedom of expression and threatening us with 10 years imprisonment will prevent many from writing about their stupidity and excesses, and thus hopefully allow them to continue to servi nou pays for another 5 years.

Several people have sent me messages expressing their belief that the new amendment targets me. I don't think so. I think it is yet another example of how a band of louts and ne'er do wells who happen to be politicians believe and expect nothing but the nauseating adulation and reverence that their zombies show them. And how their monstrously huge egos cannot tolerate any dissenting views and opinions.

Well, I don't intend to stop writing. Nothing will stop me mocking those who have a big stick up their arses and who believe that their shit smells nice. Our serviteurs du pays can expect the same 'loyal' service that they have been receiving from me for many years.... and I hope they choke on their gulab jamuns today.

A Happy Divali to all of you. Enjoy the sweets today because tomorrow, the bitter taste of repression will linger in our mouths until the elections.

Mercredi 7 Novembre 2018

Nouveau commentaire :

Règles communautaires

Nous rappelons qu’aucun commentaire profane, raciste, sexiste, homophobe, obscène, relatif à l’intolérance religieuse, à la haine ou comportant des propos incendiaires ne sera toléré. Le droit à la liberté d’expression est important, mais il doit être exercé dans les limites légales de la discussion. Tout commentaire qui ne respecte pas ces critères sera supprimé sans préavis.