![[Paul Lismore] Quiz of the day on how to become a zavoka chatwa](https://www.zinfos-moris.com/photo/art/grande/69491828-48591054.jpg?v=1670597158 "[Paul Lismore] Quiz of the day on how to become a zavoka chatwa")
![[Paul Lismore] Quiz of the day on how to become a zavoka chatwa](https://www.zinfos-moris.com/photo/art/default/69491828-48591054.jpg?v=1670597159 "[Paul Lismore] Quiz of the day on how to become a zavoka chatwa")
1/ When a case is clearly political, i.e, the defendant was arrested and charged and kept in custody despite the glaring lack of evidence, do you
a/ Accept the basic principles of the Rule of Law and tell the court that because of the lack of evidence, you are withdrawing the "provisional" charge and declare that you will not proceed with the case? or b/ Do you object to every reasonable request from the defence for all the evidence against the defendant to be disclosed, and you therefore give the impression that "Equality of arms" for you means a contest to see whose arm is the longest? For those who don't know, "Equality of arms" is a concept that was created by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the right to a fair trial (Article 6).
Equality of arms requires that there be " a fair balance between the opportunities afforded the parties involved in litigation" (for example, each party should be able to call witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses called by the other party).
The answer to question 1 in the quiz is of course (b). The zavoka who practises (b) is well on the way to being a chatwa, as defined by The Rules and Principles of La Kwizinne, which has as first principle: " Obey Lady Macbeth and obey Ti Cretin at all times! If they tell you to eat shit, you eat shit!"
2/ In order for you to get your absolute seal of approval that you are now a chatwa, do you
a/ Give an interview to a fairly decent newspaper and bemoan the terrible degradation of our democratic rights and principles, and attack vociferously the incredible level of corruption and nepotism in our island? Or
b/ Have something quite disgustingly self glorifying published in that piece of toilet paper known as Wazaa, and try to let a ti cretin believe that you are solely responsible for someone giving up on his hunger strike? Will that make you Pee Rouz if you do this?
The correct answer is of course (b). If Wazaa does not meet with your very low standards, perhaps you ought to consider airing your stupid views on the Mauritius Bastards Corporation which, as we know, remains the toilet preferred by arseholes to dump their shit on the moronic audience that watches that garbage....
3/ In order to become a chatwa par excellence, and you carry a huge chip on your shoulders because you come from what some people consider to be low caste, do you
a/ Ignore people's prejudices and simply get on with your life by not causing any harm to anyone? i.e. Do you rely on your intelligence and intellectual skills to advance in life? Or
b/ Do you feed that massive King Edward potato on your shoulders by getting the socio kultchurels to support and promote you whenever they drape a curtain around the shoulders of ti cretin? When all your colleagues support your leader when a mercenary police force backed by corrupt and useless politicians tried to arrest him, do you hide away like the coward that you are, presumably because your leader comes from a "higher" caste than you, and that chip on your shoulder is in grave danger of burning through your cheap suit?
The correct answer is of course (b)....
4/ Finally, when anyone with more than 2 brain cells can clearly see that the case against the defendant is hopeless, and that there is simply no credible evidence to even consider a prosecution, do you
a/ say that there is nothing wrong if the police have not viewed the CCTV tapes 5 weeks after the arrest; that there is nothing wrong if the police do not wish their own fingerprints and DNA to be taken and compared with the evidence they claim to have; that you find nothing, absolutely nothing wrong in the fact that a few pounds of Toukmaria is now worth millions of rupees according to your police; and that there is nothing wrong if at a later stage, the so called hashish is found to be dried acacia leaves? Justice must be served, you say, even if it means the defendant sitting in a prison cell for years for being "in possession" of toukmaria, 42 kilos fey lakassia, 2 fizi dilo, and other "dangerous" matter....Or
b/ Do you say, like any decent human being would, " I can no longer support this provisional charge". Or, if you prefer, you can use your own words and say that the charges "are ridiculous"....
The correct answer, mes chers compatriotes, is of course (a).
One final thought after you have completed the quiz: Do you think that if Satyajit Boolell was still the DPP, he would not have at least removed all objections to bail? I believe he would have, simply because the evidence, or lack of it, cannot justify continued detention in prison.
Do you wonder why the Acting DPP has been acting all deaf and dumb during this latest assault on our democratic rights and on our etat de droit by the Gestapo known as the Special Shit Team? I do.
a/ Accept the basic principles of the Rule of Law and tell the court that because of the lack of evidence, you are withdrawing the "provisional" charge and declare that you will not proceed with the case? or b/ Do you object to every reasonable request from the defence for all the evidence against the defendant to be disclosed, and you therefore give the impression that "Equality of arms" for you means a contest to see whose arm is the longest? For those who don't know, "Equality of arms" is a concept that was created by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the right to a fair trial (Article 6).
Equality of arms requires that there be " a fair balance between the opportunities afforded the parties involved in litigation" (for example, each party should be able to call witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses called by the other party).
The answer to question 1 in the quiz is of course (b). The zavoka who practises (b) is well on the way to being a chatwa, as defined by The Rules and Principles of La Kwizinne, which has as first principle: " Obey Lady Macbeth and obey Ti Cretin at all times! If they tell you to eat shit, you eat shit!"
2/ In order for you to get your absolute seal of approval that you are now a chatwa, do you
a/ Give an interview to a fairly decent newspaper and bemoan the terrible degradation of our democratic rights and principles, and attack vociferously the incredible level of corruption and nepotism in our island? Or
b/ Have something quite disgustingly self glorifying published in that piece of toilet paper known as Wazaa, and try to let a ti cretin believe that you are solely responsible for someone giving up on his hunger strike? Will that make you Pee Rouz if you do this?
The correct answer is of course (b). If Wazaa does not meet with your very low standards, perhaps you ought to consider airing your stupid views on the Mauritius Bastards Corporation which, as we know, remains the toilet preferred by arseholes to dump their shit on the moronic audience that watches that garbage....
3/ In order to become a chatwa par excellence, and you carry a huge chip on your shoulders because you come from what some people consider to be low caste, do you
a/ Ignore people's prejudices and simply get on with your life by not causing any harm to anyone? i.e. Do you rely on your intelligence and intellectual skills to advance in life? Or
b/ Do you feed that massive King Edward potato on your shoulders by getting the socio kultchurels to support and promote you whenever they drape a curtain around the shoulders of ti cretin? When all your colleagues support your leader when a mercenary police force backed by corrupt and useless politicians tried to arrest him, do you hide away like the coward that you are, presumably because your leader comes from a "higher" caste than you, and that chip on your shoulder is in grave danger of burning through your cheap suit?
The correct answer is of course (b)....
4/ Finally, when anyone with more than 2 brain cells can clearly see that the case against the defendant is hopeless, and that there is simply no credible evidence to even consider a prosecution, do you
a/ say that there is nothing wrong if the police have not viewed the CCTV tapes 5 weeks after the arrest; that there is nothing wrong if the police do not wish their own fingerprints and DNA to be taken and compared with the evidence they claim to have; that you find nothing, absolutely nothing wrong in the fact that a few pounds of Toukmaria is now worth millions of rupees according to your police; and that there is nothing wrong if at a later stage, the so called hashish is found to be dried acacia leaves? Justice must be served, you say, even if it means the defendant sitting in a prison cell for years for being "in possession" of toukmaria, 42 kilos fey lakassia, 2 fizi dilo, and other "dangerous" matter....Or
b/ Do you say, like any decent human being would, " I can no longer support this provisional charge". Or, if you prefer, you can use your own words and say that the charges "are ridiculous"....
The correct answer, mes chers compatriotes, is of course (a).
One final thought after you have completed the quiz: Do you think that if Satyajit Boolell was still the DPP, he would not have at least removed all objections to bail? I believe he would have, simply because the evidence, or lack of it, cannot justify continued detention in prison.
Do you wonder why the Acting DPP has been acting all deaf and dumb during this latest assault on our democratic rights and on our etat de droit by the Gestapo known as the Special Shit Team? I do.
