`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Sunday, February 15, 2015

For 'consensual' sex, five years’ jail is excessive


YOURSAY ‘The act was consensual; in fact Saiful kept coming back for more.’

Apex court: Five years jail for Anwar 'not excessive'

Odin: My questions for the five Federal Court judges:

1) We wipe ourselves with a towel, a piece of cloth, a sponge, or some other absorbent material, but how is it possible for Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan to have wiped himself with water as you have written in your judgment?

2) Is the need for accuracy, to be specific when naming or identifying individuals not mandatory, since you have not taken the trouble to write Pereira's name correctly and changed his sex from male to female?        

His name is Jude Blacious Pereira, but you have changed him to a different individual and a female called Judy Balcious Pereira.

I put it to yourselves that if you have been inaccurate with even simple matters such as these, then the decision you have arrived at after examining all the facts and arguments presented and recorded as well as your interpretation of the relevant laws, and all of which are far more complex matters, are seriously suspect.

'Learned' you are obviously not.

Gunnerrun: Thousands of people out there are committing sodomy, go and catch all of them, why bother with just this one case only.

And best of all, it's supposed to be consensual - you should have charged both DSAI (Anear Ibrahim) and college reject Saiful under 377B of the Penal Code.

Is this another screw-up, one more in the long list of unending screw-ups as we had seen in Sodomy I?

In Sodomy I, DSAI was alleged to have committed the crime in Tivoli Villa - a condominium which was not even built then. How embarrassing.

Anonymous #95676433: Speaking as a layperson, how can the punishment be "not excessive"?

The act was consensual; in fact Saiful kept coming back for more. This was something between two consenting adults. Sodomy is no longer considered serious enough to be a crime in some countries.

Take into account DSAI's contributions to the nation. His age. Justice was definitely not tempered by mercy in this case. The judges should be ashamed of themselves.

Fair Play: The Federal Court had written a 116-page judgment. But the right-thinking international community does need that to form their own conclusion.

Already, the Swiss government had declared their intention to bring the matter up to the United Nation Human Rights Committee.

Now, the world would be watching us closely how we stack up to international standards.

Mushiro: The judges did not even make a serious attempt to convince the people of their judgment, which is shallow.

To accept that 1. the 'flying carpet' is not important, 2. obtaining Anwar's DNA by deception is legal, 3. Jude's tempering with the seal of the plastic bag containing the samples is transparent, 4. the samples were in pristine condition after exposure to different environment, 5. a burly Saiful did not fight back a 64-year-old man with spinal problem because he was scared of Anwar, inspite of Saiful knowing PM Najib Razak, wife Rosmah Mansor and then IGP Musa Hassan, 6. and many more, is to blatantly convict Anwar come what may.

Five years’ jail for Anwar is “not excessive” but “just nice” to protect Najib's and Umno's future and a good attempt to destroy Pakatan Rakyat and Anwar's political career.

Hplooi: The High Court verdict was an acquittal. Overturning a decision on appeal in itself should only be considered in light of new evidence of a cogent nature.

Nothing of that sort happened (new evidence) but merely a series of overturning of the original High Court decision (e.g. credibility of witness, admissibility of tampered evidence etc).

In a startling departure from normal procedure, the overturning of decision on appeal was rushed through in a record of two days.

But in this case, where the opinion was supposed to be "simple and overwhelming", it has to take inordinate months (which again goes against normal precedence of case management).

Why, why, why? Even international jurists are questioning the very basis of the judges’ decision.

Ferdtan: So by this consensual (pun intended) judgment by the five top judges for the charge of Anwar’s supposedly consensual anal sex with Saiful, the score was made to look 5-0, an unanimous decision?

We will continue to use the word, ‘supposedly’ as the ‘people’s court’ still refuse to accept the unjust decision. How can it be possible not to have at least one dissenting decision when the case had so many discrepancies in the evidence submitted by the prosecutors?

It is strange that each individual judge was not allowed to make his own submission. Was that decision to have collective judgment, read out (and written by who?) by the chief judge himself - to ensure the ‘script’ will not be frustrated by some of them?

Or was this the plan to palliate the collective guilt conscience? Do you know the reason why execution by firing squad always uses a group of soldiers, not one, to do the job?

The reason is that no one wants to know his bullet was the one to meet the target - it is the sharing of the conscience thing. Well, we never will know. It is between the judges themselves and their Allah.

Anonymous$&@?: It's not what Anwar did, it's the blatant ignorance of the law that our ‘learned’ judges went through to get the result their masters wanted.

If this can happen to Anwar, it can happen to anyone. -Mkini

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.