In need to find something?
Custom Search
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Saturday, June 28, 2008

It's Simply Asinine

Technorati tags: , , ,

One of the important facets of justice is the ability to face your accuser within the purview of a court of law. When that important aspect of justice is taken away, not because there aren't enough laws, but simply because a given authority has the power to do so, justice is anything but served.

Image courtesy of Mob1900, hosting by PhotobucketISA - that hated Internal Security Act. It's Simply Asinine. It's morally wrong. Plus, if that's not bad enough, it's open to abuse.

And the ISA has a history of abuse, as a means to silence political dissent. The nice way of saying this is "preventive" measures. You know, imprison someone whom, to a certain group of people, is a threat to national security, just in case. Hasn't committed any crime, per se, and there's no evidence to charge him/her on, but let's incarcerate the fucker.

The People's Parliament, in a recent post, published a PowerPoint presentation, which had, among other things, a list of known ISA detainees, currently serving time indefinitely at the Kamunting Detention Center. 56 of them to be exact. And for what possible non-existent crime?

Don't belong to the approved sect of Islam? ISA for you, Shi'ite bastard. Hindraf? ISA will cure you of your conscience!

And make no mistake about it: if there is even a sliver of a sense of justice in any person reading this, there is no conscienable way anyone can condone the continuance of such an inhumanity as the ISA.

It's Singularly Abominable.
(ISA? Everyone should say "Fuck, no!", and more, in the full post)

Image hosting by PhotobucketWhom with a conscience could possibly support the ISA?

There are more than enough laws to charge someone with something, provided that something contravened a law. Otherwise, how has this someone contravened a law? And if some law has been broken, there is also the burden of proof.

The ISA was legislated around 1948, or thereabouts, to fight the so-called Communist Insurgency. History will tell us, however, that the British introduced this heinous law after The Great Hartal of 1947. If you have not watched the film, Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka (Ten Years Before Independence), now would be a good time. It's an eye-opener.

So, why, you might ask is an act instituted by the British long before independence, still on the books? Simple - because it is expedient in putting away elements (i.e. people) the powers that be deem undesirable. Expedient, because the flimsiest of reasons are needed. Usually "National Security" - that ubiquitously over-applied reason, when there's no concrete reason, or evidence.

No proof necessary.

Well, detention without trial is unconscienable, regardless of what moral standard you hold it up against. It definitely goes against the tenets of all known religions, Islam included.

And who today upholds this depravity disguised as legislature? The BN government. And who controls BN? UMNO, of course. Now, that said, what fucking right do they have to speak for Islam, if that's the case?

It's Simply Asinine.