Malanding,
 In as much i don't wish to comment on this subject, one is compel to.
So Jabou the good sister, the humble intelligent lady doesn't go out of line and make reference to others she disagree with deem offencive and profane?
This is the clear opportunist and double standard style she exercise to play games here.
Insulting others is bad, insulting each others parent is terrible, but you see this are things that are irrelevant when it comes to tarnishing someone else reputation simply because you dislike his/her enquiry on a person you support. Jabou never fail to absolve herself of any form of prejudice, but she calmly and calculating ascribe it to me and Haruna here almost all the time. What is more profane than that?
This is why i always maintain that we should try to stick to the subject. exclude the debaters out the every topic and deal with the subject matter. Ousainou can be a subject matter, Halifa can be a subject, moreover Yahya. This are leading people who have partaken in presidential elections in our country.
To question them and disagree with them is a legitimate political activity. Their supporters have equal rights to back them, but that should fall within the subject however angry they may be.
Jabou is equally guilty of directing her comments to people instead of the subject. She has no moral rights to defend Muhammad L for anything here. If she wish to be the angel, why didn't she say anything when Muhammad Drammeh got personal on Ousainou? why didn't she told him to desist? That wouldn't serve her purpose.
Dr Jaiteh, deal with the situation in the way the rules are laid down, don't allow anyone to try smooth talking and interfering with the due process.
The two gentle men are intelligent people and dedicated Gambians. For whatever reason, things got out of hand. They are both valuable members, and delisting them will starve us of their interesting and important view points.
Let us not be hasty in abandoning each other, at the end of the day, this is virtual discussion. Our democracy may be 40 years plus, this is young when compared to other many others. I know both Muhammad and Yanks love their parents, they both will do whatever it takes to maintain and uphold the dignity of their family and parents. Let us see this as an unfortunate episode.
No single person here should become a subject of our national dialogue, it would be counterproductive. many readers are not here to know about the private life or daily routine of anyone. It is the Gambia that we all have in common. Some of us live close to each other, but we have different life style choices, we hardly converse, but on here we can discuss on Gambia matters day or night.
Â
Yanks, i can personally vouch for you that, you and your Dad are close. You have just taken your Dad for Hajj last year. You have also visited him in Dakar when he came back. You spend over two week there. I also know the extend your Dad hold you among his children. You are a son he can rely on anytime, this is both emotionally and financially. i came to know you through the Hajj difficulty to Gambians in Makka last year and since then i found you to be a good and decent young man. Someone who has help many Gambians through your solicitor work.
My appeal to you Yanks is that, you have a lot to offer. Defend and support Ousainou whenever need be. Ousainou should be proud of you being a member of his party. But please don't allow yourself to become the subject of any debate on him. Also don't bring others person into any debates. Ousainou wouldn't like that. The Gambians that knows you wouldn't remotely associate you with the acts described here, so bear in mind that, many don't read and accept.
Â
Muhammad L Touray is unknown to me. But i always respect and come to expect his interesting strong defence of his party line. Again. that is all his party could ask of him. He is articulate and can write better than me. I learn from him, although we are sometimes on opposing angles. Brother Muhammad, keep to your calm persona. Always make it known to members here whenever you feel someone has insulted you. Make that statement clear, because, God is my witness, I wasn't following your exchanges with Yanks until when i was call yesterday. Many may be in similar situation. Before responding in kind, it may be more productive if you call the attention of people to an apparent insult like Jabou did.
This will accord you more respect and self-evident justice than, responding in kind.
Any way this is my small view on this.
Dr Jaiteh, my suggestion is write to the two brothers in private and resolve the matter that way.
Happy Ramadan to all in Advance.
suntou
--- On Tue, 18/8/09, SUNTOU TOURAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: SUNTOU TOURAY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Insults on the L without recourse/ Malanding
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, 18 August, 2009, 11:55 AM
Malanding,
 In as much i don't wish to comment on this subject, one is compel to.
So Jabou the good sister, the humble intelligent lady doesn't go out of line and make reference to others she disagree with deem offencive and profane?
This is the clear opportunist and double standard style she exercise to play games here.
Insulting others is bad, insulting each others parent is terrible, but you see this are things that are irrelevant when it comes to tarnishing someone else reputation simply because you dislike his/her enquiry on a person you support. Jabou never fail to absolve herself of any form of prejudice, but she calmly and calculating ascribe it to me and Haruna here almost all the time. What is more profane than that?
This is why i always maintain that we should try to stick to the subject. exclude the debaters out the every topic and deal with the subject matter. Ousainou can be a subject matter, Halifa can be a subject, moreover Yahya. This are leading people who have partaken in presidential elections in our country.
To question them and disagree with them is a legitimate political activity. Their supporters have equal rights to back them, but that should fall within the subject however angry they may be.
Jabou is equally guilty of directing her comments to people instead of the subject. She has no moral rights to defend Muhammad L for anything here. If she wish to be the angel, why didn't she say anything when Muhammad Drammeh got personal on Ousainou? why didn't she told him to desist? That wouldn't serve her purpose.
Dr Jaiteh, deal with the situation in the way the rules are laid down, don't allow anyone to try smooth talking and interfering with the due process.
The two gentle men are intelligent people and dedicated Gambians. For whatever reason, things got out of hand. They are both valuable members, and delisting them will starve us of their interesting and important view points.
Let us not be hasty in abandoning each other, at the end of the day, this is virtual discussion. Our democracy may be 40 years plus, this is young when compared to other many others. I know both Muhammad and Yanks love their parents, they both will do whatever it takes to maintain and uphold the dignity of their family and parents. Let us see this as an unfortunate episode.
No single person here should become a subject of our national dialogue, it would be counterproductive. many readers are not here to know about the private life or daily routine of anyone. It is the Gambia that we all have in common. Some of us live close to each other, but we have different life style choices, we hardly converse, but on here we can discuss on Gambia matters day or night.
Â
Yanks, i can personally vouch for you that, you and your Dad are close. You have just taken your Dad for Hajj last year. You have also visited him in Dakar when he came back. You spend over two week there. I also know the extend your Dad hold you among his children. You are a son he can rely on anytime, this is both emotionally and financially. i came to know you through the Hajj difficulty to Gambians in Makka last year and since then i found you to be a good and decent young man. Someone who has help many Gambians through your solicitor work.
My appeal to you Yanks is that, you have a lot to offer. Defend and support Ousainou whenever need be. Ousainou should be proud of you being a member of his party. But please don't allow yourself to become the subject of any debate on him. Also don't bring others person into any debates. Ousainou wouldn't like that. The Gambians that knows you wouldn't remotely associate you with the acts described here, so bear in mind that, many don't read and accept.
Â
Muhammad L Touray is unknown to me. But i always respect and come to expect his interesting strong defence of his party line. Again. that is all his party could ask of him. He is articulate and can write better than me. I learn from him, although we are sometimes on opposing angles. Brother Muhammad, keep to your calm persona. Always make it known to members here whenever you feel someone has insulted you. Make that statement clear, because, God is my witness, I wasn't following your exchanges with Yanks until when i was call yesterday. Many may be in similar situation. Before responding in kind, it may be more productive if you call the attention of people to an apparent insult like Jabou did.
This will accord you more respect and self-evident justice than, responding in kind.
Any way this is my small view on this.
Dr Jaiteh, my suggestion is write to the two brothers in private and resolve the matter that way.
Happy Ramadan to all in Advance.
suntou
--- On Mon, 17/8/09, Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Insults on the L without recourse
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, 17 August, 2009, 5:50 PM
M.L Touray,
Â
You may not have noticed but  the L has become a place where people can insult you and nothing happens.
In my estimation, it has come to mirror our African countries where the constitution is there simply as window dressing, never adhered to.
Haruna Darboe has called me all sorts of lewd and suggestive names but my formal complaints to the list management appears to have fallen on deaf ears in much the same way that a similar complaint from me was treated some years ago.
And we wonder why Africa is a mess?
Jabou Joh
Â
-----Original Message-----
From: Muhammed Lamin Touray <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2009 9:52 am
Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
#yiv687490865 #yiv2048605294 #AOLMsgPart_2_3c57c635-a159-4a38-9748-8ae9c509846b DIV {margin:0px;}
Mr. Sanneh,
I would prefer to be delisted than sit here for Yanks to insult my parents. I think as seniors, you should say the truth rather than resort to the easy way. Please go through my exchanges with Yanks and you will see the level of his unruliness and lack of respect for his parents.
ML Touray
Â
=0 AÂ
From: abdoukarim sanneh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:39:41 AM
Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
#yiv687490865 #yiv2048605294 #AOLMsgPart_2_3c57c635-a159-4a38-9748-8ae9c509846b .hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv687490865 #yiv2048605294 #AOLMsgPart_2_3c57c635-a159-4a38-9748-8ae9c509846b body.hmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
Dr Jaiteh
IÂ show the signs coming and warning for your early intervention but to no avail. Please let decency prevail. I am calling for both to be delist if such insults will continue!
Â
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:20:49 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I must say it is sad to see the two of you opting to take this path.
> That said I am still convinced that you all have much better things to
> bring to the Gambia-l.
>
>
> Malanding
>
>
>
> Muhammed Lamin Touray wrote:
> >
> > "Ok because the constitution of the Gambia has enshrined my right to
> > freedom of speech means that I can stand and insult your mother, your
> > father, and every one in your family! Or write and publish lies about
> > you and your family. *Or write on Gambian newspapers that Muhammed
> > Lamin Touray is a “fxxxing bxxxxxrd!� his mum was this and that! Would
> > you regard as exercising my constitutional right to freedom of speech
> > and expression.*
> >
> > Certainly, ML Touray you will not agree with anyone that this is
> > legalised by my constitutional right of freedom of speech. However, by
> > your interpretation of this constitutional provision, I have every
> > right to swear at your parents or write malicious stories about your
> > family and publish them on newspapers. This is because, as you are
> > interpreting there is no limit to my constitutional right to freedom
> > of speech and expression under section 25 of the Gambian constitution.
> >
> > Surely, this cannot be right. I don’t know about you M L Touray, but
> > if you were to write that about me I would certainly not agree with
> > you that you have such an unlimited right to freedom to commit libel
> > or slande r against me." Yanks
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Malanding Jaiteh <[log in to unmask]>
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2009 8:58:46 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
> >
> > M L Touray,
> > I am sure something is wrong somewhere but what warrants such an
> > out-burst?
> > Malanding
> >
> >
> > Muhammed Lamin Touray wrote:
> > >
> > > Yankuba Darbo, are you not that sick little kid from Kafuta found
> > fucking your mother in 1999 and fathered a babe girl???? Is she your
> > sister or daughter? We are interested to know how you referred to
> > her: a daughter or a sister????? You are so sick that no sane person
> > should entertain conversation with you. The media houses in the Gambia
> > were fully aware of your dim-witted manners, but decided not to
> > publish your sacrilegious act for the sake of the good people of the
> > Gambia. She has just recently turned 10 years; I only hope that you
> > are paying her school fees and providing her needs. We need to remind
> > you about the responsibilities of parenthood, because your sickness is20
> > so severe that you don’t know anything about human decency.
> > > I know your mom misses you so much, because your father could not
> > take the embarrassment and died miserably a few years ago. She is
> > waiting for you! I think you need to regularize relations with your
> > mom by marrying her. You do that, mother fucker.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
> > > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:08:32 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
> > >
> > > ML Touray wrote:
> > >
> > > “Now can you please tell me your definition of legal positivism or
> > is it what you tried to defend above?�
> > >
> > > ML Touray next time you want to know my definition of legal
> > positivism, you better ask for me than try to lie about my definition
> > of legal positivism!
> > >
> > & gt; My definition of legal positivism which I would make it simple to
> > prevent you from misquoting me again is the “study of man made
> > laws�. And if you call that outdated then you must be outdated as well!
> > >
> > > As for your claim about my labelling of the Gambian people as
> > subjects of the law, I think your troubles of reconciling with your
> > colonial history has mislead you into objecting to every terminology
> > once used by the colonial imperialist against our people. However,
> > whether you know it or not when Austin used the term ‘subjects’ he
> > did not envisage such a distinction as you are misinterpreting, he
> > only meant subjects of the law, which include both the colonial
> > imperialists as well as their African subjects. So ease off the
> > rhetoric ML Touray, the Gambians are indeed subjects of the Gambian
> > law and not the sovereign as you are misinterpreting.
> > >
> > > This is because you seemed confused about the meanings of the
> > sections, you have quoted from the 1997 constitution of the Gambia .
> > >
> > > You quoted that subsection 1 (The Republic) (2) states that: “/The
> > Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from
& gt; > whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name
> > and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are to
> > be exercised in accordance with this Constitution/
> > >
> > > Yet you misinterpreted that to mean that “(1) the Gambian people
> > constitute the sovereign authority, not the president or any other
> > organ of government;�
> > >
> > > That begs me to question how is the president excluded from the
> > “Gambian people� or that of any organ of the government. In fact
> > ML Touray, you are very confused! You gave a complete opposite
> > interpretation to what this section of the constitution is stating.
> > >
> > > This section is merely explaining that any executive body in the
> > Gambia by virtue of this section must derive its authority from the
> > Gambian people and it is for the welfare and prosperity of the Gambian
> > people that it should exercise its powers. That seems completely
> > different to what you are claiming that the Gambian people have the
> > executive power and authority, whilst the president and the government
> > are non existent. That is the worst constitutional interpretation
> > I’ve ever heard!
> > >
> > > You further analysed that the /“(2) the Constitution is the
> > supreme law of the Gambia ; (3) and the Constitution legalizes free
> > speech and expression. I conclude from this premise that the arrest,
> > detention, prosecution, conviction and sentence of the six journalists
> > are illegal. This is the crux of my contentions with UDP’s ill
> > conceived statement�./
> > >
> > > Ok because the constitution of the Gambia has enshrined my right to
> > freedom of speech means that I can stand and insult your mother, your
> > father, and every one in your family! Or write and publish lies about
> > you and your family. Or write on Gambian newspapers that Muhammed
> > Lamin Touray is a “fxxxing bxxxxxrd!� his mum was this and that!
> > Would you regard as exercising my constitutional right to freedom of
> > speech and expression.
> > >
> > > Certainly, ML Touray you will not agree with anyone that this is
> > legalised by my constitutional right of freedom of speech. However, by
> > your interpretation of this constitutional provision, I have every
> > right to swear at your parents or write malicious stories about your
> > family and publish them on newspapers. This is because, as you are
> > interpreting there is no limit to my constitutional right to freedom
> > of speech and expression under section 25 of the Gambian constitution.
> > >
> > > Surely, this cannot be right. I don’t know about you M L Touray,
> > but if you were to write that about me I would certainly not agree
> > with you that you have such an unlimited right to freedom to commit
> > libel or slander against me.
> > >
> > > Therefore, every freedom right of a man has a limit. Where is that
> > limit? They said it is where it reaches the other man’s freedom for
> > something. That is to say; my freedom to free speech ends at where
> > your freedom to privacy begins.
> > >
> > > However, it is difficult to tell or draw these limits, so where you
> > would be claiming that I crossed the borderline, I would be claiming
> > that I’m still within my bounds. How do we resolve this? You would
> > agree with me that we need a third party’s opinion or judgement. To
> > get that third party opinion, we needed someone that both of us can
> > trust. If that trusted third party made a judgement in my favour
> > though you can disagree with his judgement but you cannot say that he
> > is not a trustworthy person. Imagine you won’t be saying that if he
> > had made a favourable decision towards your favour. So therefore
> > natural justice require that you don’t start calling him an evil man!
> > >
> > > From my analysis the courts are the 3^rd party here, we entrusted
> > this courts to make just decisions between me and you, him and her,
> > you and others, us and the government, etc. We need to keep the
> > sanctity of that trust, we cannot let that trust be undermined. The
> > consequence of undermining that trust will be to have no courts. A
> > society without a court system, even if it has a constitution, it
> > constitution will be open to abuse. This is because, where you would
> > be interpreting the constitution to suit your interest, I would be
> > interpreting it to suit my interest. Without a trusted third party,
> > the weaker among us either physically or financially would always be
> > the looser, a sort of jungle justice.
> > >
> > > The Gambian court has interpreted the law in relation to the charges
> > brought against the six journalists, though we can express our dissent
> > against the sentencing handed by the court, we cannot begin to
> > challenge or undermine the court, as untrusting, lying or illegal, as
> > you are stupidly calling, M L Touray.
> > >
> > > What would have been your reaction had the court acquitted the
> > journalists from the charges?
> > >
> > > Even Mr Lamin Camara who represented the six journalists did not
> > share your ill advised thoughts that you peddling here. This is
> > because Mr Camara, just like the UDP statement and the rest of the
> > Gambia , do not want to undermine the sanctity of their courts system.
> > If the Americans can still trust the rulings of their courts, even
> > though the same courts once used to find slavery as lawful and
> > sentence people for challenging slavery to worst punishment; the
> > Gambian courts have nothing to lose in trusting the legitimacy of the
> > rulings of their, even is they agree with its ruling.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if I’m correct about the case, the six journalists
> > still have a right of appeal against the decision of the High Court
> > and are appealing as I put these thoughts into words. Therefore, it
> > will be inappropriate for the UDP to start making statements
> > describing the High Court judgement as illegal or unlawful.
> > > Simply because, the UDP is not the supreme court of the Gambia to
> > make that decision that the High20Court had made an illegal decision
> > nor is it appropriate for an opposition party vying to become the next
> > government to start challenging or undermining the judiciary’s
> > powers to make judgement based on its opinion of the law.
> > >
> > > So, you’re damned wrong M L Touray to label the UDP’s statement
> > as ill-conceived. You can write whatever nonsense you want to write
> > but will never justified your charges that the UDP’s statement is
> > wrong, inappropriate of ill-conceived.
> > >
> > > And I hope you don’t share that dementia with Halifa, Sidia and
> > the rest of PDOIS Mbai faals!
> > >
> > > I blatantly refused to comment on the rest your stupidity expressed
> > in your email!
> > >
> > > Nemesis Yanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:56:45 -0700
> > > From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > >
> > >
> > > Yanks wrote,
> > >
> > >
> > > /[Now tell me where in this passage did I qualify that this was the
> > definition of legal positivism? And even if I did, how can this
> > position be outdated. Is it a thing of the past that the sovereign
> > states receive habitual obedience of their subjects in a political
> > society? Or that the sovereign states are bound by the laws of their
> > predecessors or have limits to what laws they can make? The answer
> > here is a big no. /
> > >
> > > /ML Touray, you therefore cannot be correct in calling this position
> > of legal positivism as outdated, regardless how you try to twist your
> > words?] Yanks/
> > >
> > >
> > > Now can you please tell me your definition of legal positivism or is
> > it what you tried to defend above? You also need to clarify what you
> > mean by “their subjects in a political society,� because it
> > appears that you are defending imperialism. European imperialists used
> > to call the peoples of their colonies “subjects.� Gambians are no
> > longer subjects, we are sovereign people! I hope you understand the
> & gt; distinction between “subjects� and “sovereign people,� if not
> > there will be no need to continue this conversation. In 1997, the
> > people of the Gambia overwhelmingly ratified the 1997 Republican
> > Constitution as the supreme law of the land; in essence, it means that
> > the Gambian people constitute the sovereign power, not the elected
> > representatives. Any law that contravenes the Constitution is null and
> > void, thus the draconian media laws imposed on the national assembly
> > and used to “persecute� and sentence the six journalists are
> > illegal, simply because they contradict the 1997 Republican Constitution.
> > >
> > >
> > > The following quotes from the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia
> > support this position.
> > >
> > >
> > > Subsection 1 (The Republic) (2) states:
> > >
> > >
> > > /The Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia
> > from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose
> > name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are
> > to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution /
> > >
> > > */ /*
> > >
> > > Subsectio n Chapter 2, subsection 4 (Supremacy of the Constitution)
> > states:
> > >
> > >
> > > /This constitution is the supreme Law of The Gambia and any other
> > law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution
> > shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void./
> > >
> > >
> > > Subsection 25 (Freedom of Speech) states:
> > >
> > >
> > > /(1) //Every person shall have the right to-/
> > >
> > > /(a) //Freedom of speech and expression, which shall
> > include freedom of the press and other media;/
> > >
> > > /(b) //Freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which
> > shall include academic;/
> > >
> > > /(c) //Freedom to practice any religion and to manifest
> > such practice;/
> > >
> > > /(d) //Freedom of association, which shall include freedom
> > to form and join associations and unions, including political parties
> > and trade unions;/
> > >
> > > /(e) //Freedom to petition the Executive for redress of
> > grievances and to resort to the Courts for protection of his or her
> > rights. /
> > >
> > >
> > > These quotes above show that (1) the Gambian people constitute the
> > sovereign20authority, not the president or any other organ of
> > government; (2) the Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia; (3)
> > and the Constitution legalizes free speech and expression. I conclude
> > from this premise that the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction
> > and sentence of the six journalists are illegal. This is the crux of
> > my contentions with UDP’s ill conceived statement.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here you go again; what do the Nazis War Crime Tribunal, the Iraq
> > war, and World War II have to do with injustice in the Gambia? You
> > seem to confuse national law and international law. We are talking
> > about Gambian citizens who exercised their constitutional right of
> > free speech and expression and found themselves convicted and
> > sentenced for it. Remember that no one is saying that “everything in
> > this world is just, except the Gambia.�* *I think you are the damn
> > fool for trying to defend the indefensible.
> > >
> > > The fact that segregation laws existed in the US or that Mandela
> > decided to setup a Truth and Reconciliation instead of a tribunal, do
> > not in any way justify the travesty of justice in the Gambia.
> > Furthermore, I don’t care whether China, Saud i Arabia, UK, or US are
> > democracies; I care about entrenched rights of Gambians being trampled
> > on by Jammeh and his thugs. Conscientious and informed Chinese,
> > Saudis, and others, like their Gambians counterparts are everyday
> > fighting for their human rights and justice. You and UDP may continue
> > legitimizing blatant injustice and think that conscious people would
> > listen to your nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself for making
> > a bunch of irresponsible statements here.
> > >
> > > The following quote of yours shows your true nature:
> > >
> > > /[Be advised that even in the United Kingdom there are immoral laws,
> > such as the Inheritance Tax. I mean, how immoral can it be to tax the
> > dead? But you will be surprised to note that it is the law that exists
> > in the UK.] Yanks/
> > >
> > > Who are you to judge the Inheritance Tax law of the United Kingdom
> > as immoral? Do you even know the reason for the inheritance tax laws?
> > The US has a similar law but only less than one percent of the
> > population is affected by it. You need to think before you lip. Moral
> > relativists would sue you at Jammeh’s kangaroo court for your
> > cultural insensitivity. Moreover, morality of UK Inheritance Tax has20
> > nothing to do with the illegal conviction of the journalists.
> > >
> > > /[It means; if I agree with what you are claiming that the law in
> > the Gambia is bad law and that law states that Gambians should not
> > kill each other, and no one is killing each other, at present, means
> > that Gambians are obeying that bad law of Yahya Jammeh. If not they
> > would be killing each other. That is the impression you give when you
> > start challenging the legal system of the Gambia as simply illegal.]
> > Yanks/
> > >
> > > Are you saying that Gambians are blood tasty killers who are only
> > restrained by Jammeh’s laws from killing one another? Are you saying
> > that without Jammeh’s laws Gambians would be killing one other? Or
> > are you saying that Jammeh and his government are licensed to kill,
> > torture, detain, and harass Gambians so as to restrain us from
> > annihilating one other? This paragraph of yours still needs
> > clarification. Gambians are well known for our tolerance,
> > peacefulness, and civility. Jammeh and thugs exploit this peaceful
> > nature of Gambians and effectively instituted a police state and
> > overthrow our Constitution.
> > > I hope you are not speaking for the UDP. The party needs to distance
> > itself from your irresponsible statements here. You don’t seem to
> > know what you are talking about. I am done with this topic, for I have
> > already made my point clear for conscience readers. My conviction is
> > that the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment
> > of the six gallant journalists are illegal and immoral.
> > >
> > > ML Touray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
> > > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:43:52 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> > >
> > > M L Touray wrote:
> > >
> > > “/I never said that Legal Positivism is outdated; what I said is
> > that your definition of the philosophy is primordial. Contemporary
> > scholars of Legal Positivism do qualify the sovereign authority, while
> > earlier versions do not.� /
> > >
> > > If I r emember very well, this was what I stated in my email of the
> > 13 August 2009, which you misinterpreted as my definition of legal
> > positivism, just as you twisted the UDP passage. This was what I stated:
> > >
> > > /“the position of the legal positivists, which John Austin, one of
> > the proponents of that school of jurisprudence, explained about
> > positivism of law and the sovereign powers. He accepted that the
> > sovereign might not be a person who by divine or natural right could
> > tell us what we ought to obey, but he is identified by the fact that
> > he is obeyed and his commands are in fact what we call laws.
> > Therefore, he stated that the sovereign is he who receives habitual
> > obedience within a political society. He further added that the
> > sovereign could not be bound by laws promulgated by previous
> > sovereigns and his powers to make laws could not be limited�./
> > >
> > >
> > > Now tell me where in this passage did I qualify that this was the
> > definition of legal positivism? And even if I did, how can this
> > position be outdated. Is it a thing of the past that the sovereign
> > states receive habitual obedience of their subjects in a political
> > society? Or that the sovereign stat es are bound by the laws of their
> > predecessors or have limits to what laws they can make? The answer
> > here is a big no.
> > >
> > >
> > > ML Touray, you therefore cannot be correct in calling this position
> > of legal positivism as outdated, regardless how you try to twist your
> > words?
> > >
> > >
> > > As for your claim that based on my:
> > >
> > > /“definition, the primordial definition, apartheid laws and
> > Mandela’s 27 years of incarceration would be legal because they were
> > formed by a sovereign nation. In the same vein, the holocaust would be
> > considered legal because it was formed by a sovereign nation.� /ML
> > Touray
> > >
> > > Firstly, I rebut your claim that what I explained above is my
> > definition of legal positivism and it does not sanction the laws of
> > the Nazis or that of the apartheid regime of South Africa as morally
> > justifiable laws.
> > >
> > > Secondly, what you failed to understand is that no philosopher will
> > support your supposition that the laws of the Nazis were not legal in
> > the context of the German law, at the time of Hitler. What was argued
> > later, was that they=2 0were morally unlawful laws, that ought not to
> > have been enforced.
> > >
> > > Even that justification, was not without its critics. The war trials
> > of the Nazis war criminals in Nuremburg and Tokyo was criticised by J.
> > N Shklar, as a pretence of legalism, which was a mere sham. She stated
> > that “it would have been more frank to recognise them as the
> > elimination of enemies, justified on political grounds.�
> > >
> > > And she indeed has a point. Even not just from the political
> > perspective, but on the legal perspective, which is that it
> > contradicts the legal doctrine that law cannot have retrospective
> > effect. The Nazis argued that they acted within the laws of their land
> > at the time, but it was adjudicated that those were bad laws and the
> > good laws which were existing at the time of the trial could sentence
> > them for those crime. That was a retrospective application of the law.
> > Just like making a law today to persecute those who took part in the
> > slave trade!
> > >
> > > From the political perspective, it was only the Nazis who were
> > prosecuted for the Holocaust, but the Americans were not prosecuted
> > for using the nuclear bomb on the two Japanese cities, or for their
> > part in the slavery, which were as brutal as the holocaust? And if the
> > trials had further set a legal precedent, why was George Bush and Tony
> > Blair not prosecuted for the fake war in Iraq , and why has no Israeli
> > ever been prosecuted for the killings of innocent Palestinians?
> > >
> > > But it seems that the effect of that tribunals’ legal precedent is
> > mainly for Africa and Africans, with the exception of certain Baltic
> > States . It cannot apply to the US soldier, as the tribunal lacks
> > jurisdiction of the US soldiers. Do you have an answer to this
> > discrimination? This is a question you can’t answer.
> > >
> > > Therefore, you will be a damned fool to think that every thing in
> > this world is just, except the Gambia .
> > >
> > > You further mentioned Nelson Mandela and the apartheid laws. Do you
> > even know a similar law existed in the mighty United States called
> > Segregation? Mandela was a legal scholar, shortly after his release,
> > he did not set up a tribunal to prosecute the apartheid regime, but
> > set up a truth and reconciliation commission. We cannot ponder on the
> > legitimacy of the law locked him for such a long time, as no one was
> > tried for its crimes; just like no one was tried in the United State
> > for similar crimes.
> > >
> > > But this still does not justify the immorality of such laws! And if
> > I’m right, such laws have now been repealed in the constitutions of
> > both South Africa and the United States .
> > >
> > > Therefore, ML Touray, make no mistake, every law is legal at its
> > time. They ceased to be law once repealed. If we detest the laws of
> > Yahya Jammeh regime, we have to change him and then repeal his laws.
> > At that time we can make laws that are morally acceptable to us. Until
> > then it would be wronged to question the legality of his laws.
> > >
> > > As for your question about “why do we need human right laws,
> > African Charter, and others? There are fundamental human rights, such
> > as the right to life, free speech, association, and many others that
> > cannot be denied by any sovereign nation. Therefore sovereign nations
> > cannot form arbitrary laws just to punish a certain section of society
> > or contravene their National Constitutions�.
> > >
> > > The question I want to ask you is that, what will you do, if the
> > sovereign’s breach their conventional obligations. Th e simply answer
> > is nothing. Simply because what you failed to understand is that all
> > these conventions, you are referring to, were all craftily drafted;
> > such that they are all subjected to the condition of none interference
> > with the sovereignty rights of a contracting state.
> > >
> > > You still seem oblivion to the concept of sovereignty. No state
> > bargains its sovereignty!
> > >
> > > As for your further claim that I defended Yahya Jammeh, I think even
> > in Jammeh’s sweetest dream, he will not see me his defending him. I
> > guess that’s one of your cheap charges.
> > >
> > > As for the claim that I call Gambia a democratic society, well that
> > is what it’s meant to be. However, I can accept that my choice of
> > phrase was a bit inappropriate. Only that I seriously, don’t believe
> > that the Gambia is in fact a democratic society. However, I also
> > don’t believe that China , is democratic society, nor do I believe
> > Iran to be democratic society, or North Korea , or even Saudi Arabia .
> > However, I do not believe that democracy is a prerequisite for a
> > sovereign’s right to make legal laws for its subject, whether moral < br> > > or immoral.
> > >
> > > Be advised that even in the United Kingdom there are immoral laws,
> > such as the Inheritance Tax. I mean, how immoral can it be to tax the
> > dead? But you will be surprised to note that it is the law that exists
> > in the UK .
> > >
> > > As for my quote below:
> > >
> > > [/If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing,
> > then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the
> > Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are
> > obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws
> > are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the
> > obedience of law that we identify the bad ones.]/ Yanks
> > >
> > > It means; if I agree with what you are claiming that the law in the
> > Gambia is bad law and that law states that Gambians should not kill
> > each other, and no one is killing each other, at present, means that
> > Gambians are obeying that bad law of Yahya Jammeh. If not they would
> > be killing each other. That is the impression you give when you start
> > challenging the legal system of the Gambia as simply illegal.
> > >
> > > On that note I20reiterate again that the sentencing of the six
> > journalists is morally wrong, which the UDP statement condemned. The
> > UDP further calls for it to be repealed and I believe if it ever wins
> > election in the Gambia , it will repeal that law, so that no
> > journalist will ever be prosecuted for it again. However, as long is
> > not repealed it remains the law, whether morally right or not.
> > >
> > > Nemesis Yanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:25:03 -0700
> > > From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > > Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
> > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > >
> > > Yanks,
> > >
> > > I never said that Legal Positivism is outdated; what I said is that
> > your definition of the philosophy is primordial. Contemporary scholars
> > of Legal Positivism do qualify the sovereign authority, while earlier
> > versions do not. Based on your definition, the primordial definition,
> > apartheid laws and Mandela’s 2720years of incarceration would be
> > legal because they were formed by a sovereign nation. In the same
> > vein, the holocaust would be considered legal because it was formed by
> > a sovereign nation. We don’t think like that anymore in the 21^st
> > century. If legality of laws was just based on being formed by a
> > sovereign authority, why do we need human right laws, African Charter,
> > and others? There are fundamental human rights, such as the right to
> > life, free speech, association, and many others that cannot be denied
> > by any sovereign nation. Therefore sovereign nations cannot form
> > arbitrary laws just to punish a certain section of society or
> > contravene their National Constitutions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Moreover, you defense of Yahya Jammeh and the APRC is exceptionally
> > good; I have not seen a better defense of this rotten regime. I cannot
> > believe you said the following about the Jammeh regime:
> > >
> > >
> > > [/The Gambia is further a democratic society. Jammeh was elected by
> > the majority, though difficult to verify, but that is what we were
> > told by the electoral commission. /*/The Gambian people empowered him
> > to make laws./*/ Who is the UDP or we to deny the people’s choice20
> > from making laws for them?]/ Yanks
> > >
> > >
> > > How many innocent Gambias and UDP supporters are still languishing
> > in prison? And you dare to say that the Gambia is a democratic state.
> > How and When? In fact right after the last presidential election,
> > UDP/NRP filed a complaint at the High Court accusing APRC of election
> > malpractice. Furthermore, who empowers Jammeh to make laws? I thought
> > the legislature is responsible for making laws, not the executive?
> > >
> > >
> > > Please help me to understand what you mean by the following quote.
> > >
> > >
> > > [/If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing,
> > then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the
> > Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are
> > obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws
> > are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the
> > obedience of law that we identify the bad ones.]/ Yanks
> > >
> > >
> > > ML Touray
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
> > > Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks
> > and emoticons. Get Them Now
> > <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/>;
> >
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Ãâ
€šÃ‚¤Ã‚¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface at:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the
> > Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > ;
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Ãâ
€šÃ‚¤Ã‚¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤Â¤
> > >
> > >
> >
�������������������������������������Ã
¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface at:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the
> > Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> >
�������������������������������������Ã
¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Internet Explorer 8 - accelerate your Hotmail. Download Internet
> > Explorer 8 <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/>;
> > >
> > >
> >
�������������������������������������Ã
¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface at:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> > >
> > > To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> >
�������������������������������������Ã
¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½
> > >
> >
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
> > Gambia-L Web interface
> > at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> >
> > To Search in the Gam bia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> > To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> >
> > ���������������������������������������������������������� To
> > unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> > Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> >
> > To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EX E?S1=gambia-l To contact
> > the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ����������������������������������������������������������
> >
>
> ����������������������������������������������������������
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> Gambia-l-requ [log in to unmask]
> ����������������������������������������������������������
Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary�get free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
