M L Touray
It is clear you are mentally disturbed!
But let me tell you something, you see, you were a bit wrong about the story.
The woman i was found fucking was your mum, whilst your impotent father
watched on! You dickhead!
So i guess you can call me Daddy, cause the product of our bedroombolly was
you, muthafucker!
Next time you want to write about me fucking someone do remember, it was
your fucking mum and I'm your daddy! You illegitimate son of mine!
You stand here bragging to be the champion of free speech but cannot swallow
your own medicine.
When Halifa made his statement in reaction to the sentencing of the six journalists,
you didn't see any shortcomings in his speech, even though there were plenty
shortcommings in it. However, when Lawyer Darboe made his speech, it was ill-
conceived; you bastard!
Then you want to fool us that the constitution give us an unlimited free speech. All
you have been peddling here were lies and nothing but lies!
They said truth is bitter and i have nothing to fear from telling you or anyone else that
truth!
Weren't you calling Lawyer Darboe a coward for not writing anything about the journalists
arrest. When he finally made a statement, which was far bolder that of Halifa,
you criticised it as illconceived and you think you shouldn't be challenged! You bastard!
As for Karim Sanneh, you can come kiss my fucking ass and see if i care. Why don't
you delist me from G-L and see if i care! You sly, this is why i refuse to participate
in anything you organised or part of. You said i always insult people, have i ever insulted
you Karim?
You drunkard!
Just a piece of advice you, next time mind your damned business!
I aint scared of any censureship nonsense!
If you think i will seat and let you fools make fun of Ousainou based on
lies for the sake of not being censured, then you are mistaken!
Nemesis Yanks!
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:11:16 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot, edited
To: [log in to unmask]
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 is 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]>
To: [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!
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 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 3rd 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 High Court 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]
Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
To: [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 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
Subsection 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 sovereign authority, 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, Saudi 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 has 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]>
To: [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 remember 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 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?
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 were 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. The 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 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 I reiterate 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]
Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot
To: [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 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. We don’t think like that anymore in the 21st 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 choice 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 ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ����������������������������������������������������������
Internet Explorer 8 - accelerate your Hotmail. Download Internet Explorer 8
���������������������������������������������������������� 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] ����������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
|
