<B>By Touria PRAYAG</B>

A sad and shameful chapter was opened in the history of our country. With two charming fingers, the Prime Minister turned the page over, and the chapter was closed perhaps as quickly as it was opened. However, if the worst was avoided and whatever outbursts there were remained sporadic, it was partly due to our intelligence and maturity as a nation and partly to a responsible press which opened its pages in a measured way to various correspondents, leading the debate in the right direction: the Christian who sees in the Azaan a welcome sound he has become used to and learnt to enjoy. The great number of Moslems who see no necessity for a loudspeaker to call the faithful to prayer. The large number of level-headed editorialists, reporters and correspondents of all faiths who drew a parallel with other religions without showing disrespect for any.

Although this episode has left us with a strange aftertaste, its silver lining is that it has forced us to reflect upon the real implications of the role of religion in our secular lives.

We have, in the last few months, seen almost every single major event turn into a religious or communal crisis: the Educational Reform and the reactions to it, which started as a healthy debate, quickly turned into something ugly. Similarly, the Economic Reforms, namely exam subsidies, and the protests against these, took the shape of two platforms with almost clear-cut connotations. These connotations became frightfully clear when the debate spilled over into the University of Mauritius. The abortion debate was taking a good turn but as soon as Religion got involved in it, we were sent reeling back into the Middle Ages.

The ?Sexual Offences Bill? is being delayed because the opposition is asking for time to debate. I have no problem with reflecting and debating before passing a law. After all, if members of the Legal Profession want to add clauses to offer more protection for women, I am all for it. My worry is two-fold: First, how much reflection does it take to realize that rape is one of the most heinous crimes and that 60 years of three meals a day is hardly enough punishment? Also, how much reflection and debate is needed to make the difference between rape of any kind and consensual relationships between adults of a different sex or of the same sex? How long will it take, indeed, before we all come to the realization that what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom is not a matter which the criminal justice system should or is equipped to control?

Secondly, the debate has, as predicted, already taken religious overtones and, before we realize it, we will go back to square one. Of course, our religious leaders are entitled to their opinions which understandably are rooted in their religious convictions. However, legislation in a secular state goes beyond religious convictions and interests. The repeated use of the word ?sin? in the debate to justify why something should not be decriminalized reveals a terrible confusion between what is morally or religiously acceptable and what should be legal.

I have expressed, and reiterated, on several occasions, the respect I have for all the religions of the world and for the Men of God, but our secular republic can function harmoniously only if religion is kept out of the worldly issues which are meant for politics. Jean-Claude de l?Estrac sums this up exquisitely in l?express-dimanche when he says, ?dans un état démocratique,républicain et laic, ce n?est pas Dieu quel que soit le nom qu?on veuille lui donner qui fait les lois?

Maybe before turning the page to close this sad chapter of our lives, we might want to reflect a bit more on the meaning and purpose of religion and the role of the Criminal Justice System.