Where do I start? Last week was only three days old and already we had been forced to witness an unparalleled vision of hypocrisy and false outrage displayed by politicians and so called men of God; I find it difficult to believe that any God, even one endowed with unlimited amounts of benevolence and munificence, would ever play host to the prophets of doom currently polluting Paradise Island with their poisonous and divisive filth.

On Saturday, Maulana Chooramun had been summoned by the Central Criminal Investigation Department and told that it is illegal to hold any demonstration in front of Parliament when the National Assembly is sitting. Apparently, the self proclaimed man of God had decided that what the country needed most in these times of dire economic conditions was a jihad to overturn a judgement lawfully given by Judge Lam Shang Leen and which was based on clear and unarguable legal precedent. The basic concept of absolute separation of powers of the legislative, judiciary, and executive components of our democracy is apparently too difficult for the Maulana to understand and he wants the government to immediately overturn a lawful judgement of the Court. One should perhaps refrain from condemning the Maulana too much as it would seem that even elected members of Parliament, (including barristers, would you believe it!) also labour under the misapprehension that any judgement of the Courts that they do not like can and should be overturned by the simple expediency of the government passing a new law to make the old crime a new activity resplendent with shining, pristine lawfulness. This perverse interpretation of democracy is then given added pungency by the imposition of an ultimatum enhanced with the neat hypocritical touch of asking people to put the blame elsewhere should anyone die as a result of unspecified activities following the disregard of that silly ultimatum.

That was on Saturday. Did anyone really believe that any warning from an incompetent police force would persuade people hell bent on causing trouble to cancel their demonstration? On Tuesday, around three hundred of them gathered noisily outside l?hotel du gouvernement and this clearly illegal demonstration reached the zenith of absurdity when the Maulana was allowed to hand a letter to the prime minister and then promptly imposed another ultimatum which basically threatened another (illegal) demonstration on Friday if Ramgoolam refuses to dance to his tune. Those of us who really believe in the principles of democracy and on the supremacy of the law could only hope that Ramgoolam would stick rigidly to the John Travolta routine and direct the Maulana and his keffiyeh wearing supporters to the welcoming arms of a police force which would hopefully have learnt by then how to deal with illegal activities.

Manhandling a police officer in the presence of the Maulana

But that would be asking too much from a police force screaming for proper leadership. If you think that is too harsh, have a look at the photo in last Wednesday?s l?express where someone is manhandling a police officer in the presence of the Maulana and ask yourself whether this is the État de droit that our politicians love talking about.

But I have to thank the Maulana for opening my eyes about an individual who may have thought that anything I have written in the past about him was unfair. Last Friday, at a meeting, the Maulana apparently had this to say about minister Abu Kasenally: ?Il aurait dit que ce dernier n?était pas ?un vrai musulman? au vu de la position très modérée qu?il avait adoptée à l?issue du jugement de la Cour suprême.? Two things immediately spring to mind from such an inane statement: 1/ such a nasty, negative, and insulting comment by someone who has never been elected to anything can only mean that Kasenally does not share his poisonous views and therefore his moderateness is highly commendable. A ?moderate? is defined as someone who is ?opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion?; ?not violent or subject to extremes?; and ?being within reasonable limits?. This unintended compliment by the Maulana has made me reassess positively Kasenally?s standing as a man of decency. 2/ I shall leave the readers to consider the sheer arrogance of anyone to describe someone of his faith as a false believer or of lesser faith merely because of the person?s defence of the democratic principles that bind all of us in our duty to the nation. It is reminiscent of the language typically used by suicide bombers in Moslem countries in order to justify the butchery of innocent victims considered as ?not real? Moslems, the latest examples being found in the messages left by the bombers in Algeria and Morocco on Wednesday.

All the people of this island can only hope that the vast majority of decent, law abiding Moslems will express forcefully their disapproval of the men of violence who have hijacked a peace-loving religion based on the brotherhood of men and turned it into a sustained campaign of hatred based on the things that divide us. I despair at the slow Arabisation of some of my Moslem compatriots who seem to have abandoned the generosity of spirit and balanced approach of their forefathers from India and now prefer to identify themselves with a practice of Islam that was entirely foreign to their ancestors in Gujarat and Bihar. The keffiyeh looks good on the Palestinian people fighting the real and terrible oppression of the Jewish state but seems rather ludicrous and disproportionate on someone fighting? the Rule of Law.

Maulana Chooramun is not alone in trying to impose his narrow minded, shallow, prejudicially jaundiced view of the world on us; as usual, anyone competing in the hypocrisy stakes has to contend with our politicians who remain the acknowledged champions in that department. Hypocrisy is never more apparent than in the laws regarding sexual attitudes and behaviour and many of our pious, clean, faithfully married politicians never need a second invitation to air their prejudices in their desperate attempt to control our private lives. The latest embodiment of sanctimony and hypocritical devoutness is Pravind Jugnauth, who gave a hysterical outburst on Tuesday night on the Sexual Offences Bill. A proposed law that will at last clear the many legal and administrative confusions over sexual offences apparently needs a lot of time for our conscientious politicians to reflect upon; and I am left wondering whether all our lives would not be much better if they could spend a fraction of that time on reflecting on the perennial issues of corruption, fraud, and unexplained wealth that they are largely responsible for.

Explore sexuality in private and without any coercion

So what has got young Jugnauth so angry? Has that uncle of his been upsetting him again? No. He is angry because the government has decided to legalise a sex act that some people like to indulge in consensually and which concerns only the participants. Pravind Jugnauth is perfectly entitled to refuse to ever take part in such activities and he is even entitled to privately regard the whole subject as abhorrent; what he is not entitled to do is to impose his views, however sincerely he holds them, on couples who want to explore their sexuality in private and without any coercion used on either party. In other words, it is none of his business, just the same as his own sex life is entirely his private business and no one else?s.

The new law will not make it compulsory for adults to have buggery as part of their sexual repertoire; it is merely decriminalizing an activity that some people like to indulge in, which they find enjoyable, and which does not hurt them or anyone else. It comes squarely under chapter 2 of the Constitution of Mauritius for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, especially subsection 3(c) which enshrines the right of the individual to protection for the privacy of his home and the right to be subject to no law that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect. A law that criminalizes private, non commercial sexual activity between consenting adults on the spurious grounds of a subjective moral code of conduct is inherently unconstitutional mainly because there is insufficient justification for government interest in such behaviour.

Pravind Jugnauth calls the proposal by the government ?un scandale?; that is a feeble attempt at rabble rousing and is reminiscent of the childish accusations leveled at Valayden when he courageously put forward plans for a syringe/needle exchange programme in line with a WHO recommendation to combat AIDS. No, a scandal is when a Court finds in your favour in a scandalously undefended action and authorizes you as Minister of Finance to write a cheque for Rs 47 millions for your father.

There seems to be no end to the wave of hypocrisy washing over our daily lives lately. Prophets of doom have taken to repeating the slogans of Al Qaeda as justification for their distorted view of a noble religion and insult citizens who subscribe to a naturally gentler version of that religion as unworthy; second rate politicians appoint themselves as our moral guardians and we shake our heads and ask ourselves: Are we really going to take lessons in morality from these people?

It is time for someone to switch off the hypocrisy channel for good or at the very least put an adult rating on it; such vile outpouring of synthetic outrage and daily Pharisaism is inimical to the health of a nation that depends on tolerance and respect for its survival.

R.A.J.