by Deepa BHOOKHUN

I have two seemingly stupid questions to ask you.

Question one: What do you do when you are not happy with a court ruling? Do you hold a press conference? appeal against the ruling? put pressure on government to amend laws to counteract the judgment?

I don?t know what your answer is going to be but I personally thought that reasonable people, the more so if they are themselves lawyers, would logically appeal, hoping for the best. The only reason I thought this is because we are repeatedly told that we live in a country where the rule of law is supreme.

I am, of course, referring to the judgment of Paul Lam Shang Leen, who has decreed that the use of loudspeakers outside a mosque in Quatre-Bornes is illegal because it interferes with the citizen?s right not to be disturbed by noise. Now, of course, the ?platform? composed of several lawyers and MPs, all of Muslim faith, is not openly contesting the ruling of the Supreme Court - they are too clever for this. What they are instead doing is gathering a pressure group to demand (none too subtly) that government amends existing regulations to exclude from the definition of noise pollution anything to do with the practice of religion.

This ?group? has practically made sure that government will positively consider their request (if such a word can be used). What is not said but is underlying in the way this group has been constituted is the latent threat. In other words, ?leave our religion well alone.?

Which brings me to my other stupid question.

Question two: When you voted in the last general elections, did you vote for a particular candidate because

They were of the same ethnic group as you?

They belonged to a political party that you support?

They seemed to be worthy candidates?

I am sure some retards must have voted for candidates simply because they share the same faith. I am also sure that most people have voted for a particular candidate because they ran for a particular party. Can one please explain in that case, what members of Parliament are doing, sitting a college, surrounded by members of a particular religion, to try and put pressure on government on a matter decided by a court of law?

If Shakeel Mohammed, Cader Sayed Hossen, Showkutally Soodun, Reza Issack, Sam Lauthan and Anwar Husnoo are bored, then I suggest they go play football to release some of their pent-up energy. What they cannot do, what they mustn?t do is gang up with people of their faith, create a sense that they have been discriminated against and try to exacerbate latent communal feelings.

If they are not happy being members of Parliament, if they are not ready to be responsible Mauritian citizens respectful of institutions - regardless of their faith and religion - then they might as well resign.

They were not elected to play dangerous games in the name of religion.