The recent judgment of Justice Lam Shang Leen has sparked off a series of reactions that were not expected and cannot be condoned in a republican democracy of ours. Our society is governed by the rule of law and most important our Constitution, which guarantees basic human rights including the right to practice our religion. Whilst our constitution guarantees the most fundamental rights it does not mean that Mauritians have only rights to be enjoyed and that they have no duties. Without the concept of duty that one owes to the other and which duty must be strictly enforced, our society will disintegrate. Thus again, we can safely say that no right is absolute in as much as we exercise our rights to the extent that we do not encroach upon the rights of others.

The applicant in the above case went to court in fact to say ?look I am a citizen of this country and I need the protection of he the law as guaranteed by our Constitution. Some people are not respecting my right.? The judge had no option but to give effect to the letter and word of our law and broadly the Constitution, though in this case no breach of the Constitution was invoked. It is not for the first time that our courts have had to deal with an application similar to that of Mr Glover.

In the case of Dr Aumeer & Others vs l?Assemblée de Dieu (1988) the applicants of a residential area complained that the use of loudspeakers for the transmission of their prayers, etc. was a cause of nuisance and annoyance to them. The judge had no difficulty to apply the law and to give an order preventing the members and officers of the said church from using the loudspeakers outside the boundaries of their church. There was no protest from any quarter.

Later in 1995, the court in the case of Elias Issimdar vs L?Assemblée de Dieu did not hesitate to grant a similar and further observed ?the right of good neighbourhood also includes the duty to practice one?s faith in such a way as not to disturb others. Failure to respect that principle may engender intolerance from others and this may result in unhappy consequences.? There was no protest in that case.

In the same year the court was faced with another application in the case of Roshan Hurlall s& others vs Harvest Church. As is to be expected the judge had no difficulty in ruling that the use of loudspeakers which was a cause of nuisance and annoyance had to be stopped. Yet there was no protest.

And in Mayaram vs Coromandel Sarvajanik Hindu Sanatan Dharma Sabha Justice, Mrs Peeroo had no problem to issue an order to prevent those responsible for running the above temple from using loudspeakers in the manner they were using it and it may be pointed out that the order was issued when a popular and important ceremony (Durga Puja) was being celebrated by the Hindus. No protest was noted.

So I cannot understand how and why the Honourable members of our National Assembly, Messrs Lauthan, Mohamed, Husnoo, Cader Said Hossen and, Soodhun have forgotten suddenly their roles as politicians, and their party differences. Should these people be reminded that they have been democratically elected by the Mauritians in the republic of Mauritius to serve the Mauritian public at large; defending such a narrow sectarian interest does not do honour to them.There was a time when the MMM would not tolerate the slightest communal behaviour from its members and readily invoke its constitution. I am sure Mr Lauthan is not being acclaimed for the political mileage he thinks he is reaping. And what about Mr Mohamed? He is definitely embarrassing his leader, Dr Navin Ramgoolam, I think that though the Labour Party allows for a lot of flexibility to its members in their public behaviour it does not allow such politically crude outcries. Mr Mohamed?s behaviour is most unfair towards his leader, specially when the latter is going through so much pressure for the bold measures he is taking for the country. I have not yet seen him defending the latter with the same vigour.

And amongst the protesters there is also the son of a judge and a budding politician. Have all these people rightly measured the implication of their behaviour? Anyway Mauritians are tolerant but they do not like intolerance; they are generally fair-minded and have always condemned extremism. They have time and again relied on the ballot box to vindicate their feelings and sense of fairness and those who have to seek votes cannot be insensitive to this, unless they want to set up a party of their own along the lines upon which they are operating now and then engage in a futile election campaign.

REPUBLICAN