Quantcast
Channel: Suara Keadilan Malaysia
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 430

Shafee Framed and Fabricated the sodomy1and 2 now wants be sodomised a liability to Najib

$
0
0

Shafee’s penis  aroma seduced my nostrils. And as I prepared to enjoy it , he popped a question that left a queer taste in my mouth for his penis What is your opinion about gay marriage?

Dato’ Seri Shafee Abdullah  framed  that.. Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial the defence raised discrepancies over the charges framed and accuser in sodomy 1 ? And what do you think will happen in sodomy 2 ?

Sometimes you do not realise you are in the midst of a vast silence till it is pierced through with sound. Often, you may not notice noise until it ends abruptly and silence prevails. You may not notice how dark it is till a light is flicked on. Sometimes you do not know how agitated you have been, till a caressing hand calms you. The absence of some people makes you realise the significance of their presence.Mat Zain accuses  Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah   of being LIAR, FABRICATOR and MANIPULATOR.

the man who is the real mastermind behind this latest conspiracy to frame Anwar is Shafee Abdullah. Just days before the sodomy allegation exploded, and even before Saiful’s meeting with Rodwan on 25 June 2008, Shafee was in Najib’s house to attend a gathering. And in front of scores of witnesses he asked to be excused early because he ‘had a very big fish to catch’. Shafee conveniently made it known that he is behind the move to catch the ‘big fish’ and he wanted all those in Najib’s house to be aware that Najib was in the know. Actually, Najib did not know what he was talking about and assumed that the ‘big fish’ meant Raja Petra Kamarudin and was with regards to the Statutory Declaration that he had signed just days earlier on 18 June 2008.
Shafee was supposed to have led the prosecution against Anwar. A provision in the law called FIAT allows the Attorney-General to appoint an outsider to conduct the prosecution. If Shafee does well then he would most likely be appointed the next Attorney-General. When word got out that he is heading the special police operations centre, which was located in his office, they had to abandon the whole idea.
Shafee’s hands are behind the whole thing. And this can only happen with Abdullah’s blessing. No, it is not Mahathir who is behind this. And it is not Abdullah, Najib and Anwar who are the three victims. The victims are Mahathir, Najib and Anwar. Abdullah is the hidden hand and Shafee is the henchman who was tasked with the job of implementing the evil deed. Politics is not what it always appears to be in Malaysia.
Karpal urged trial judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah to issue a show-cause notice to Muhammad Shafee to explain the latter’s “unwarranted public attack” against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence statement from the dock.
Anwar, a former deputy prime minister, now heads the three-party opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pact. Besides being his political ally, Karpal is defending the PKR advisor who stands accused of sodomising a former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, three years ago in a luxury condominium here.
“If what was uttered by Anwar was contemptuous, it would have been contempt in the face of the court. It was for Justice Mohamad Zabidin to hold Anwar in contempt. He did not do so.
“Who is Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to question the wisdom of the trial judge?” Karpal demanded in a media statement today.
Muhammad Shafee, among Malaysia’s legal elites, is regarded as an expert on media contempt laws and was cited yesterday in Umno-owned Mingguan Malaysia calling Anwar’s defence statement as contemptuous.
The top-earning lawyer was reported telling the Attorney-General to step into the row and initiate contempt proceedings against Anwar.
The news was replicated today in other mainstream media, including New Straits Times, which quoted Muhammad Shafee as saying: “This will also prevent the presiding judge from being involved in any possible conflict in which the judge may be blinded by it.”
Karpal objected to Muhammad Shafee’s argument for the A-G’s intervention as unprecedented and defying logic.
“That itself amounts to contempt of court on the part of the judge who does so,” he said.
“Shafee should know a judge cannot interfere in a judicial proceeding in another court. It is axiomatic. It is elementary,” the Bukit Gelugor MP added.

Muhammad Shafee has also come under fire online after Anwar’s unsworn statement of defence from the dock, purportedly for interfering with the news coverage of the controversial court case by issuing certain instructions to mainstream media editors and reporters.

MALAYSIA’S FLIP-FLOP HISTORY CONFLICTING TESTIMONY WITNESS GIVES WHAT IS CLEAR IN THE SCANDAL IS THE BASTARDIZATION AND PROSTITUTION OF JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/images/uploads/mugshots/muhammad-shafee-abdullah2-april2.jpg
Sometimes, the formidable morphs into the pathetic for along time It’s all fixed juggernaut, with its potent combination of powerful interests seemed to carry such sweeping and overwhelming force that it looked to be above any challenge, criticism or scandal the same ability to enforce a conspiracy of silence is taking on an air of pathetic absurdityThe brute force of power has replaced the unwritten rules that governed behaviour as the primary arbiter of our actions. Protection and punishment. The two standard responses to we from a minister that both protection and punishment are necessary instruments for dealing with this problem, responding to Mat Zain’s insistence that police could investigate Gani based on the contents of his statutory declaration (SD) without lodging a police report.Mat Zain drew attention to Sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code related to information given to the police and their powers to investigate.Mat Zain had also alleged that Gani had deliberately lost the case, resulting in the ICJ ruling in favour of Singapore. He urged the authorities to investigate the reason Malaysia lost the island to Singapore, saying the matter involved the country’s sovereignty.The former cop had said the reason he came out with the SD was to convince Putrajaya to establish a royal commission of inquiry over the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh to Singaporebut clearly much more is involved. The current idea of action seems to be focused on either preventing an incident that has already happened by limiting the focus to the very set of circumstances that were involved illusion the past, or to run away from the complexity of the proble

Judges part of conspiracy to frame Anwar

Did the conspiracy to frame Anwar Ibrahim on trumped-up charges extend higher than the Attorney-General and Public Prosecutors? Did it also involve the Trial Judge as well?
If, in the beginning, these were just suspicions, today, we can safely say that the Trial Judge was certainly part of the conspiracy, maybe even the most important component in that gang of slime balls.
What was revealed via Anwar Ibrahim’s latest Affidavit filed in the Federal Court on Friday, 14 March 2003, is most interesting. This Affidavit contains copies of three letters that a prominent lawyer,Manjeet Singh Dhillon, wrote – one addressed to the recently-retired Chief Justice.
If – and I repeat “IF” – up to now the claim that Anwar Ibrahim is a victim of a frame-up was but a mere allegation, this new Affidavit and its three attachments now prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.
Little wonder the court panicked and decided to postpone Anwar’s Judicial Review scheduled for yesterday. Officially, they need more time to “find two more judges”. Word from our contacts in court, however, is they need more time to study this Affidavit.
The truth is, they probably need more time to confer with the Acting Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, or look for Dr Mahathir Mahathir Mohamad who is holidaying somewhere around the world to obtain further instructions on how to conduct a “damage control” exercise.
Those who know how the corrupt Malaysian judiciary works (the best money can buy) say this new and most damaging piece of evidence is not going to change anything. They have already written the judgment before even sitting down to hear the case.
This may be so as far as the legal aspects of the case is concerned. But it is not so easy as far as the “political fallout” is concerned. In the end, the powers-that-be will still have to face the voters come next election and the “court of public opinion” might not concur with how the court rules.
Remember, in an open hearing, the public is allowed to witness the proceedings and, for sure, what transpires will be widely reported all over the world.
However, there are a few things they can do to “soften” the blow:
1) Refuse to allow this new Affidavit to be admitted into the hearing. Therefore no one will know about it.
2) Hold the Judicial Review the day the US attacks Iraq. Then the whole world’s focus will be on the US-Iraq war and no one will pay attention to the Anwar trial.
3) Hold the Judicial Review for just five minutes, say that the court has considered the application for a Judicial Review and has found that there are no grounds for one, and then adjourn without further discussion.
The betting counter is now open. Which plan do you think they will adopt?
“It has been brought to my knowledge that, on the 26th of February 2003, one of my counsels, ZainurZakaria, faxed  copies of letters he received from Manjeet Singh Dhillon to Christopher Fernando (another of Anwar’s counsels),” said Anwar in his 14 March 2003 Affidavit.
“The letter sent to Zainur Zakaria  contained an enclosure which is a letter written by Manjeet SinghDhillon to the Chief Justice (the recently retired one) where  Manjeet Singh Dhillon made a formal complaint against Justice Augustine Paul (the trial judge) for improper conduct in the Zainur Zakariacase which occurred during my trial.”
“These two letters were faxed to Fernando as he is my lead counsel in my upcoming appeal (the second, sodomy, conviction) before the Court of Appeal beginning on the 24th of March, 2003, and obviously also because what is stated in those letters affect me and the trial process I was subjected to.”
“This evidence was not available to me during my trial and this evidence is relevant to my case. Such evidence is credible and believable coming from a witness who is a senior and respected Advocate and Solicitor and a former Chairman of the Bar Council. Last but not least, this evidence would have had a decidedly important influence on the outcome of my case.”
Anwar then relates what transpired that would make this incident crucial to his case:
“Manjeet Singh Dhillon was requested by Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (the Attorney-General then who has been in a comma since the last few months) to see him before proceedings for the proposed contempt proceedings against himself and Zainur Zakaria began that morning.”
“The request was made through Manjeet’s counsel, Jagjeet Singh.”
“Manjeet reluctantly agreed and met with Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. They met at the anteroom at the courthouse in the presence of Datuk Abdul Gani Patail (the Public Prosecutor), Datuk Azhar Mohamad (another of the Prosecutors), and Jagjeet Singh.”
“Upon seeing Manjeet, Tan Sri Mohtar went up and hugged him and turned around and told Abdul Ganiand Azhar that Manjeet was an altruist and apologized to Manjeet for not having done anything on his letter in which he had leveled accusations against the two Prosecutors.”
“Tan Sri Mohtar added that he had not as yet taken this matter up with his officers.”
“Manjeet responded by reminding Tan Sri Mohtar that he had made very serious allegations against his officers and had written to him expecting something to be done but that nothing had been done.”
This letter that they are talking about is the complaint Manjeet sent Tan Sri Mohtar regarding AbdulGani and Azhar attempting to extort fabricated evidence from his (Manjeet’s) client Datuk NallaKaruppan to be used against Anwar in exchange for Nalla’s life.
“Tan Sri Mohtar did not deny or refute Manjeet’s allegations against his officers and both Abdul Ganiand Azhar remained silent.”
Though faced with the prospect of a death sentence if he does not “cooperate”, in September 1998, Datuk Nalla Karuppan made a signed statement denying that Anwar was involved in any sexual improprieties.
During the course of Anwar’s trial, Manjeet and Zainur brought this matter to the attention of the court. However, instead of acting on the information, the judge, Augustine Paul, asked the two lawyers to withdraw the allegation and apologise or else he would hold them in contempt.
When Zainur refused to do so, this angered the judge and, in a move that shocked the entire legal fraternity, he cited Zainur for contempt and sentenced him to three months jail; a most unusual and perplexing move indeed.
“This unusual attitude of the trial court had effectively deprived me of the opportunity of exposing an evil plot against me to secure my conviction by devious means, perpetrated by none other than the two main prosecutors in my case, one of whom is now the Attorney General,” argued Anwar.
Zainur Zakaria subsequently appealed against his contempt conviction and three-month sentence and the Federal Court acquitted him on grounds that there was indeed an attempt to fabricate evidence against Anwar and that Zainur was right in bringing it up.
The question now one needs to ask is, if Zainur was right in bringing this matter up as it was true, how would this affect Anwar’s guilty verdict which, therefore, was obtained based on fabricated evidence?

What is your opinion about gay marriage?

Reiterating its support to the Supreme Court order recriminalizing consensual sex among gay adults, BJP said it favoured the verdict and would not support any “unnatural act”. We have a culture and tradition and this goes against it. One cannot allow a new culture of this kind,that homosexuality was against the established norms of society.  The SC verdict while others, in of-the-record conversations, had appeared sympathetic to the LGBT community’s cause  only bans sexual conduct that goes against the order of nature. A reading down of this law can be that to be born with gay tendencies cannot be against the order of nature. The court does not have to legalize or illegalize such a thing. It is not against the order of nature,”

MUMBAI: It had taken one Facebook post and barely 48 hours to spread the message. On Sunday afternoon, at 3.05pm, groups of men and women wearing black dotted the street nearMatunga’s Maheshwari Garden. Over the next hour, the crowd swelled until hundreds trooping into the garden, armed with banners and chants, to protest the Supreme Court verdict upholding section 377.

But the support rally was not limited to Mumbai. It was part of a global movement to speak out against the Supreme Court’s decision, with similar protests having been planned in other cities, such as Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Pune, London, Toronto and New York. Sunday was declared the Global Day of Outrage, and the participants at Matunga spanned ages, nationalities and sexual orientations. There were parents supporting LGBT kids, college students, theatre and film personalities, expats, foreign tourists and activists.

“If expressing love for another human being is considered a crime, I don’t think I know the definition of ‘crime’, said Kala Ramnathan, who was at the rally to support her gay daughter, and protest what she termed an attack on human rights. “Peeping into people’s bedrooms is against even the very basic idea of morality.” Aruna Desai, who was there to support her son, said that deciding how other people should live their lives was something lawmakers had no business interfering in.

“How can you dictate how two people should live? I completely disagree with the judgment.” Desai said.

A Canada-based filmmaker , speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that it was disgraceful to see the world’s largest democracy take such a hugely regressive decision. “If India wants to be considered a leader among nations, it needs to be a leader among human rights as well.” The rights of LGBT people, she said, should not be considered “special” but as natural as those of any other citizen.

“What kind of place are we looking at where the human rights of a community are taken away,” asked scriptwriter Gazal Dhaliwal, who was born a male, but is a woman today, having had sex reassignment surgery. “And, for the BJP president, Rajnath Singh, to say what he said, and that we won’t dent their vote bank… They will soon see that we can make a difference.”

Manvendra Singh Gohil, founder of the Lakshya Trust and known as the first Indian royal to come out as gay, said the huge turnout was heartening. “There is great solidarity within the LGBT movement,” he said. “We may have differences of opinion on many things but at times like these, I’m very proud of how united we are. All we’re asking is our right to live equally like other citizens.”

“Everybody is on the same page-how do we go on from here? More people are realizing that it’s a wider human rights issue,” said Ashok Row Kavi, founder of Humsafar Trust. “There is outrage now, yes, but also a quiet determination.”

NEW DELHI: The ‘Global Day of Rage’ protest atJantar Mantar saw for the first time students in uniform protesting re-criminalization ofhomosexuality in India. More than 50 students, studying in Classes IX to XII at Tagore International School in south Delhi, held placards saying ’377 Quit India’ and ‘no going back’ on Sunday.”If we talk about celebrating diversity in India, this is where we need to start,” said Tanya Bhardwaj, a Class XI student. She said a homosexual need not hide himself or herself. “You don’t need to hide yourself. We are supportive of the person that you are. This is the message that the student community wanted to spread to people today,” said Safina Amin, another student.

The students said that their campaign against re-criminalizing homosexuality stemmed from recent workshops held at their school to create awareness about the LGBT community.

Tagore International School has been holding awareness, sensitization and rights (ASR) campaign for students and teachers of Class IX to XII to create awareness about issues related to the LGBT community in association with CREA-a feminine human rights organization-since August.

They currently have 30 student members in their Vasant Vihar branch and 20 members in the East of Kailash branch, said Shivanee Sen, the program coordinator and assistant counselor at the school. Sen was present at Jantar Mantar with the students.

“It’s not just about being the pioneer. We wanted to do whatever we could to garner support for the rights of the LGBT community,” Sen said.

Another teacher, Ishita Mukherjee, said the experience was an eye-opener. “It is adult, it is consensual, it is private and it is okay; students understand this and it’s amazing to see their sensitivity at such a tender age. We need to give them a platform to drop their inhibitions and be themselves,” she said.

Madhulika Sen, principal, Tagore International School, Vasant Vihar said that there are many myths and concerns about the LGBT community and that the workshops initiated at their school aimed to address those issues. “Students need to be made more aware and need to know their human rights,” she said.liberal opinion that enjoys a virtual monopoly of the airwaves pilloried the Supreme Court for what some feel was its most disgraceful judgment since the infamous Habeas Corpus case of 1976. The decision to overturn the Delhi High Court judgment taking consensual same-sex relationships outside the purview of criminal laws has been viewed as an unacceptable assault on individual freedom and minority rights and even an expression of bigotry. Overcoming fears of a virulent conservative backlash, mainstream politicians have expressed their disappointment at the judgment and happily begun using hitherto unfamiliar shorthand terms such as LGBT.

Indeed, the most striking feature of the furore over the apex court judgment has been the relatively small number of voices denouncing homosexuality as ‘unnatural’ and deviant. This conservative passivity may even have conveyed an impression that India is changing socially and politically at a pace that wasn’t anticipated. Certainly, the generous overuse of ‘alternative’ to describe political euphoria and cultural impatience may even suggest that tradition has given way to post-modernity.

Yet, before urban India is equated with the bohemian quarters of New York and San Francisco, some judgmental restraint may be in order. The righteous indignation against conservative upholders of family values are not as clear cut as may seem from media reports. There are awkward questions that have been glossed over and many loose ends that have been left dangling.

A year ago, a fierce revulsion against the rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi led to Parliament amending the Penal Code and enacting a set of laws that extended the definition of rape and made punishment extremely stringent. It was the force of organized public opinion that drove the changes. Curiously, despite the Supreme Court judgment stating quite categorically that it was the responsibility of Parliament to modify section 377, there seems to be a general aversion to pressuring the law-makers to do their job and bring the criminal law system into the 21st century. Is it because India is bigoted or is there a belief that there are some issues that are best glossed over in silence?

This dichotomy of approach needs to be addressed. Conventionally, it is the job of the legislatures to write laws and for the judiciary to assess their accordance with the Constitution and to interpret them. In recent years, the judiciary has been rightly criticised for over-stepping its mark and encroaching into the domain of both the executive and the legislatures. Yet, we are in the strange situation today of the government seeking to put the onus of legitimising homosexuality on the judges.

Maybe there are larger questions involved. The battle over 377 was not between a brute majoritarianism and a minority demanding inclusion. The list of those who appealed against the Delhi High Court verdict indicates it was a contest between two minorities: religious minorities versus lifestyle minorities. Formidable organizations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and some church bodies based their opposition to gay rights on theology. Liberal promoters of sexual choice on the other hand based the claim of decriminalised citizenship on modernity and scientific evidence. In short, there was a fundamental conflict between the constitutionally-protected rights of minority communities to adhere to faiths that abhor same-sex relationships and the right of gays to live by their own morals. Yet, if absolute libertarianism was to prevail, can the khap panchayats be denied their perverse moral codes?

The answer is yes but only if it is backed by majority will, expressed through Parliament. Harsh as it may sound, it is the moral majority that determines the social consensus.

There is a curious paradox here. On the question of gay rights, liberal India prefers a cosmopolitanism drawn from the contemporary West. At the same time, its endorsement of laws that are nondenominational and non-theological does not extend to support for a common civil code. Despite the Constitution’s Directive Principles, the right of every citizen to be equal before the law is deemed to be majoritarian and therefore unacceptable by the very people who stood up for inclusiveness last week.

For everything that is true of India, the opposite is turning out to be equally true.



Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 430

Trending Articles