Misrule worse than no rule

July 5, 2012

Misrule worse than no rule

by Azmi Sharom (06-28-12) @www.thestar.com.my

Azmi Sharom asks: Can someone be charged for an corruption when during a element time there was no offence?

Din Merican replies: Only those goons in JAWI can since they have conferred upon themselves special powers; a Najib Government allows them to do as they please. It is all politics.

NIK Raina Nik Abdul Aziz is accused of committing a crime, a "crime" being a distribution of a book which a Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department (JAWI) does not like. If a sentence upon top of sounds a bit odd, which is since it is.

Nik Raina is a physical education instructor in a bookstore. She is not an owners of a bookstore, she is an employee.Therefore, she does not have any contend with regard to what book is being sold. She just manages a shop, as her job pretension entails.

Now she is being charged in a Syariah Court for distributing a criminialized book. But it is a book, it contingency be pronounced here, which during a time of a ostensible corruption was not essentially banned.Therefore, it was not bootleg to sell a book during a time.

Jawi raided a emporium she was working in upon May 23. Copies of a book were confiscated during a raid. The book was effectively deemed bootleg upon Jun 14.

So, upon what drift was Jawi confiscating a books? It is not formed upon a law, which is for sure, since no law was passed banning it until 22 days after a raid.

The usually reason which can exist is which JAWI disapproved of this book as well as took it upon itself to take movement even though there was no legal belligerent upon which it could do so. In alternative words, they didn't like a book so they motionless to raid a emporium as well as take a book.

Does this receptive to advice odd to you? Does it receptive to advice like a movement of a tyrannical state? It does to me. How can a chairman be charged for an corruption when during a time of a ostensible wrongful act, there was no offence? You can't possibly do which to a person.

There have been inherent provisions opposite such things. It is well known as insurance from retrospective legislation.

In alternative words, if you confirm to make it bootleg to wear yellow today, you can't assign someone for wearing yellow yesterday. To do so would lead to an implausible misapplication as well as a complete breakdown of a rule of law.

Now, since JAWI is an Islamic body, there have been some who hold they have been upon top of criticism. you desire to differ; it is since they have been a eremite entity which they contingency be open to criticism, especially if they handle in a way which is unjust.

This is since as a eremite group they have an even larger responsibility to not taint their actions with acts of cruelty, mean action as well as vindictiveness. For by you do so they debase a really conviction which they have been ostensible to be upholding.

But which is by a by. Any agency, be it eremite or secular, has no right to treat people in this way. They have no right to seize in isolation skill upon their whim, as well as they have no right to assign someone for a crime which does not exist.

!

That is a bottom line. If you concede anyone to do so, you have been simply throwing divided our democracy as well as a insurance which a rule of law provides us.

Read More @ Source

More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |

Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz