Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen is a well-known controversial judge Mauritian judge. He is believed to be a very bias and prejudiced judge, and many people want him to resign in the interests of justice.
Jean Francois Blais is an aggrieved party who claims that Lam Shang Leen manipulated the case brought by his mother against Coomarduth Dewokee, and he wrote to the judge in person and to other personalities, including the President and the Prime Minister.
Mr Blais's criticisms were considered as an attempt to discredit Lam Shang Leen, and the DPP brought a case against him. The case was heard by Mrs Judge Balgobin who judged that Mr Blais was trying, not to criticise the Judge for his behaviour which he felt was manipulative and against the interests of justice, but to "discredit" him, and sentenced Mr Blais to four months imprisonment.
This judgement tells us that Mauritius is fast becoming a dictatorial state as the judiciary does not allow the people to criticise judges. Lam Shang Leen is infamous for deciding against a party and work the facts backwards to 'fit' his 'judgement'. The case of the Azaan is a perfect example of that. He even went to the extent, as a non-Muslim, to tell Muslims what is and what is not important for their prayers.
The Mauritian appeal judges are the same judges who decide in the first instance. Lam Shang Leen also sits in the Appeal Court. People cannot afford expensive appeals to the Privy Council. Most of those who appeal the the Privy Council win their cases, proving that there is no justice in Mauritius.
Politicians must ensure that judges can render justice, and must pass laws to allow people to criticise them. Judges stick for one other.
Find below the article from the Mauritian newspaper l'Express of 6th August 2007. I am sure people will agree that Paul lam Shang Leen must resign.
My feeling is that Jean Francois Blais is a Creole. If he were a Blanc, Judge Balgobin would most probably have put her tail between her legs, and interpreted the facts differently. Judge Balgobin should not have heard the case; it should have been left to a foreign judge or the case should have been heard by a jury.
Yacoob Azan
California
http://www.lexpress.mu/archive_semaine/display_article.php?news_id=91434
DECISION JUDICIAIRE
Quatre mois de prison pour calomnies contre un juge
Quatre mois de prison pour avoir voulu discréditer un juge, scandalisant, ce faisant, la Cour suprême. Voilà la peine dont a écopé Jean François Blais. Cet homme avait adressé une lettre au juge Paul Lam Shang Leen, dans laquelle il avait fait des allégations malveillantes contre lui. Lettre dont une copie avait aussi été envoyée à plusieurs personnalités du pays, dont le président de la République et le Premier ministre.
La mère de Blais avait intenté un procès à un dénommé Coomarduth Dewokee. Et Jean François Blais accuse le juge Lam Shang Leen d’avoir manipulé le déroulement du procès en question. Pour la juge Premila Balgobin, ces allégations sont fausses, gratuites et sans fondement. Leur but, estime-t-elle, est de discréditer le juge Lam Shang Leen.
Il est d’ailleurs à souligner que ce n’est pas la première fois que Blais adresse des lettres contenant de fausses allégations contre des juges. Il a admis avoir envoyé huit lettres de cette nature, dont celle écrite le 16 mai 2007 pour réclamer la démission du juge Lam Shang Leen.
La juge Balgobin s’est, en outre, dite étonnée par l’attitude de Blais. Ce dernier n’a montré aucun signe de remords en Cour. Il a écopé d’une peine de quatre mois de prison. Le Directeur des poursuites publiques était représenté par Me Iqbal Maghooa, Assistant Parliamentary Counsel, dans cette affaire.
Showing posts with label Paul Lam Shang Leen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Lam Shang Leen. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Thursday, 19 April 2007
South Korean Christian Suicide Terrorist Cho Seung-Hui Guns Down 32 in the name of Jesus
South Korean churchgoer Cho Seung-Hui terrorised the campus of Virginia Tech, USA, and gunned down 32 of the students and staff alike before killing himself. In an attempt to cover-up his motives for such a massacre, Larry Hincker, a university spokesman made out that : “He was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him,”
No reasonable person can possibly believe that a pro-zionist police state like the USA is finding it very hard to obtain information on Cho Seung-Hui. In fact, all information is in government records and on file before he was admitted at the university.
Although Cho Seung-Hui and his family are described as churchgoers, the Church they go to has not been identified and no one is talking about interviewing his Priest and whether he kept a Bible in his room. If he were a Muslim, all hell would have broken loose, a Koran would have been found in his room, and links with so-called fanatics, extremists and the non-existent ‘Al-Qaida’ would have been swiftly found with justification to bomb and invade an ‘unfriendly’ country and arrest Muslims at home. But, in this case, the authorities prefer to call him “twisted”, a “troubled loner”, “insane”, with “grievances” against the university, which are all sheer fabrication laid bare in the Jewish-controlled media all over the USA in order to distract people from the real problem. They ‘know’ all this about him after claiming ‘difficulty’ in finding information about him.
Of all the victims of Cho Seung-Hui terror, that media only finds one lonely “brave” person, 76 year old Jewish Rumanian Professor Liviu Librescu who was also shot dead, and whom they referred to as a ‘holocaust survivor’. I wonder what sort of survivors are those who escaped the bullets of Cho Seung-Hui !
The indications are that the South Korean Cho Seung-Hui had a grudge against the United States and the South Korean government. He is against the occupation of South Korea by American terrorists who are manipulating the South Korean puppet government. He wants Americans out of South Korea and he is for its unification with North Korea. He is well-trained in the Japanese suicide (kamikaze) techniques, and finds American Universities as accomplices to the American racist politics of terror and occupation because their books are controlled by Zionists and they feed people with lies. He did not have any specific grievances against the Virginia Tech as the Jewish-controlled press is reporting. It appears that his mind was already made up before he joined the university. He would have done the same in any University he would have joined.
Excerpts from Cho Seung-Hui’s video (Added 19/04/07):
“You just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart and ripping my soul all this time.”
"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
The USA is an ‘État de Droit’ where every person has the right to possess a gun. This is guaranteed under the American constitution. It was therefore easy for the churchgoer Cho Seung-Hui to buy a gun and ammunition and go on his killing spree. This killing culture is at the heart of American society which is built upon the killing of Indians. In fact, the laws allowing guns were originally for the purpose of killing Indians. American foreign policy is no different. They support Jewish terror in Palestine, and they are in occupation of countries such as Iraq & Afghanistan where they are killing people in the same way in their own countries. Also remember Vietnam. Cho Seung-Hui is merely following the gun-ho footsteps of George Bush and its allies, something which everyone must condemn.
Paul Lam Shang Leen twisted decisions & Cho Seung-Hui twisted mind
Mauritians must be very careful about the use of this elusive term ‘Ètat de Droit’, which means everything and nothing. This has been evoked in the context of anti-Muslim Paul Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring the Azaan (the call for prayer for Muslims) through loudspeakers unlawful, and, in a separate case, declaring the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections as being corrupt and unlawful because he promised Muslims a cemetery to bury their dead. What is an ‘État de Droit’ for Mauritius is not so for Arabia or the United States. The American Gun Laws (or laws on sodomy or homosexuality) do not form part of the laws of Mauritius. This is not an ‘État de Droit’ which Mauritius wants. In Mauritius, protests may be called ‘illegal’ but in France protests are the citizen’s fundamental right and no permission is needed from anyone. A citizen who exercises the right of protest cannot be regarded as indulging in any illegal activity, whatever this ‘law’ may say. Declaring protests illegal, such as the protests against Lam shang Leen’s judgment, is a feature of tyranny.
Paul Lam Shang Leen’s judgment against the Azaan is both racist and designed to stab every Muslim in the heart thus causing social unrest in the country, but people should not allow themselves to be provoked and should campaign for the laws to be changed for their own protection. The Mauritian government must not regard their protests as unlawful. Similarly, the terrorist Cho Seung-Hui killed so many innocent people to provoke a social backlash, but people should not allow him to succeed in his sinister action. They must protest and campaign for those terrorist Gun Laws to be changed for their own protection. Through his bias against Muslims, Lam Shang Leen has made Muslims feel insecure in Mauritius while, through his hate of American policies, Cho Seung-Hui has made every Chinese looking person feel insecure in the USA.
Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 18 April 2007
No reasonable person can possibly believe that a pro-zionist police state like the USA is finding it very hard to obtain information on Cho Seung-Hui. In fact, all information is in government records and on file before he was admitted at the university.
Although Cho Seung-Hui and his family are described as churchgoers, the Church they go to has not been identified and no one is talking about interviewing his Priest and whether he kept a Bible in his room. If he were a Muslim, all hell would have broken loose, a Koran would have been found in his room, and links with so-called fanatics, extremists and the non-existent ‘Al-Qaida’ would have been swiftly found with justification to bomb and invade an ‘unfriendly’ country and arrest Muslims at home. But, in this case, the authorities prefer to call him “twisted”, a “troubled loner”, “insane”, with “grievances” against the university, which are all sheer fabrication laid bare in the Jewish-controlled media all over the USA in order to distract people from the real problem. They ‘know’ all this about him after claiming ‘difficulty’ in finding information about him.
Of all the victims of Cho Seung-Hui terror, that media only finds one lonely “brave” person, 76 year old Jewish Rumanian Professor Liviu Librescu who was also shot dead, and whom they referred to as a ‘holocaust survivor’. I wonder what sort of survivors are those who escaped the bullets of Cho Seung-Hui !
The indications are that the South Korean Cho Seung-Hui had a grudge against the United States and the South Korean government. He is against the occupation of South Korea by American terrorists who are manipulating the South Korean puppet government. He wants Americans out of South Korea and he is for its unification with North Korea. He is well-trained in the Japanese suicide (kamikaze) techniques, and finds American Universities as accomplices to the American racist politics of terror and occupation because their books are controlled by Zionists and they feed people with lies. He did not have any specific grievances against the Virginia Tech as the Jewish-controlled press is reporting. It appears that his mind was already made up before he joined the university. He would have done the same in any University he would have joined.
Excerpts from Cho Seung-Hui’s video (Added 19/04/07):
“You just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart and ripping my soul all this time.”
"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
The USA is an ‘État de Droit’ where every person has the right to possess a gun. This is guaranteed under the American constitution. It was therefore easy for the churchgoer Cho Seung-Hui to buy a gun and ammunition and go on his killing spree. This killing culture is at the heart of American society which is built upon the killing of Indians. In fact, the laws allowing guns were originally for the purpose of killing Indians. American foreign policy is no different. They support Jewish terror in Palestine, and they are in occupation of countries such as Iraq & Afghanistan where they are killing people in the same way in their own countries. Also remember Vietnam. Cho Seung-Hui is merely following the gun-ho footsteps of George Bush and its allies, something which everyone must condemn.
Paul Lam Shang Leen twisted decisions & Cho Seung-Hui twisted mind
Mauritians must be very careful about the use of this elusive term ‘Ètat de Droit’, which means everything and nothing. This has been evoked in the context of anti-Muslim Paul Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring the Azaan (the call for prayer for Muslims) through loudspeakers unlawful, and, in a separate case, declaring the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections as being corrupt and unlawful because he promised Muslims a cemetery to bury their dead. What is an ‘État de Droit’ for Mauritius is not so for Arabia or the United States. The American Gun Laws (or laws on sodomy or homosexuality) do not form part of the laws of Mauritius. This is not an ‘État de Droit’ which Mauritius wants. In Mauritius, protests may be called ‘illegal’ but in France protests are the citizen’s fundamental right and no permission is needed from anyone. A citizen who exercises the right of protest cannot be regarded as indulging in any illegal activity, whatever this ‘law’ may say. Declaring protests illegal, such as the protests against Lam shang Leen’s judgment, is a feature of tyranny.
Paul Lam Shang Leen’s judgment against the Azaan is both racist and designed to stab every Muslim in the heart thus causing social unrest in the country, but people should not allow themselves to be provoked and should campaign for the laws to be changed for their own protection. The Mauritian government must not regard their protests as unlawful. Similarly, the terrorist Cho Seung-Hui killed so many innocent people to provoke a social backlash, but people should not allow him to succeed in his sinister action. They must protest and campaign for those terrorist Gun Laws to be changed for their own protection. Through his bias against Muslims, Lam Shang Leen has made Muslims feel insecure in Mauritius while, through his hate of American policies, Cho Seung-Hui has made every Chinese looking person feel insecure in the USA.
Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 18 April 2007
Friday, 6 April 2007
Mohamad Vayid does not speak for Muslims
As President of the National Economic and Social Council, Mr Mohamed Vayid does not speak for Muslims. By totally and unequivocally agreeing with the disgraceful and shameful judgment of Paul Lam Shang Leen against the right to use loudspeakers for the azaan (the call for prayer) at the Quatre Bornes mosque Hidayat-E-Islam, Mr Vayid clearly demonstrates, like the judge, equal contempt for Muslims and Islam.
That Mohamed Vayid is an intellectual is in no doubt, but this does not prevent intellectuals from being biased, prejudiced and even corrupt. In fact, intellectuals are proportionally more corrupt than ordinary people because they are in positions of authority and they abuse the confidence of ordinary people. Judges are no exception.
Vayid is reported to have said : " Nous sommes solidaires avec le jugement du juge Lam Shang Leen concernant l'utilisation des haut-parleurs. Il démontre que le cadre légal actuel est suffisant pour assurer la protection et le confort des citoyens. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'amender la loi pour atteindre ces objectifs". He goes on to say that it is not in the interests of the parties concerned to appeal against this judgment, as, according to him, this would delay "un retour à la normale dans les relations communautaires et, peut-être, risque d'exacerber les passions. " He also said that the judgment, including Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring null and void the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections because Mr Jugnauth made an electoral promise for the creation of a Muslim cemetery, confirms that Mauritius Maurice “n'est pas une République bananière et qu'elle est un Etat de droit”.
I would like to ask Mauritians to consider the following:
1. Mohamed Vayid may be a Muslim, but he segregates himself from the majority of Muslims because he considers them inferior to him and his clique. He is not an expert on Islam and has no lessons to give to Muslims. By agreeing with the injustice created by Lam Shang Leen, he proves that he himself does not have a sense of justice and tolerance which he claims.
2. Although not specifically mentioned in the Holy Quran, the azaan is an obligation. It is a call for prayer and is not confined to the four walls of a mosque. In modern times, especially in big towns and cities, the use of loudspeakers is instrumental to this obligation. If Vayid has any notion of tolerance, he should know that non-Muslims must respect this in the same way that Muslims must respect the practices of non-Muslims, including atheists.
3. Vayid must learn that bad laws must be changed, and bad judges must be removed. Mahatma Gandhi did not gain the freedom of his country by respecting bad laws. The slaves were not liberated through the respect of bad laws. How many corrupt judges have sentenced slaves to death in their so-called ‘État de droit’? How many criminals are on the loose, and how many innocents are imprisoned by corrupt and prejudiced judges?
4. What does Vayid mean by ‘État de droit’? He is merely putting dust in people’s eyes. Laws are enacted, amended, repealed. He does not need to be a lawyer to know this. He argues that Mauritius is an ‘État de droit’ and not a banana republic, but at the same time he tells the parties concerned not to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s judgment. If he really believed in an ‘État de droit’, he would have advised the parties concerned to go right through the Privy Council to gain justice. By his own admission, he is effectively saying that Mauritius is indeed a banana republic. The Mauritian Republic was never formed on republican values anyway. The Republic of France was formed on republican values known as laicity (laïcité).
5. If he had a sound understanding of Islam, he would have known that Muslims are very passionate about their religion, including the azaan which is an integral part of their religion. Because of his own bias and prejudices, Lam Shang Leen was wrong to prevent the Quatre Bornes mosque from using modern means, such as loudspeakers, for its religious purposes. Others use bells, Chinese firecrackers, and so on.
6. No judge can issue an order against X forcing X to restrain a third party which is not even a party to the case. In the case of the non-Muslim Gavin Glover v/s The Municipality of Quatre Bornes, the non-Muslim Judge Lam Shang Leen issued an injunction in Chambers ordering the Municipality of Quatre Bornes to force the Quatre Bornes mosque to stop using loudspeakers when the Development Permit granted in April 2003, 3 years before the present court case was entered, did not impose such restrictions. Gavin Glover did not object at the time, and the Municipality’s decision was not subject to review. I regret to say that Mr Vayid does not display any knowledge of his ‘État de droit’, and of how judges can manipulate facts to suit their own prejudices.
7. As far as Ashock Jugnauth is concerned, I advise him to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s equally shameful judgment. Electoral promises are fundamentals of our democracy and cannot be regarded as corruption.
Mohamed Vayid has always been known for defending his own interests and not those of Muslims. His intellectual articles, with many fundamental flaws in them, may impress many until someone decides to expose him for what he really is. By flattering a biased judge like Lam Shang Leen, he is speaking in his own interests. To his disappointment, the Municipality of Quatre Bornes is right to appeal against such a shameful judgment. The azaan of Islam to the world must be preserved. It is the duty of every good Muslim to ensure its survival, whether Mohamed Vayid likes it or not. It is Lam Shang Leen who is responsible for the present social unrest in Mauritius, and is giving Mauritius a very bad name abroad. The government of Mauritius must ensure that it appoints judges who can deliver justice to its people and preserve their harmony through mutual respect. Mauritians detest mercenaries.
Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 5 April 2007
http://yacoobazan.blogspot.com
That Mohamed Vayid is an intellectual is in no doubt, but this does not prevent intellectuals from being biased, prejudiced and even corrupt. In fact, intellectuals are proportionally more corrupt than ordinary people because they are in positions of authority and they abuse the confidence of ordinary people. Judges are no exception.
Vayid is reported to have said : " Nous sommes solidaires avec le jugement du juge Lam Shang Leen concernant l'utilisation des haut-parleurs. Il démontre que le cadre légal actuel est suffisant pour assurer la protection et le confort des citoyens. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'amender la loi pour atteindre ces objectifs". He goes on to say that it is not in the interests of the parties concerned to appeal against this judgment, as, according to him, this would delay "un retour à la normale dans les relations communautaires et, peut-être, risque d'exacerber les passions. " He also said that the judgment, including Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring null and void the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections because Mr Jugnauth made an electoral promise for the creation of a Muslim cemetery, confirms that Mauritius Maurice “n'est pas une République bananière et qu'elle est un Etat de droit”.
I would like to ask Mauritians to consider the following:
1. Mohamed Vayid may be a Muslim, but he segregates himself from the majority of Muslims because he considers them inferior to him and his clique. He is not an expert on Islam and has no lessons to give to Muslims. By agreeing with the injustice created by Lam Shang Leen, he proves that he himself does not have a sense of justice and tolerance which he claims.
2. Although not specifically mentioned in the Holy Quran, the azaan is an obligation. It is a call for prayer and is not confined to the four walls of a mosque. In modern times, especially in big towns and cities, the use of loudspeakers is instrumental to this obligation. If Vayid has any notion of tolerance, he should know that non-Muslims must respect this in the same way that Muslims must respect the practices of non-Muslims, including atheists.
3. Vayid must learn that bad laws must be changed, and bad judges must be removed. Mahatma Gandhi did not gain the freedom of his country by respecting bad laws. The slaves were not liberated through the respect of bad laws. How many corrupt judges have sentenced slaves to death in their so-called ‘État de droit’? How many criminals are on the loose, and how many innocents are imprisoned by corrupt and prejudiced judges?
4. What does Vayid mean by ‘État de droit’? He is merely putting dust in people’s eyes. Laws are enacted, amended, repealed. He does not need to be a lawyer to know this. He argues that Mauritius is an ‘État de droit’ and not a banana republic, but at the same time he tells the parties concerned not to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s judgment. If he really believed in an ‘État de droit’, he would have advised the parties concerned to go right through the Privy Council to gain justice. By his own admission, he is effectively saying that Mauritius is indeed a banana republic. The Mauritian Republic was never formed on republican values anyway. The Republic of France was formed on republican values known as laicity (laïcité).
5. If he had a sound understanding of Islam, he would have known that Muslims are very passionate about their religion, including the azaan which is an integral part of their religion. Because of his own bias and prejudices, Lam Shang Leen was wrong to prevent the Quatre Bornes mosque from using modern means, such as loudspeakers, for its religious purposes. Others use bells, Chinese firecrackers, and so on.
6. No judge can issue an order against X forcing X to restrain a third party which is not even a party to the case. In the case of the non-Muslim Gavin Glover v/s The Municipality of Quatre Bornes, the non-Muslim Judge Lam Shang Leen issued an injunction in Chambers ordering the Municipality of Quatre Bornes to force the Quatre Bornes mosque to stop using loudspeakers when the Development Permit granted in April 2003, 3 years before the present court case was entered, did not impose such restrictions. Gavin Glover did not object at the time, and the Municipality’s decision was not subject to review. I regret to say that Mr Vayid does not display any knowledge of his ‘État de droit’, and of how judges can manipulate facts to suit their own prejudices.
7. As far as Ashock Jugnauth is concerned, I advise him to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s equally shameful judgment. Electoral promises are fundamentals of our democracy and cannot be regarded as corruption.
Mohamed Vayid has always been known for defending his own interests and not those of Muslims. His intellectual articles, with many fundamental flaws in them, may impress many until someone decides to expose him for what he really is. By flattering a biased judge like Lam Shang Leen, he is speaking in his own interests. To his disappointment, the Municipality of Quatre Bornes is right to appeal against such a shameful judgment. The azaan of Islam to the world must be preserved. It is the duty of every good Muslim to ensure its survival, whether Mohamed Vayid likes it or not. It is Lam Shang Leen who is responsible for the present social unrest in Mauritius, and is giving Mauritius a very bad name abroad. The government of Mauritius must ensure that it appoints judges who can deliver justice to its people and preserve their harmony through mutual respect. Mauritians detest mercenaries.
Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 5 April 2007
http://yacoobazan.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)