ML Touray Your understanding of jurisprudence still lacks merit. If you are of the mindset that somehow legal positivism is primordial to the contemporary jurisprudence then that begs one to question your understanding of the whole concept of legal positivism. To my understanding, as J.W Harris explained it in legal Philosophies: “we all know that from time to time the law makes demands of us. We may often think these demands reasonable; but sometimes we regard them as quirkish or arbitrary or even outrageous. Is there a not then a difference our perceptions of what the law requires, and our views as to what it would be reasonable to require? The assumptions that there is such a difference, and the working out of the implications of the difference, have been the hallmarks of theoretical tradition known as legal positivism.” Therefore, if this explanation of the concept of legal positivism is right, how can seeking to know the difference of what the law requires from us and what we think would be a reasonable requirement of the law be an outdated philosophy. This is why I’m of the view that your understanding of jurisprudence still lacks merit. If not how could you fail to realise that the exchanges we are engaged in this forum is in fact legal positivism, conceptually. Do you know that the natural law theorist don’t believe that man is capable of making laws. As far as they are concern, the only rightful legislator is god. Therefore, any man made laws is a product of legal positivism and that still exist, if you don’t know. The theorists you claimed to be contemporaneous, such as professor H L A Hart. Do you know that HLA Hart was in fact a legal positivist, which you failed to realise? Professor R M Dworkin, best known for his right theories, in fact gave an opposite theory to that of Hart, which was somewhat libertarian just as Joseph Raz and John Rawls. However, though you mentioned the philosophers of the libertarian camp, you failed to mention the communitarian philosophers, who were opposed to your libertarian Raz and Rawls, and their works were a decade later than that of the ones you mentioned. The Communitarians works were done in the 1980s, whilst most of the ones you mentioned were done in the 70s and they include the likes of Alasdair Macintyre, Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor. For what its worth, you must accept that legal positivism is not outdated and will never be outdated. You further quizzed “how can a judgment be legal and at the same time be immoral? Justice and morality refer to the same thing.” ML Touray. What do they refer to? You almost seem delusional with that statement. These are 3 different terms that have very different meanings; Law, Morality and Justice. Law as we know it, is a set of rules agreed by a society or imposed on a society. In Britain we would say, acts of parliament or rules empowered by parliamentary acts. Justice can be best described as equality or fairness, whilst morality is an acceptable norm to a person or persons. Therefore, Justice and morality refers to different things. What is moral to you might not be moral to others. Justice on the other hand, cannot be justice to you and not justice to others, as that would be injustice to others. Alf Ross stated that “the ideology of justice leads to implacability and conflict, since on the one hand it incites to the belief that one’s demand is not merely the expression of a certain interest in conflict with opposing interest, but that it possesses a higher, absolute validity; and on the other hand it precludes all rational argument and discussion of a settlement”. You further quizzed, “if the legality of the court system cannot be questioned, as the UDP statement suggests, why is it that many innocent Gambians continued to be detained against court orders?” ML Touray. You seemed confused again. The courts are not the law enforcers. They are merely a place of arbitration, which is to adjudicate, mediate, and settle disputes. It is not the police of the state. If this happened then the police are not doing their job properly, but the courts have done theirs. However, the problem with these exchanges is your non acceptance of the fact that the Gambia government has a right to make laws, whether moral or immoral to you. That is a natural right of every sovereign state. Do you think Britain always make just law? You will be sleeping, take a look at the new immigration rules of the United Kingdom! Now you make me sound like am defending Jammeh, which I detested. As for your claim about colonial laws, unless you are not aware Britain still has colonial laws. I am with you as well as the UDP statement in condemning Yahya Jammeh’s actions as immoral, but we differ as to its legality. If we say the law in the Gambia is corrupted as you are supposing, then even the mere fact that people don’t kill each other in the Gambia is wrong. Because by them not killing each other they are obeying the illegal laws of Yahya Jammeh or Gambia government. Laws are to be obeyed for the good of every one; and it is through the obedience of law that we identify the bad ones. The Gambia is further a democratic society. Jammeh was elected by the majority, though difficult to verify, but that is what we were told by the electoral commission. The Gambian people empowered him to make laws. Who is the UDP or we to deny the people’s choice from making laws for them? More to come! Nemesis Yanks. Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:54:56 -0700 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot To: [log in to unmask] Yanks, You are very funny! Please cool down and reason with your brain; it is a shame that an intelligent person like you would waste precious time defending such absurd reasoning. How can a judgment be legal and at the same time be immoral? Justice and morality refer to the same thing. Here you come again with you primordial definition of legal positivism. I understand Legal Positivism as a philosophy of law that proposes that laws are mere instruments commanded by a sovereign authority with intentions to provide order and governance of a society. However, this philosophy of law has undergone significant transformations since its founding in the 19th century during which time modern nation states and sophisticated international arrangements were not yet fully functional. The definition of Legal Positivism you implied here is outdated. Modern proponents of this school of jurisprudence, such as H.L.A. Hart, Joseph Raz, and Ronald Dworkin qualifies the sovereign authority as one mandated by society to perform such tasks. Based on that premise, a valid law is one that is formed in accordance with recognized rules and procedures of society. In the same vein, a law is invalid if it was formed in contravention with recognized rules and procedures of society. During the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, European imperialists used the early version of Legal positivism, together with philosophy of the Whiteman’s Burden, and other cruel methods to colonize and enslave our people. In fact the UDP statement accuses the government of resurrecting colonial laws; and here you are defending UDP’s statement with an equally outdated philosophy. What is wrong with you? Can’t you see that we are not living in the 1th century? If the legality of the court system cannot be questioned, as the UDP statement suggests, why is it that many innocent Gambians continued to be detained against court orders? In numerous cases, such as the cases of Rambo, Kanyiba, Master Tamba, and many others, the government blatantly refused to obey court orders to release them from detention. Legally formed laws and courts are obeyed by everyone! Therefore, the conviction and sentencing of the gallant journalists is both illegal and immoral. ML Touray From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:34:37 PM Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot Mr ML Touray You need to stop your lies about the UDP statement! The UDP statement certainly did not sanctioned the legality of the sentencing of the journalists, as you are peddling on this forum. You need to peruse what the UDP statement states before jumping to your half baked conclusions. The justification of the passage you seemed to be confused of is to be found at paragraph 2 of the UDP statement. This acknowledged the sovereign's right to make laws in the Gambia. Something, which you seems to be strongly against, but still failed to give adequate explanation as to why you hold this view. The UDP statement started with the following passage: "Whilst there is no dispute that every government can enact laws and provide for the appropriate mechanism for these, no government has the moral authority to deprive any class of citizens the right of freedom of expression of views and opinion by the use of archaic colonial legislations that have lost relevance in their countries of origin." paragraph 2 of the UDP statement. The infallibleness of this passage is beyond doubt. In fact it takes some resemblances of the 1970 statement of D'Entreves, which stated that: "Man is bound to obey the laws of the secular rulers to the extent that the order of justice requires. For this reason, if such rulers have no just title to power, but have usurped it, or if they command things to be done which are unjust, their subjects are not obliged to obey them, except, perhaps, in certains special cases when it is a matter of avoiding scandal or some particular danger." However, contrast that to the position of the legal positivists, which John Austin, one of the proponents of that school of jurisprudence, explained about positivism of law and the sovereign powers. He accepted that the sovereign might not be a person who by divine or natural right could tell us what we ought to obey, but he is identified by the fact that he is obeyed and his commands are in fact what we call laws. Therefore, he stated that the sovereign is he who receives habitual obedience within a political society. He further added that the sovereign could not be bound by laws promulgated by previous sovereigns and his powers to make laws could not be limited. It is a ntural right of every sovereign to make laws. ML Touray's argument about the illegality of the sentencing of the journalists can only be justified on the grounds of moral reasoning. Something which he shared with the UDP statement. If only he isn't as dumbed as he is, he should have known that fact. What he however failed to understand is that he cannot justify the illegality of the sentencing of the six journalists under the Gambian law. The position he is condemning the UDP for accepting as a fact. For that reason, ML Touray should stop peddling his lies about what the UDP statement stated and what it hasn't. It certainly, did not justify the sentencing of the six Journalist as morally legal, as Mr Touray is peddling in this forum. Instead it justify its legality in the context of the Gambian law. Therefore, ML Touray stop your lies about the UDP statement! Nemesis Yanks! Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:19:56 -0700 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Rantings of an Angry Despot To: [log in to unmask] Baba, Thats is a brilliant dipiction of the situation in the Gambia. How dare UDP call the conviction of the six journalists as legal? Thanks for sharing. ML From: Baba Galleh Jallow <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:29:13 PM Subject: Rantings of an Angry Despot Rantings of an Angry Despot By Baba Galleh Jallow When I make my wanted list people say I make my wanted list. They go out there and open their big mouths and say Jumus is this Jumus is that. When I say yes they say no. When I say left they say right. When I wear my special juju they say oh he’s wearing his special juju this, his special juju that. And when I put them on my wanted list they say he has put us on his wanted list. Well, they can all go to hell but they will be on my wanted list and if they don’t like it let them come and face me here. Maa Ko Tey Beh Teyatiko! Wahal? Maa Ko Wah!! I must tell you all that I am sick and tired of all the nonsense that so-called journalists and intellectuals spit out of their big mouths. They say they are criticizing Jumus because Jumus appointed missionary judges. Or they say they are criticizing Jumus because Jumus sent some stupid idiots to prison. Or they are criticizing Jumus because Jumus says he will deal with criminals in this country. Or they will criticize Jumus because Jumus has a zoo and a private plane. Or Jumus can cure this or Jumus can cure that. Or Jumus has done this and Jumus has done that. Well I will tell them that I do not give a damn what they say or what their masters in the so-called western democracy say. If you decide to say that Jumus is wrong, or Jumus should not say this, or Jumus should not say that, you must be prepared to go on my list, to go to jail, or go six feet deep. In fact, you will go six thousand feet deep. And let your so-called western democracy do anything about it. Munemu? Haa? Jumaaleng? When I risked my life to free this country from the corrupt regime of the former so-called president, where were all of you big mouths who now say Jumus is this and Jumus is that? Ha? When I got out of my bed in the middle of the night and carried my heavy gun and risked my life to save this country, all of you were lying in bed with your wives and having good dreams. And now you come here and say Jumus this and Jumus that. If you carry your gun and go into the forest and you kill a deer, who will say that the deer you killed is not yours? Or if you go into the forest and climb up a big tree and pick some fruit, who will say that the fruit is not yours? Do they not know that if you go hunting or you climb a tall tree a wild animal could attack you or you could fall down and break your neck? Why then should any stupid fool come out and say Jumus should not do this or Jumus should not say that? Or Jumus should be democracy or Jumus is not fair or Jumus this Jumus that and Jumus the other thing? Haa? I want you all to listen to me very carefully because I am sick and tired of all this nonsense talk about so-called democracy or so-called human right rule of law or some such nonsense. If you go to the so-called west and you wear so-called western clothes and you want to come here and talk to me about so-called democracy, I will put you on my wanted list. You don’t know what so-called democracy is and you say you want to tell me some nonsense about so-called rule of so-called law and so-called human right. If you think you are wise or you are brave, come face me and try to tell me all that so-called nonsense. All of you big mouths hiding in the so-called west and trying to criticize me do not even know what your so-called democracy, law of rule or human right means. Human right human right my foot! You say human right human right but you don’t know what human right is. And you say you want to criticize me because I am not human right. Haa? You commit crimes in my personal country and you run like cowards and you go and beg the so-called west for asylum. And then you open your big mouth and say Jumus should not say this, Jumus should not say that. You don’t even know that the so-called west came to Africa and stole our ancestors and our gold and silver and they made us their slaves. And when we fought and drove them out, now they want to come back to Africa and colonize us again. And they use you so-called journalists and so-called intellectuals and so-called civilians to criticize me and try to make me afraid so that they can come back and colonize this country. I will tell you that if they want to do that they will do it over my dead body. If they are brave and they think they can challenge me in my own personal country or tell me what to do, let them come and face me right here. They will then know who Jumus is. They will then know that Jumus is not afraid of anything in this world or the next. Or even in outer space. As for some of you traitors, you are all guilty of treason and sedition and defamation according Section 67, sub section 2 of my own personal criminal code. And I will put you on my wanted list and if I catch you – if I catch you - Ballayy Ballayy Ballayy, you will know who Gankal Jumus is. When I employ my own personal judges to enforce my own personal law and pay my own personal judges in my own personal country with my own personal money, you open your big mouths and say Gankal Jumus should not employ a missionary judge, or judge so and so is a missionary judge. Or judge so and so is a missionary judge because he is not from our country. How dare you say our country? Haa? You all have no shame because this is not your country. If you think this is your country and you call yourself a man, come and face Gankal Jumus. You will then know that one day follows another and that I am not someone you can joke with. Ballayy Ballayy Ballayy, if I catch you – if I catch you - you will know that fire is hot!! Isa mad day!! That’s all I have to say. See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ���������������������������������������������������������� To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ���������������������������������������������������������� Celebrate a decade of Messenger with free winks, emoticons, display pics, and more. Get Them Now ���������������������������������������������������������� To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ���������������������������������������������������������� _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger: Thanks for 10 great years—enjoy free winks and emoticons. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/