For The Sake Of Sedekah

A friend sent me an email entitled "What logic is this?". In it he sent me a link for a news article. I have not answered the question, but I'm posting this article instead. I hope my readers are not dumb like those idiots referred to in the news article.

Let's talk a bit about Anwar Ibrahim and his accuser, Saiful. Saiful claims that Anwar sodomised him; and the latter denies it. Saiful went to the extent of swearing on the Quran, and then challenged Anwar to do the same. But in the end, apparently there was little for Saiful to support his claim. So when Anwar was finally charged in court, it was for the crime of consensual sex between the two. The strange thing is that only Anwar is charged and not Saiful. Syed Hamid has his justification, of course. But many years ago, Malaysians will remember that the police found that Anwar did similar acts, apparently with the consents of, two other men. And both those men were punished with jail terms, although both of them retracted their confessions later. One must ask the question why has the authority given Saiful a different treatment now? Anyway, justification or not, that is how the matter is handled by the authority.

Now we have a different case involving some VIPs. They have been found to have sex with Chinese nationals [The Star]. But what's important, according to the asshole, is that they did not ask for the women. Those women were sedekah (alms).

How did these dumb assholes get to hold those positions anyway? Sedekah? So what if they didn't ask for those women? That still doesn't change the fact that these idiots are corrupt officers and accept bribes, whether in cash or Chinese women. And they had the cheek to lodge a police report against the person "inducing" them to have those women. If they knew that what was offered was morally wrong, they could have easily turned down the offer.

So how did their bosses deal with them? Should the inducer be punished? Or both parties should be punished? Well, obviously both parties should be punished. After all, where is the logic in taking action against one party only when both were involved in it? So there can only be one way to deal with it [The Star].

So we can see the different approaches adopted by the different parties. In the case of Anwar, the crime was, according to the charge, consensual between the two men, that is to say that Saiful and Anwar did it together, willingly. Yet only Anwar is being punished. In the case of the assholes with the supposed inducer, it was decided by their boses that both should be punished.

Which approach would you prefer to have in our legal system?