Hmmm, perhaps you could lobby the government to start the accession process to the EU. Good luck with that.

Is the DNA Bill available online somewhere? I’m surprised by the level of animosity against DNA databases. It’s a pity there’s so little confidence in Malaysia’s legal apparatus, or this would be a fairly straightforward issue. It’s a very useful tool for law agents, with some fairly well-known downsides. The problems with DNA identification are more or less the same for any other kind of ‘identifying’ evidence. Should we wear gloves in public to avoid leaving fingerprints? Keep our shoes inside at night to stop people stealing our footprints? The fact that these things can identify criminals is based on them being NOT private – they have been left in a very public place: a crime scene. I am in favour of DNA databases with proper safeguards – my opinion, you’re welcome to your own.

As for Anwar, we (LKS And His Forty Friends) wish him only the best things in life, obviously. But impeding a criminal investigation does not serve any useful purpose, regardless of any perceptions of impropriety on the part of the police, courts and government. I suspect it also weakens a case for ‘a better Malaysia’ if PR politicians or supporters are seen to be showing prejudice. I think I recall an article on this blog decrying AB’s early claim that NR was innocent in the Case of the Exploding Model.

If an assay has been done on the ‘evidence’ and it matches neither the ‘victim’ (Someone help me out – I’m from Western Europe, where “taking it up the Gary” is almost a qualification for public life – is there a victim? Is the case rape or just ‘wrong hole’?) nor a selection of notorious bum-bandits the police have DNA records for, but is human and not the chicken from a Pizza Hut Super Supreme, then there is a case to answer. I imagine it would be possible for Anwar’s defence to get a copy of the “who’s DNA is this?” assay?

I’ve just noticed the ECHR’s decision was about ‘storage’ and not ‘extraction’, so it’s completely irrelevant to Anwar’s case.

“this is but one of many many”
This is but one. When you list many many, we can agree on ‘many many’.
“I’m sure you’ll agree”
Your certainty is your downfall. Why do you expect agreement? You think there is only one way to look at the world? Only one Truth?

The certainty with which religious convictions are expressed, and the assumption of right to tell others what to do is the underlying reason for the prohibition of religious symbols in public places in modern societies. I would defend with my last breath a person’s right to wear a headscarf anywhere they please. I wear one myself when I have to cycle on wintry days, often concealing everything but my eyes.

The issue with the Muslim headscarf is neither in the material nor its sartorial currency, nor its practicality. The issues are caused by people claiming to be followers of Islam and using phrases like ‘uncovered meat’. People in positions of authority in a community are associating the lack of a head covering with a victim’s culpability when they are the subject of crime. They are undermining a basic concept in the laws of modern society – that of ‘consent’.

In permissive societies, it is the withholding of consent that defines the victim, which is how you are protected from anal sex in a modern society (you do not consent to it) and others are permitted anal sex (they do consent to it). It is this common property of ‘consent’ that makes the law applicable to all. Communities that wish to enforce different rules will find themselves on the wrong end of occasionally superficially daft rulings – such as ‘no headscarves’. The alternative would be to legislate against the propagation of alternative ideas – something to be rightly dreaded by all.