Tahulah kita bahawa terdapat kekeliruan dalam pemahaman masyarakat dalam isu Anwar dan pembebasannya baru-baru ini. Ketika rakyat menantikan sama ada keputusan hakim dibuat berdasarkan 'buat atau tidak' , hakim sebenarnya menilai sama ada 'paksaan atau tidak'.
Berikut adalah balasan saya pada satu mesej di Facebook :
Ahmad Ismail :
Hmmm.. An acquittal does neither make one not guilty nor guilty. Rather, its technical. If a person is found not guilty, the verdict would have been not guilty. Makes me wonder.. :) I would really care for your thought on this...
Ipoh Malay :
sorry for the late reply n thanks for ur thought request :) .... The word acquit itself means to release an accused person as to be innocent and yes, the court decide, let say Anwar, is found not guilty... and Anwar not doing it.. But dont get confused.. It is not that Anwar did not sodomized Saiful.. But Anwar found not guilty, found not doing it, IN A FORCING MANNER.. we ought to know that evidence, testimonies and everything available did not supports the fact that Anwar rape his aide. The justice must be thinking that this is usual gay intercourse that what we found now is likely has been legalize, unless it was done beyond alacrity and be fallen as rape.. So we now know that while Malaysian waiting the verdict as either he sodomized Saiful or not, the judge is actually think on whether that intercourse happen by forcing of one onto another or on mutual willingness. This might also the reason how Anwar was acquitted in 2004. Now u know why Ambiga is supporting Seksualiti Merdeka right? Thus, this is the clear fact that the judiciary system is actually saying, yes, Anwar did sodomize, but he was not guilty on the accusation of doing it without Saiful's willingness, as there is no valid evidence to prove that.. Tq..