Dear friend,

I have been baffled by your silence on the nature of

injustice which has gradually been a part of your region.
Your silence as much as your recent support for the
destruction of private property in the name of an alleged
sex party signifies a philistine decadence in the values you
once upheld.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right and raises at first a
formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult
soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
These facts I have learned from Thomas Paine, that
silence to the arbitrary use of power or injustice, in the
name of religion or ethics, or more philosophically -- the
greater good, shall soon be dressed as custom and laid as
a brick to our laws.
In recent years, the Northern region has become famous
for barbaric laws like blasphemy, and the castration of
rapists while the whole country and its association of
flowing garments have failed to move along with time in
acknowledging the rights of people.
Knowing you're a man of few words, I shall not nauseate
you with my philosophical litanies but I must begin my
inquiry by looking into the definition of the commonwealth.
The aim is to establish what it's not, whether, by this, we
shall find an agreement. The misconceptions which I
presume have governed the minds of your people include;
• That the commonwealth is an arbiter of truth established
to protect the rights of God. The laws made therein shall
reflect our religious stand as a people which do not belong
to itself but a greater personality, the furtherance of whose
course shall be our primary aim, protection of his interest
shall be the background to our lawmaking process. This
can not be the commonwealth but an organization
established by an ecclesiastical inference from some
religious books.
• That the commonwealth is a product of some ancient
minds to sustain what they refer to as "ideal" and transfer
unto generations their concept of the good life. The law
shall be the signpost, and the government the guardians
of customs and virtues. Perhaps we have long held this
notion and inherited the gigantic mischief inherent in our
customs. In our book of laws, we have found the vestiges
of barbarism and footprints of antiquated notions -- we
know how they've formed and why they've outlived their
proponents.
To keep in its simplest form, the commonwealth is a
society of men constituted only for the procuring,
preserving, and advancing of their civil interests such as
life, liberty, and property. The function of government shall
be deducted from this course and to ensure that the
expression of rights of certain men does not infringe upon
the rights of others. The functions of the magistrate and
the government reaches only to civil concernment, and it
neither can, not ought in any manner concerns itself with
the salvation of souls, destruction of properties, or
preservation of customs.
The regulation of rights by the government which should
be done according to rules of virtue and piety makes the
government, even in its best form, a necessary evil; in its
worst an intolerable one. The government was established
to restrain vices, a function which in contemporary times
has been abuse.
The northern region has consistently denied its people the
natural rights and privileges through the operation of
sharia laws, a system of laws whose aim is to compel
obedience to religious doctrines and morality. More than
ever, the region has continuously been laid desolate
through religious laws which are a sharp contrast to the
rights of mankind. Beyond this, the defenders of these
religious laws have successfully extirpated its antagonists
from the regions.
To this end, my friend, shall I ask by which authority the
state has to destroy private property because of a planned
sex party?