Ms.Katte,
You wrote:
"Or are you just insult me and take flight?" Whatever this means, I wish to assure you that if you google: "Stopping War Before it Starts...", you may get my analysis of the situation. If this could ever make sense to you, feel free to object to my arguments. I hate hitting stone walls in arguments.
Best,
Tatah Mentan
You wrote:
"Or are you just insult me and take flight?" Whatever this means, I wish to assure you that if you google: "Stopping War Before it Starts...", you may get my analysis of the situation. If this could ever make sense to you, feel free to object to my arguments. I hate hitting stone walls in arguments.
Best,
Tatah Mentan
Human Community=Human Communication=Human Productivity
I was led to understand the value of my anger and my desire to speak out, through these words from Mary Catherine Hilkert, a Dominican theologian. She wrote in Speaking with Authority: Catherine of Siena and the Voices of Women Today:
"Sometimes the words of protest are the only words we can speak clearly in the face of complex forces of evil woven into the fabric of our lives and world. We cannot always see or name the way forward. Further, no liberation front or political or social program can be identified with the reign of God. But even the cry of protest is a word of grace that moves us to resistance and to searching for another way. The beginning of finding a new path is speaking the truth of what clearly is not God's will for human life …."
"Sometimes the words of protest are the only words we can speak clearly in the face of complex forces of evil woven into the fabric of our lives and world. We cannot always see or name the way forward. Further, no liberation front or political or social program can be identified with the reign of God. But even the cry of protest is a word of grace that moves us to resistance and to searching for another way. The beginning of finding a new path is speaking the truth of what clearly is not God's will for human life …."
From: Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] Re: [cameroon_politics] Where is Tatah Mentah? Has he got the mettle to stand and debate? - Has Southern Cameroons ever stood on its own feet?
Ken,
He may be a professor, but he is also extremely stupid. He butts into an argument without seeming to know the positions of the participants already in the debate and dares to insult me without making a single substantive point of argument. Look, this is what he said:
"I do not know what you call "Vic". If this a human being, he or she should have a skull stuffed with the brains of a chicken.
From the fellow's approximative English, I doubt if he/she can understand the texts you have published hereunder.
My question is: Is it still worth the salt casting pearls before swine?"
Tatah Mentan
Are these the sort of words that becomes of a professor? Has he shown any evidence that he understood where I stood on the debate? He may be a professor, but that does not exclude him from the class of the benighted.Vic Katte"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte=============================================================="The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." MenckenEmancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind."Most people would rather die than think. And most people do" Bertrand Russell.
From: Pa Fru Ndeh <PaFruNdeh@YAHOO.COM>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2012, 2:13
Subject: [camnetwork] Re: [cameroon_politics] Where is Tatah Mentah? Has he got the mettle to stand and debate? - Has Southern Cameroons ever stood on its own feet?
Vic,Professor Tatah Mentah at this point in his life has an extremely low tolerance for irrationality.In fact, I blame Prof Tatah Mentah for not making English reach all the corners of Cameroon, from Abong-Shie to Ouesso, from Fotocol right down to the border with Equatorial Guinea.A refreshing legal mind has presented the points to you, and the proper thing is for you to rebutt the arguments. Thanks.Blessed Be Cameroon
Pa Fru Ndeh
From: Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:08 PM
Subject: [cameroon_politics] Where is the Idiotic Tatah Mentah? Has he got the mettle to stand and debate? - Has Southern Cameroons ever stood on its own feet?
Tatah Mentan,Insults is cheap, real cheap - but have you got the mettle to combine your insults with tenacity of a debate. Or are you just insult me and take flight?Vic Katte"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor KatteFrom: Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012, 21:30
Subject: [cameroon_politics] Tatah Mentah - Has Southern Cameroons ever stood on its own feet?
Tatah Mentah,
What makes you feel that I have not understood the stuff that Tumasang posted? Have I displayed any disagreement with the mainstay of the text? Or are you just contriving my views from within your own mind?Vic Katte"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte
From: Immanuel TatahMentan <inmentan@yahoo.com>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012, 21:21
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] Has Southern Cameroons ever stood on its own feet?
Dear Dr.Tumasang,
I do not know what you call "Vic". If this a human being, he or she should have a skull stuffed with the brains of a chicken.
From the fellow's approximative English, I doubt if he/she can understand the texts you have published hereunder.
My question is: Is it still worth the salt casting pearls before swine?
Tatah MentanHuman Community=Human Communication=Human ProductivityI was led to understand the value of my anger and my desire to speak out, through these words from Mary Catherine Hilkert, a Dominican theologian. She wrote in Speaking with Authority: Catherine of Siena and the Voices of Women Today:
"Sometimes the words of protest are the only words we can speak clearly in the face of complex forces of evil woven into the fabric of our lives and world. We cannot always see or name the way forward. Further, no liberation front or political or social program can be identified with the reign of God. But even the cry of protest is a word of grace that moves us to resistance and to searching for another way. The beginning of finding a new path is speaking the truth of what clearly is not God's will for human life …."
From: Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
To: "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>; "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: [cameroon_politics] Has Southern Cameroons ever stood on its own feet?
"Basically, it (Southern Cameroons) has NEVER stood on its own as an administrative entity." Vic
At times one is tempted to keep away from these discussions because either people are pretending or there is no other way you can educate people on an issue and they keep repeating the same thing. Without any stultification of anybody, below is the Southern Cameroons case again.
The Southern Cameroons case is that either its independence has been confiscated by the contiguous state of La Republique du Cameroun, or it did not get independence as claimed by the UN hence needs its independence. This means that one coloniser (Britain) handed Southern Cameroons to another coloniser (La Republique du Cameroun). Independence or no independence, standing on its feet or not, it needs its independence now.
Below are details of the two hypothesis of independence or no independence (standing on its feet or not) as submitted in Banjul by Southern Cameroons.
The thesis that the Southern Cameroons never achieved independence210. There is some evidence that the Southern Cameroons, despite the overwhelming UN vote in favour of its independence, may not actually have achieved independence. First, the UN failed to ensure that the process of the decolonization of the Southern Cameroons was brought to a successful completion. Resolution 1608 required Britain, the Government of the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun to finalize, before 1 October 1961, the terms of the agreed federal union between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun. The UN-ordered finalization never took place.211. On 1 September 1961 while the Southern Cameroons was yet a UN Trust Territory under UK administration, Republique du Cameroun presumed to exercise jurisdiction over the Southern Cameroons by assuming constituent powers over the territory and permitting its forces to cross the border and kill, violating the territorial integrity of the Southern Cameroons in gross breach of international law. This was a case of the forcible grabbing of foreign territory impermissible under international law and not even authorized by Republique du Cameroun's own constitution. Neither Britain nor the UN lifted a finger. This nonfeasance emboldened Republique du Cameroun to order its army on 30 September 1961 to march into the Southern Cameroons and occupy it. That army is still in occupation of the Southern Cameroons today.212. Secondly, a couple of months before the plebiscite the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Iain Macleod stated at a meeting that the termination of the Trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons would be followed by "the transfer of sovereignty to the Republic of Cameroun." In a brief dated 7 March 1961 for Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the British Colonial Office indicated that Nigeria was fully informed of "every move in the discussion of the hand-over of the Southern Cameroons to the Cameroun Republic." On 30 September 1961 the British invited Mr. Ahidjo, President of Republique du Cameroun, to Buea, capital of the Southern Cameroons, and at mid-night purported to have handed to him sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons. Mr. Hugh Fraser, the British Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies then informed the House of Commons on 1 October 1961 that the UK Government had already "transferred the Southern Cameroons to Mr. Ahidjo". (Declassified Secret Files on the Southern Cameroons, Public Records Office, London)213. Thirdly, in its policy statements and state practice Republique du Cameroun has consistently maintained that no union, less still a federal union, took place between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun on 1 October 1961. It has consistently maintained that on 1 October 1961 there was a mere adjustment of the southwestern borders of its territory, an adjustment, it claims, that enabled it to recover a hitherto lost part of its territory and population. (Recueils des Discours Presidentiels 1958-1968; Anthologie des Discours 1968-1978) As recently as this year the Respondent State informed this Commission during the admissibility stage of this communication that sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons was never handed to the Government of the Southern Cameroons but to Republique du Cameroun.214. Fourthly, informed commentators are unanimous that the conduct of Republique du Cameroun vis-à-vis the Southern Cameroons from September 1961 onwards amounted to a disguised annexation/colonization of the latter.215. In the Northern Cameroons Case the ICJ remarked obiter that on 1 October 1961 "the Southern Cameroons joined the Republic of Cameroun within which it then became incorporated." Gaillard (Ahmadou Ahidjo: Patriote et Despote, 1994) states that there was in fact no union and that what took place on 1 October 1961 was a mere border adjustment. Stark ('Federalism in Cameroon: The Shadow and the Reality' 1976) casts serious doubts on whether a federation in the sense of a voluntary relationship between political units ever existed. He implies that there was no true and genuine federation and that the Southern Cameroons was in reality incorporated into Republique du Cameroun.216. Vanderlinden (in L'Etat Moderne Horizon 2000, 1985) maintains that the federation was merely a smokes-screen ('un pis-aller') "designed to enable the Southern Cameroons to swallow the bitter pill of its annexation by Republique du Cameroun, as in the case of Eritrea annexed by Ethiopia." Professor J Crawford ('State Practice and International Law in Relation to Unilateral Secession' 1997) cites the Southern Cameroons as an example of a former colonial territory 'integrated in a state'. Benjamin (Les Camerounais Occidentaux, 1972) canvasses the thesis of a creeping annexation. Pierre Messmer (Les Blancs s'en vont, 2000), the last colonial governor of French Cameroun is in no doubt that Republique du Cameroun did annex the Southern Cameroons in 1961.217. Sindjoun (L'Etat Ailleurs, 2002), a national of Republique du Cameroun, honestly observes that the federation was a mere make-belief policy ('la politique du faire croire') designed to hoodwink the UN and the Southern Cameroons. In his words, the federation was "un federalisme d'absorption du Southern Cameroons par la Republique du Cameroun " and "une strategie d'extension de la Republique du Cameroun", "une strategie de phagocytose." He then characterizes the relation between the two political units as one of guardian and ward: the Southern Cameroons is "le Cameroun eleve, le Cameroun disciple" while Republique du Cameroun is "le Cameroun maitre, le Cameroun modele."218. Mr. Ahidjo, President of Republique du Cameroun, addressing his country's National Assembly on 10 August 1961 stated that "conformement a la resolution de l'ONU, le Cameroun reunifie n'apparait pas en droit international comme un nouvel Etat souverain" and that "juridiquement, la reunification n'est analysee que comme une modification de frontiere." ("In conformity with the UN resolution [1608], reunited Cameroon does not appear to be a new state under international law. Legally, the reunification is analytically a mere modification of the border.").219. Ahidjo may have been alluding to the customary rule of international law that no territorial changes can affect the identity and continuity of a state. Assuming this rule is applicable to the case at hand, it would mean the de facto situation on 1 October 1961 represented a simple expansion of the territorial sphere of validity of Republique du Cameroun, and the de facto federation was no more than a continuation of Republique du Cameroun on an enlarged territory and under a new name.220. Yet, such an expansion could not have been anything but expansion by clear-cut annexation given the obfuscation of the plebiscitary formula 'independence by joining' and the arguable view that the Southern Cameroons was not a subject of international law. The plebiscite question was not 'Do you want to form a part of Republique du Cameroun?' The 'federal constitution' solely drafted and enacted into 'law' by Republique du Cameroun partook of an incorporation law.221. Republique du Cameroun's obsession with the term 'reunification' was indicative of that country's imperialistic ambitions regarding the Southern Cameroons. If the Southern Cameroons was annexed, arguably with the complicity of the UN, then the territory was never decolonized; it remains a non-self-governing territory, but now under the colonial sovereignty of Republique du Cameroun. The Southern Cameroons situation is therefore a straightforward case of decolonization and the principle of self-determination apply.222. Fifthly, the UN itself appears to have adopted the attitude that Republique du Cameroun simply continued notwithstanding the termination of the Trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons and the de facto Cameroon federation. If Republique du Cameroun simply continued it means that the de facto situation that obtained on 1 October 1961 amounted to the absorption of the Southern Cameroons by Republique du Cameroun.223. And if the absorption theory is accepted the inescapable legal inference would be that the UN never in fact decolonized the Southern Cameroons but merely facilitated its transfer from a predecessor colonialist to a successor colonialist in violation of its own Charter and its 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Resolution 1514 (XV)). The UN would then have acted as an agency perpetuating rather than eliminating colonialism. The plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons mandated and supervised by the World Body would then have been an exercise in international fraud.224. The international trusteeship system was established not to facilitate the perpetuation of colonialism but to ensure its progressive elimination. The obligation of the UK Government was to lead the Southern Cameroons to self-government or independence and not to transfer it to a successor colonialist. Self-determination is aimed at removing colonial powers, not at creating new ones.225. The UN has also maintained a conspiratorial silence on the Southern Cameroons situation, unable or unwilling to state the political status into which the Southern Cameroons emerged upon 'joining' Republique du Cameroun. In the official UN publication, Basic Facts About the United Nations, 'Cameroons under British Administration' is listed as one of nine "dependent territories that have become integrated or associated with independent states since the adoption of the 1960 Declaration." In respect of eight of the nine listed dependent territories there is a clear indication as to which of the following five political status categories each emerged into: 'free association', 'returned', 'joined to form a federation', 'nationally united', or 'integrated'. But in the case of the Southern Cameroons, there is no indication whatsoever as to the political status into which it emerged upon 'joining' Republique du Cameroun.226. The Southern Cameroons also appears on the list of 'Trust Territories that have achieved self-determination'. But once again, and unlike in the case of the other Trust Territories on the list, the UN is non-committal, saying only that the Southern Cameroons "joined the Republic of Cameroon."227. But was there ever a 'joining'? The UN appears to suggest there was. Yet it has been unwilling or unable to say the modalities and nature of that 'joining'and what valid legal instrument there is that attests to the 'joining'.228. Even if there was a joining (the point is not being conceded), such a joining could not have been a dead-end; but rather a moratorium on the ultimate political goal of the Southern Cameroons. The British Government in fact spoke of Republique du Cameroun acting 'foster parent' to the Southern Cameroons and commentators from Republique du Cameroun sometimes refer to the Southern Cameroons as a ward or pupil of Republique du Cameroun.229. From that perspective the act of self-determination of 11 February 1961 by the Southern Cameroons was not a once and for all irrevocable act. Resolution 1608 was not res judicata and could be revisited by the UN General Assembly. The international community cannot divest itself permanently of the right to concern itself with the status of a territory under international tutelage so long as that territory has not achieved full independence as declared by the 1960 Declaration on Colonial Countries and Peoples. In the instant case of the Southern Cameroons the UN retained such a right until achievement of full independence by the territory.230. Be that as it may, as a successor colonialist in armed occupation of the Southern Cameroons, Republique du Cameroun is in violation of the right of the people of the Southern Cameroons to self-determination under Article 20 (1) of the African Charter. It is also in violation of the UN Charter, UNGA Resolution 1514 of 12 December 1960, and UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970.231. Republique du Cameroun is a Member of the UN. It is under an international obligation flowing from the UN Charter to refrain from impeding the Southern Cameroons from asserting its independence. On the contrary it must take affirmative steps to immediately transfer all authority and sovereignty to the people of the Southern Cameroons without conditions or reservations in order that they may enjoy absolute freedom and independence.232. Republique du Cameroun is also under international obligation flowing from Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights "to recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in [the] Charter." By becoming a State party to that treaty Republique du Cameroun undertook to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the rights and freedoms in the Charter.
The thesis that the Southern Cameroons achieved independence
233. The international trusteeship system was built on the principles of justice and peace consistently with Article 1 of the UN Charter. The UK Government assumed an obligation, as a 'sacred trust', under Articles 73 and 76 of the UN Charter and Article 7 of the Trusteeship Agreement for the British Cameroons, to lead the Southern Cameroons to self-government or independence, depending on the circumstances of the Territory.234. As a self-governing Territory between 1954 and 1961 with a solid foundation for statehood and steeped in the democratic tradition, the Southern Cameroons was a state in statu nascendi.235. It follows that the circumstances of the Southern Cameroons in 1961 dictated only independence as the political status into which the territory was to emerge upon termination of the trusteeship. The British had themselves stated in 1958 that the Southern Cameroons would be ripe for independence in 1960 after six years of self-government.236. The plebiscite was an international matter, not an internal affair of Republique du Cameroun. The plebiscite question itself promised independence as the end-result of trusteeship. The people of the Southern Cameroons therefore achieved independence and did achieve independence by that vote. Resolution 1608 endorsed the independence vote and set 1 October as the effective date of independence consequent upon the termination of the trusteeship on that same date.237. Given the plebiscitary formula 'to achieve independence by joining', the plebiscite vote decided two matters at the same time, the 'independence' of the Southern Cameroons and 'joining' Republique du Cameroun. However, the issue of 'joining' was subsidiary and conditional; for, in terms of Resolution 1608 the trusteeship agreement was to be terminated with respect to the Southern Cameroons upon, and not by, it joining the Republic of Cameroun. Moreover, the plebiscite question as framed did not suggest that independence and joining had to take place simultaneously.238. A de facto federation did come into existence in October 1961, the component states of which were the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun. The federation is itself evidence that the Southern Cameroons did achieve independence since legally a dependent territory and an independent state cannot form a federation given that a federation is founded upon the principle of juridical equality in status as between the component states.239. Moreover, although the Cameroon federation was a mere de facto situation, that factual situation nevertheless produced certain legal effects: the emergence of a new state and subject of international law; the existence of a basic norm, a new constitution (different in form, nature and content) that was neither the 1960 Constitution of the Southern Cameroons nor the 1960 Constitution of Republique du Cameroun; the creation of new state institutions; the extinction of Republique du Cameroun as a subject of international law; the simultaneous birth and extinction of the Southern Cameroons as a full international person; the adoption of a new name for the Southern Cameroons as 'West Cameroon' and for Republique du Cameroun as 'East Cameroun'.240. Significantly, following the coming into existence of the de facto federation, diplomatic missions in Yaounde were re-accredited to the new State. Republique du Cameroun had already been collectively recognized by its admission to membership of the UN. If the de facto federation was merely the continuation of Republique du Cameroun, enlarged and under a new name, there would have been no reason whatsoever for a renewed recognition of that state on the part of the international community. The idea of that state being unnecessarily recognized a second time in less than two years is completely unconvincing.241. Nor is it convincing to argue that it was not the federal State, but territorial changes in Republique du Cameroun or the changes in the internal political organization of Republique du Cameroun, which were recognized. The argument is unconvincing because such changes leave the personality of the state unaffected, and so do not call for recognition. Even if specific political conditions rendered such recognition necessary, the recognition would be accorded to the new government emerging out of an internal transformation, and not to a new State.242. The intention and conviction of the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun to create a new state is clearly attested by the published pre-plebiscite documents signed by the two sides, the Note Verbale by Republique du Cameroun confirming the same, the 'constitution' of the de facto federation, and representations made at the UN. It would be indeed a veritable tour de force to interpret all these documents as speaking merely of fusing the Southern Cameroons into Republique du Cameroun.243. The Southern Cameroons was not a non-descript territory whether legally, geographically, historically or politically. There was no extension of the legal order of Republique du Cameroun to the Southern Cameroons. The two states maintained their respective legal orders, subject, of course to an overarching federal legal order. A federal society involves a dovetailing rather than a super cession of legal orders.244. The de facto federation, described as a bilingual bi-jural State, was a de facto new State, which was not identical with either of the two component states thereof. All the information available goes to show that the Southern Cameroons would never have allowed itself to be annexed and that it contemplated nothing short of a union of legal equality. The federation, albeit de facto, was therefore remote from annexation, although that is what Republique du Cameroun wanted and hoped to achieve. Annexation by Republique du Cameroun came in 1972 through a Germano-Austrian-type Anschluss.245. If then the Southern Cameroons did achieve independence that independence has since been unlawfully suppressed by Republique du Cameroun in violation of the two principles of self-determination and of the equality of all peoples. Independence entails at the minimum self-government. Even the 'independence' within 'la communaute francaise' offered by France in 1958/59 to its African colonial territories entailed at least a modicum of self-government. There is today not even a vestige of the self-government enjoyed by the Southern Cameroons from 1954-1961 and nothing that evidences the independence the Southern Cameroons achieved on 1 October 1961.246. Moreover, the territorial integrity of the Southern Cameroons as a political unit has been impaired. In 1972 the Southern Cameroons was officially annexed by Republique du Cameroun. Its independence and statehood have been totally suppressed. It is today under the forcible colonial sovereignty of Republique du Cameroun and the two parts into which it has been cut up are administered as dependent provinces of that country.247. The Southern Cameroons has thus suffered retrogression in political status; from a self-governing and independent country to a non-self-governing territory. It enjoys not even a modicum of local self-government.248. The situation that obtains in the Southern Cameroons is indubitably one of colonization and the struggle of the people of the Southern Cameroons is patently an anti-colonial struggle.249. It follows from the above that in whatever way one chooses to look at the Southern Cameroons situation the unyielding conclusion is that the inalienable right to self-determination of the people of the Southern Cameroons has been violated by Republique du Cameroun either on the sufficient ground that it is exercising colonial sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons as successor colonialist or on the sufficient ground that it has unlawfully suppressed the self determination and independence of the Southern Cameroons.250. Republique du Cameroun has always been a foreign land in relation to the Southern Cameroons. The fact that it exercises colonial sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons changes nothing in this respect. Being a country under the forcible colonial sovereignty of Republique du Cameroun and therefore ipso facto a colonial territory, the Southern Cameroons has a separate and distinct territory and identity from that of the State under the colonial yoke of which it is languishing. For, under contemporary international law the territory of a colonizing state is distinct and different from that of the colonized territory. The people of the Southern Cameroons thus have the right to the assistance of States parties to the African Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination, the domination by Republique du Cameroun (Art. 20 (3)).251. Too clever by half, Republique du Cameroun has thought up a couple of ruse for deflecting international scrutiny of its colonization of the Southern Cameroons.252. First, it always uses 'Cameroun' in a polysemous sense so as to obfuscate the identity of the separate territory of ex-British Southern Cameroons and thus to give the uninformed observer the impression of a unitary territory known as 'Cameroun' translatable as 'Cameroon' and variously styled 'Republique du Cameroun' or 'l'Etat du Cameroun'; and, moreover, suggesting that the Southern Cameroons is the southern part of Republique du Cameroun.253. In order not to allow a perpetuation of this fraud and the continuing deception of the world, there shall be adopted in the coming months a new name for the territory of the Southern Cameroons. There will be full consultation among all the anti-colonial forces in the Southern Cameroons and the new name will be adopted with the concurrence of the people of the Southern Cameroons.254. Secondly, Republique du Cameroun habitually conjures the secession bogy. It does so in a hopeless effort to demonize a meta-juridical phenomenon, aware of the misinformed view in some quarters that international law prohibits secession. Whenever it conjures the secession bogy Republique du Cameroun is in fact trying to psychologically prey on the reader's mind. In that way, the cursory inquirer is put off from ascertaining what the true state of affairs is in this matter.255. The informed inquirer knows that contemporary international law neither concedes nor denies a right to secession. Secession is a mere meta-juridical phenomenon, which eventually international law and States, including African States, merely acknowledge as a matter of realism. Historically, state formation and transformation have occurred, and will continue to occur, through a process of fusion or fission. International law is therefore not that silly as to posit that secession is absolutely impermissible.256. The secession rhetoric of Republic du Cameroun proceeds from its fraudulent misrepresentation of the plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons as 'un plebiscite de rattachement', that is to say, a plebiscite that sanctioned the incorporation or fusion of the Southern Cameroons into Republique du Cameroun. 'Incorporation' is of course mere camouflage for the colonial status of the Southern Cameroons.257. Republique du Cameroun would want the world to believe that at the plebiscite the people of the Southern Cameroons voted, after seven years of full self-government, not to achieve independence but to commit mass suicide by becoming a captive or slave people under the colonial yoke of Republique du Cameroun. History does not provide a single instance of such a case.258. If the plebiscite vote was a vote for fusion into Republique du Cameroun and the consequent extinguishment of the Southern Cameroons there would be no credible explanation for the federation (albeit de facto) and its subsequent overthrow followed by the proclamation of a 'republique unie du Cameroun' and the later reversion to 'Republique du Cameroun'.259. If the 'plebiscite de rattachement' rhetoric were to be believed it would mean Republique du Cameroun is not only a two-faced Janus, capable of being identical and non-identical at the same time, but also a phoenix, capable of a number of births and deaths. The rhetoric borders on absurdity.260. The truth of the matter is that the people of the Southern Cameroons never voted for incorporation into Republique du Cameroun. They could not have since the plebiscite question was not, "Do you wish to be a part of Republique du Cameroun?" And, unlike the pre-plebiscite undertaking given by Nigeria that a vote to 'join' Nigeria would mean integration into Nigeria, the undertaking given by Republique du Cameroun stipulated that a vote to 'join' Republique du Cameroun would mean that the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun would federate to form a United Federal Cameroon Republic of two states, legally equal.261. Given these two different undertakings, Resolution 1608 took care to specify that the British Northern Cameroons voted to achieve independence "as a separate province of the Northern Region of Nigeria". In the case of the Southern Cameroons and mindful of the pre-plebiscite undertaking given by Republique du Cameroun, Resolution 1608 did not say and could not have said that the Southern Cameroons voted to achieve independence as part of Republique du Cameroun. Quite the contrary, it ordered the finalization of the declared policy to form a federal union, which finalization never of course took place.262. The plebiscite vote was primarily a vote on independence and secondarily a vote on joining. By common agreement in writing, the two sides understood the word 'join' to mean 'federate' and also stipulated federalism as the condition sine qua non of the future union. Incorporation may have been what Republique du Cameroun had wished. But wishes are not horses.263. The Southern Cameroons therefore never fused into Republique du Cameroun. The so-called 'joining' notwithstanding, the Southern Cameroons' legal personality as a qualified subject of international law and as a juridical person under municipal law, as well as its identity as a self-governing political, legal, cultural, historical, and unitary territory, all remained intact.264. What is more, the frontier line between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun has always been a de jure international boundary: Since there was merely a de facto federation the inherited colonial boundary between the two federated states was a mere de facto internal boundary.265. Further, since 'Federal Republic of Cameroon' and 'United Republic of Cameroon' were not bona fide and enduring constitutional state structures enjoying, as distinct from Republique du Cameroun, international personality, but merely contraptions designed to whitewash the colonization of the Southern Cameroons, the international boundary between the two countries never legally acquired an internal character. The revival in 1984 of 'Republique du Cameroun' ipso jure confirmed as an international frontier the hitherto de facto internal boundary between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun.266. The confirmation of the international character of that boundary line is further evidenced by the maintenance of the pre-independence military, police and customs barriers along the frontier line.267. Furthermore, by voting against UN Resolution 1608 approving the plebiscite results and terminating the trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons, Republique du Cameroun thereby continued the international boundary between the two countries as unchanged in character.268. The Southern Cameroons has thus never been part of Republique du Cameroun, historically or legally, and whether before or after 1 October 1961. The Southern Cameroons is not legally a part of Republique du Cameroun just as legally Eritrea was not a part of Ethiopia, Algeria not a part of France, Portugal's African territories not parts of Portugal, East Timor was not a part of Indonesia, and Mauritania and the Western Sahara not parts of Morocco. Colonial rule does not change the legal position.269. The exercise of the right to self-determination entailing the restoration of the suppressed statehood and independence of the Southern Cameroons operates within the inherited colonial boundaries of the Southern Cameroons as they stood on the date of its achievement of independence on 1 October 1961, consistently with the principle uti possidetis juris.270. Independence of the Southern Cameroons from the colonial domination of Republique du Cameroun does not impinge on any proper interest, legal or political, of the latter. The inherited colonially defined frontiers of that State, as they stood on the date of its independence on 1 January 1960 are in no way affected. The territorial integrity of that country, consistently with the principle uti possidetis juris and the 1964 OAU Resolution on Border Disputes, is in no way infringed.271. There is no claim by the Southern Cameroons to any of the peoples who make up the tribal mix of Republique du Cameroun. There is no claim to an inch of the territory of that country or to a single one of its citizens. The spatial configuration of that State remains exactly as it was on the date of its attainment of national independence. The independence of the Southern Cameroons entails no loss or dismemberment of territory, impairment of national unity or territorial integrity, or loss of population or diminution of territory in respect of Republique du Cameroun. There is thus no secession of territory from Republique du Cameroun.272. Previously under British rule, the people of the Southern Cameroons obtained independence (however that term is construed) in exercise of the right to self-determination. Republique du Cameroun cannot therefore assert the principle of territorial integrity in answer to that exercise of self-determination and independence. It could not, in 1961, obtain sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons by cession. It could not, in 1972, obtain sovereignty by conquest.273. Without any colour of right, without any valid instrument or authorizing act, Republique du Cameroun has assumed an unwarranted jurisdiction over the people and territory of the Southern Cameroons, exacting obedience. The people yield obedience, for the time being, because of the forcible occupation of the land and the maintenance therein of an administration of paramount force, which compels obedience as a matter of necessity. The people have the inherent right, under international and human rights law, to free themselves from the foreign and colonial domination of Republique du Cameroun.274. It is now well-settled that self-determination is a right in international law, a norm of jus cogens. It is no longer just a process of decolonization but also a human right, a right of peoples, and is thus a continuing right exercisable even within post-colonial independent states. To interpret self-determination as applying only within the context of 'salt water' colonialism will make nonsense of Article 20 of the Charter. It will amount to a significant let down to the promise of the preamble of the Charter, which does not even allude to territorial integrity. It will belie what is in truth a solemn commitment by the international community proscribing for all time colonialism and inter-people slavery.275. Republique du Cameroun's colonial sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons is absolutely impermissible under international law.276. As has been shown from Part I, the Southern Cameroons situation is the case of a captive people struggling, like slaves fighting to be manumitted. They are struggling to conquer relentless oppression and repression, domination and colonization by Republique du Cameroun in order to gather God's harvest of freedom, dignity, justice and peace. The struggle is distinguishable both on the facts and in law, from the case of a sub-national unit seeking to break away.277. Of course, since Republique du Cameroun exercises colonial sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons, the latter is part of its territory only as a colonial territory. But in contemporary international law a colonial territory has a separate and distinct status from that of the colonizing State and is entitled to independence without any conditions or reservations. All dependent territories achieved statehood by 'seceding' from their respective colonizing States.278. Apart from the fact that the Southern Cameroons is under the colonial bondage of Republique du Cameroun, the exceptional situation of the territory (as eloquently borne out by the facts in Part I) makes reasons for its independence particularly compelling.279. First, the UN self-determination procedure in the territory not only misfired but also was unlawfully suppressed by Republique du Cameroun. That resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and the commission of a great historical injustice against the people of the Southern Cameroons.280. Secondly, the people of the Southern Cameroons are legitimately claiming their territory, which has been annexed by Republique du Cameroun. Thirdly, there is in the Southern Cameroons, since October 1961, extreme and unremitting persecution by Republique du Cameroun with no reasonable prospects for peaceful change. There is continuing systematic oppression and domination as well as a series of gross and consistent violations of human rights by that State.281. Fourthly, the federation, albeit a de facto one, was unilaterally ended by Republique du Cameroun. Fifthly, internal self-determination is absolutely beyond reach for the people of the Southern Cameroons as they are powerless to freely determine their internal political status.282. Sixth, the independence of the people of the Southern Cameroons was unlawfully suppressed by Republique du Cameroun. Seven, the people of the Southern Cameroons came under the colonial domination of Republique du Cameroun by way of an unjustifiable historical event, to wit, annexation. Eight, the assumption of sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons by Republique du Cameroun is, to say the least, legally suspect.283. Nine, even if there was a 'marriage' between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun, it was a shotgun 'marriage' in which the Southern Cameroons has continued to be raped and thoroughly abused in other ways. The 'marriage' is a putative marriage and therefore null and void ab initio.284. Ten, individual human rights abuses committed by Republique du Cameroun in the territory of the Southern Cameroons are gross, massive, extensive and unremitting. This is reliably attested by victims; the press; local human rights NGOs; reputable international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Article XIX; US State Department reports, and Documentation of the UN Commission on Human Rights, especially Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Reports of the Working Group on Enforced of Involuntary Disappearances, and Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions.285. As a matter of state policy Republique du Cameroun practices, encourages and condones killings and torture and other gross violations of human rights.
To: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
From: suhade@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:39:11 -0800
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty
"Basically, it has NEVER stood on its own as an administrative entity." VicVic,It stood as its own as an automous administrative entity with its own Premier within the Federation of Nigeria like the other regions of Nigeria.SAF_______________________________________________________________________
Make a tax deductible donation or buy our book to support our language development efforts_______________________________________________________________________From: Vic Katte <vickatte@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [camnetwork] [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty
Louis, I see your point but beg to differ. SC never became independent as a single autonomous entity. To the best of my recollection (but I stand corrected) that option was never presented to her. The options that were presented to her were twofold: 1) Independence by union with Nigeria 2) Independence by union with LRC. There was a third option, independence as an autonomous entity, but that was withdrawn from the table at the last minute. So, if I am right, we can never say that SC was ever an independent nation/state. Basically, it has NEVER stood on its own as an administrative entity.Vic Katte"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte=============================================================="The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." MenckenEmancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind."Most people would rather die than think. And most people do" Bertrand Russell.From: louis <louis_egbe@yahoo.co.uk>
To: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012, 19:15
Subject: [camnetwork] [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty
Dear Vic, Good Question. When did LRC become a nation? Well, if we follow legality and the end of UN Trusteeship under France, the 1 January 1960, and 1 January 2013 will be its 53rd anniversary of nationhood. Following, SC became a nation 1 October 1961 and 1 October 2011 was the FIFTIETH anniversary of SC nationhood!! That was the day people were arrested in Buea for celebrating. Are you with me here? Please, ask the UN Secretary General. So, that an occupier is oppressing the people does NOT change this fact. LRC can do nothing on this matter save send people with guns to threaten the people. SC people have not fought back in kind but I bet you that if they decide to fight back in kind, LRC will be defeated. Man no make erreur. German Kamerun was a colonial set up. SC was NOT a colonial set up so it could be considered a FREE nation from the day the Germans were thrown out and the power transferred to the League of Nations Mandate system in 1919. It had similar status with Palestine, Tanzania, Namibia, Iraq, Rwanda and Burundi, French Cameroun and ALL seized German and Ottoman possessions that were transferred to the League and later UN Trusteeship. --- In mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com, Vic Katte <vickatte@...> wrote: > > Dear Louis, > > When did Southern Cameroon become a nation? Could the old German Kamerun have been said to be a nation? > > >  > Vic Katte > >"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte > > > >============================================================== > >"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. > > > > > >True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." Mencken > > > > > >Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind. > > > > > >"Most people would rather die than think. And most people do"  Bertrand Russell. > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5FcCQ8BIg > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YrvDslraw&NR=1 > > > > > ________________________________ > From: louis_egbe <louis_egbe@...> > To: mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012, 11:43 > Subject: [camnetwork] [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > >  > Dear Vic, > > Southern Cameroons as a nation will never cease to exist. What is absent is the government. A government alone does not constitute a nation but the territory, people, acquired common traits. The only way to extinguish a nation is by either physical genocide by subjugation or killing them, driving them out of their own land. The incessant calls by racists in LRC that genuine people in their own land should return to Nigeria is a message that spells the evil intent of the so-called LRC.I think it has more to do with greed and jealousy. LRC is jealous of SC potential, people, land and are frightened for other paranoid reasons that may be explained by their brutal and dehumanising French colonisation methods they endured from 1919 â€" 1960. It is psychological. > > There are always many solutions in such an impasse. However, there are also time constraints that make some of these solutions unpalatable to the oppressed party. If we have a bunch of arrogant Francophones fascists (and some of their Anglophone slave agents/traitors) telling our people to go home or trying to impose their colonial ideas on our people, then why discuss with such people? You merely pack up and leave them in their own territory. Furthermore, if you have a President who thinks he has the right to declare what dates he chose as his own "union" ,well he also should be ignored, told that he is irrelevant and that the SC people will do what they like in their own territory, at their own time whether he and his own territory like it or not. > > So, the solution is two ways for mutuality; and failing that it becomes UNILATERAL for the Oppressed. > I hope this attained clarity. > > --- In mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com, Vic Katte <vickatte@> wrote: > > > > Ken, > > > > Firstly, at this point in time, there is no such political entity as Southern Cameroon. To be sure, there is a group of people who identify themselves as Southern Cameroonians by virtue of some cultural attributes, but is the so-called "Anglophone Problem" synonymous with the "Southern Cameroon Problem". Is the problem a desire of the people who identify as Southern Cameroonians to live in a separate independent state? And is this problem only going to be resolve with the clean break away of Southern Cameroon from the existing union? > > > > In fact, to the limit, I am in favour of the self-determination of the people of SC. Not only that, naturally, I am less of a statist and in favour of more small devolved unions/cohabitations. So anything that gives more and more autonomy smaller and smaller communities, and the movement away from large unitary states is bound to be attractive to me. > > > > > >  > > Vic Katte > > >"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte > > > > > >============================================================== > > >"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. > > > > > > > > >True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." Mencken > > > > > > > > >Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind. > > > > > > > > >"Most people would rather die than think. And most people do"  Bertrand Russell. > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5FcCQ8BIg > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YrvDslraw&NR=1 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: pafrundeh <PaFruNdeh@> > > To: mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012, 1:44 > > Subject: [camnetwork] [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > > > > >  > > Vic Katte: > > > > The Anglophone Problem is an issue of STATEHOOD of The SOUTHERN CAMEROONS. > > What is your next question Victor? > > > > Blessed Be Cameroon > > Pa Fru Ndeh > > __________________________________ > > > > --- In mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com, Vic Katte wrote: > > > > > > Mishe Fon, > > > > > > Firstly, of all you have got to define what you mean by the term "The Anglophone Problem". Secondly, who do you mean by "my peers"? Just a quick reminder - I don't speak for anyone or any political movement. I speak for myself through the prism of what looks reasonable. > > > > > > > > >  > > > Vic Katte > > > >"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte > > > > > > > >============================================================== > > > >"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. > > > > > > > > > > > >True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." Mencken > > > > > > > > > > > >Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > >"Most people would rather die than think. And most people do"  Bertrand Russell. > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5FcCQ8BIg > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YrvDslraw&NR=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Mishe Fon mishefon@ > > > To: "mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:ambasbay%40googlegroups.com" mailto:ambasbay%40googlegroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2012, 1:38 > > > Subject: Re: [camnetwork] Re: [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > > > > > > > >  > > > Do you or your peers acknowledge the existence of an "Anglophone Problem" in Cameroon? We can start from there. > > > > > > > > > From: Vic Katte vickatte@ > > > To: "mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:ambasbay%40googlegroups.com" mailto:ambasbay%40googlegroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:39 PM > > > Subject: [camnetwork] Re: [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mishe Fon, > > > > > > What would you consider as a satisfactory solution to the so-called "Anglophone Problem"? > > > > > > > > >  > > > Vic Katte > > > >"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte > > > > > > > >============================================================== > > > >"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. > > > > > > > > > > > >True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." Mencken > > > > > > > > > > > >Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > >"Most people would rather die than think. And most people do"  Bertrand Russell. > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5FcCQ8BIg > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YrvDslraw&NR=1 > > > > > > > > > > From: Mishe Fon mishefon@ > > > To: "mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:ambasbay%40googlegroups.com" mailto:ambasbay%40googlegroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2012, 21:51 > > > Subject: [cameroon_politics] Re: Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > > > > > > > >  > > >  > > > If the Kamto you guys are desperately trying to project and promote as the "3rd way emerging, probably which is the direction Pr. Kamto is heading" so why bother about the "the idiotic and embecillic John Fru Ndi and his Social Idiocratic Cult being too benighted, backward and corrupted to have a vision beyond their noses. ."(Victorine Kattie Kattie) > > >  > > > Why would the dreaded CPDM Maffiosi not constantly smile its way to the Banks when you have a band of paristocratic (yes regional) Internet hate mongers with a rather strange but twisted and obsessed dacnomanic aversion towards the SDF, its leader and by some strange but obvious proportions "Southern Cameroonians". YES, it is very easy to see the linkage. Look at the list of those who are vehemently opposed to any discusions about S/C. Truth is the RDPC is the main source of our woes in Cameroon. The RDPC is the real "Enemie dans la maison". The SDF to the best of my knowledge has NEVER been in power (all its own short comings not withstanding) BUT this recurrent, systematic and bibliomanic bashing and even "Hatred" of the SDF (one out of almost 250 Parties in Cameroon) is nothing but a kainotophobic display of "Moutum Banzaness" bodering on witch-hunting and foolish village pride. > > >  > > > What this tells us is that; this is an obvious and tacid recognition that ANGLOPHONES (S/C) are a force to reckon with but they should remain subjugated to the second class citizens they have been relegated to. The other day, I mentioned how the Bassas have not only bled us dry in Limbe but here we are today with this other one outrightly flaunting and daring us. For how long is this going to be tolerated? > > >  > > > If that your Kamto is that good; why doesn,t he organize his people. > > >  > > > If the SDF is that bad; why not simply ignore them and do your thing the Francophone way. > > >  > > > If as you claim, that your Kamto is the third way; which was the second or first way? > > >  > > > Please, my dear friends, there is absolutely nothing wrong in promoting "Le Frere du Village" but never forget who the enemy of the Cameroon people is: Its Government. PERIOD. > > >  > > > N.B: OK, so you guys want Anglophone support for your political ambitions? Right? No problem. We will support you. Only on one condition. > > > Let us start by discussing on a Level playing field, that small business called: THE ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM IN CAMEROON. > > > Un Point Un Trait. > > >  > > > In conclusion: Joining forces has a lot of advantages BUT the down side is : Who are you joining Forces with and for what Goals or Achievable objectives? You don,t want to find yourself in that proverbial situation of "From Frying Pan To Fire". > > >  > > > Mishe Fon > > >  > > >  > > > From: Vic Katte vickatte@ > > > To: "mailto:globalcameroun%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:globalcameroun%40yahoogroups.com; "africmove@" africmove@; cameroon politics mailto:cameroon_politics%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:Cameroonpatriots%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:Cameroonpatriots%40yahoogroups.com; CAMNETWORK mailto:camnetwork%40yahoogroups.com; "mailto:Camreview%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:Camreview%40yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:18 PM > > > Subject: [cameroon_politics] Re: [globalcameroun] Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > > > > >  > > > Hello, Rather, the opposition should build that coalition before the coming elections. Tell me why this is not achievable before we can even start to talk about boycotting elections. Boycott only has effect in a state where the system cares about its legitimacy and constitutionality. For a system like Biya's that does not give a fuck about such ideals, boycott only plays into his hands. Given the state of the opposition fields at the moment, there is no way any single opposition party could kick CPDM out of power - no way whatsoever - it is far too entrenched and embedded and it has the machinery of the government/civil service behind it. No single party could even so much as scratch CPDM in places where it matters. The only way to fight CPDM is for a coalition of opposition parties to join forces and stand as united in opposition to Biya. That would make them quake in their boots. One of the biggest obstacle to such a coalition is the idiotic and > > > embecillic John Fru Ndi and his Social Idiocratic Cult. My hope is that a 3rd way might emerge, probably in the direction in which Kamto is heading, but I do not see Fru Ndi and his Social Idiocratic Cult being part of any meaning coalition - they are too benighted, backward and corrupted to have a vision beyond their noses. > > > > > >  > > > Vic Katte > > > >"Easy is the road that leads to benightedness, superstitions and irrationalism". Victor Katte > > > > > > > >============================================================== > > > >"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. > > > > > > > > > > > >True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." Mencken > > > > > > > > > > > >Emancipate yourself from mental slavery - none but yourself can free your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > >"Most people would rather die than think. And most people do"  Bertrand Russell. > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5FcCQ8BIg > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YrvDslraw&NR=1 > > > > > > > > > > From: Howard Njeck africmove@ > > > To: africmove@ > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2012, 17:59 > > > Subject: [globalcameroun] Cameroonian should join force in 2013 in ending CPDM Dynasty > > > > > >  > > > Cameroon in gradually leading into another Congo Democratic, Ivory Caost, Libiya or Mali. If we don't join forces in ending the 30 years of Biya tyranny Cameroon is heading towards civil strife. The opposion in Cameroon should boycott the 2013 twin elections and lets build the coalition needed to end the the 30 years of tyranny in Cameroon. Cameroonian elites are invited to participate massively in designing the final reform package.. Stay tune for our new year message. Njeck Howard > > > > > >
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9) 
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment