Port Louis — The law makes provision for the use of abusive or racist language or downright incitation to racial hatred. The only hitch is that you have to prove it and this is not the easiest part... Sometimes in political rallies, speakers get carried away and proffer what could be termed as "racist" remarks; for it to be an offence, witnesses must come forward to testify...

A few years ago, a man made a remark to his neighbour, a woman rather well known in Mauritius. The remark was racist and abusive, according to her. She went to her lawyer and sued her neighbour under article 1382 of the Code Civil Mauricien for "faute". She was awarded Rs 25,000 in damages. Obviously she had to prove her case and show how she had suffered prejudice as a result of the racist remark.

What about you? Have you ever considered suing somebody because they have used abusive language with racist connotation? The issue was raised in Parliament last Tuesday when Eric Guimbeau of the opposition asked the Prime minister whether he would consider "toughening the law to sanction and control the use of abusive language with racist connotation in public gatherings." "Yes", replied the Prime minister, himself a fan of tougher laws.

Yes, despite the fact that the law already makes provision for such an offence. For instance, if you decide to sue someone for abusive language, the Public Gathering Act 1991, provides for it, saying that a person "who uses threatening, obscene, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" shall commit an offence. Furthermore, section 296 of the Criminal Code also makes "insult" a criminal offence; the word "insult" is defined as "any injurious expression or any term of contempt or invective, or other abusive language, not carrying with it the imputation of fact."

The funny thing is, government feels you might not be protected enough and is presently preparing an amendment or a new legislation - the PM didn't specify - "with a view to toughening the law to sanction and control the use of abusive language with racist connotation". To this end, the Criminal Code will be amended, said the PM, even though he didn't specify when.

Even though it seems to be the order of the day - at least in theory - with the Labour government, it is not clear how this will help. A lawyer who doesn't want to be named says: "When an offence already exists in our laws, toughening the laws actually means toughening the sentences. But sentencing is the prerogative of the judiciary so what exactly the PM's statement is supposed to mean."

Interesting point. The more so, since there is no extensive jurisprudence on abusive language with racist connotation. "Probably because many people don't think there is much point in them suing people who say racist things", says our lawyer.

Way back in 2002, politician Deva Virahsawmy said at a political rally, about Paul Bérenger, "this white guy". A citizen, feeling that was racist went to the police to give a statement in which he said he thought Virahsawmy was being racist. The matter didn't go any further because in the case of a public gathering, one needs witnesses to come forward and testify that the politician was indeed being racist and, in that particular case, there was clearly no one willing to come forward to testify.

The offence in that case is that of inciting the public to racial hatred. A hard case to prove if there are no witnesses. But, over and above this fact, is there a real need to strengthen existing laws for something that most Mauritians might not really consider to be "offensive" as such?

After all, living in a country where several ethnic groups have been thrown together and been forced - to a certain extent - to co-exist, will automatically give rise to a certain amount of racist teasing. Who is not familiar with phrases like: "She complains like a sick malbar", "he is as pervert as a lascar", "she doesn't exist, she's Chinese", "bought the same day and used the same day like a Creole" or "I'll pay you like a white".

How racists are those remarks?

Probably not as much as others (and there are loads of them that we cannot reproduce in these columns) based on meaner preconceptions and misconceptions but some people still take offence when faced with the more benign racist comments. Is that a reason to toughen laws on "racists remarks"?

And what constitutes "abusive language with racist connotations"? "We see it in our everyday life but if we were to sue everyone who said something racist, there will be an overload of cases in our courts", says our lawyer.

But in case you still want to sue, know that what constitutes a racist remark is something that you construe as racist. And you will have to prove that you have suffered prejudice as a result.