Satisfaction.

 

For the longest time I had been eyeing a book at the Curve’s Borders. It was a book about dueling entitled Pistols at Dawn. When I finally got the book I was in my fifth year in practice and the book had shifted from the normal shelf to the almost-bargain bin shelf facing the open glass walls. Years of exposure to the Sun had bleached the spine into an ugly off-green colour. I got a nice discount for that book and that was satisfying. But, whenever I look at the spine I still had that internal ‘’aiyoh, poor little book’’ going on in my mind. Luckily, I do not judge a book by its spine. Though the cover matters.

Anyway, I got the book because the subject of duels and how it evolved from medieval trial by combat fascinates me. That, and also the fact that Men used to carry their honour around like one would would carry a clutch of eggs of very brittle shell. A wrong look, a laughter at the wrong time, a misunderstood comment, a blow (not that one) and being made a cuckold could be the cause of a duel and the list of duellable grievances could range from the ‘’boleh slow talk’’ kind of thing (definitely not to cuckoldry) to the absurd.

According to the book, as the judicial system matured to court as means of settling disputes duels did not diminish in its stature as dispute resolution method. It merely went from officially sanctioned occasion to discrete, at dawn type of affair with surgeons or doctors in attendance and a hearse at ready.

Some railed against it but the people in power turned a blind eye to it. Prosecution in court mostly are halfhearted since it was all the fashion at that point of time. In the event of the duel being too widely known as to not allow the turning of blind eye (or eyes) to it, then action would have to be taken. Just like corruption in Malaysia.

The conduct of duels despite being illegal beginning had the cloak of legitimacy to it with its code duello governing its conduct and usage of seconds for parties to negotiate settlements (if any) written down and to be kept within one’s case of a matching pair of duelling pistols so that in case of dispute of the finer points of duelling code one would whip it out to for reference (to avoid a duel over the code, I hope). Take your pick of Irish or French code. Irish Code duello is the shorter of the two and mainly for pistol-duelling. The French code is more detailed. One thing both have in common is that once blood is drawn, the matter is concluded. Parties may withdraw with honour intact or restored. Most of the time.

Duels by default are not just a Western phenomenon. The written duelling codes and standing stock still to receive a bullet is. It was common to societies with honour code which is practically almost everyone. From Native Americans, the Arabs, Indians, the Japanese to Malays. The general Khalid ibn Al Walid of early Muslim period was known to challenge his opposing counterpart to a duel prior to a battle, partly as a form of psychological warfare and to avoid unnecessary fight whenever necessary. Let us not even talk about Miyamoto Musashi. Who would not know the infamous Hang Tuah and Taming Sari duel or the Tuah-Jebat duel. One wonders what the outcome would have had it been a pistol duel. Would it be a Gun Kata kind of fight instead of keris duel? Would they still be fighting on trays (talam)? Is Tuah the better gunslinger? Or Jebat is the one with the quicker trigger finger? Of what calibre would Taming Sari be? Ah, the possibilities..

In the US, despite having kicked out the British and their tea culture, they maintained the English Common Law as at 1777. So, by default trial by combat has not been abolished. Some fairly recent cases have been reported online of attempts to invoke the right for trial by combat with varying results.

In England the right for trial by combat was extinguished sometime in 1819 after one last court case in which an accused invoked his right to trial by combat. The challenged party did not show up and the accused, accused of murder no less walked out of the court a free man.

By virtue of Section 3 (1)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956 which extends English Common Law into the country, trial by combat is not available in Malaysia which is a pity. We could be seeing a lot less of sembang kencang online and offline about your maruah and stuff and hopefully, the creation of a more dignified and polite society. Politician would cease to spout nonsense to one another. Not to mention the revival of the keris making industry and other traditional edged implements. Self-Defence classes will see an uptick in enrollment. Violent crime (with exception of duels) will decline, with everyone armed and trained, everyone will be treated with respect and courtesy. An armed society is a polite society.

Does this take away the power of life and death from the courts? Maybe. No wait. The power of life and death has been taken away from Malaysian courts with the abolishment of death penalty. But will this keep everyone on their toes? It will. Everyone will walk on eggshells and when your life is on the line it will promote amicable settlement of disputes.

Who would could deny the gravity of the act of throwing that gardening glove, or dish washing glove in lieu of a gauntlet, and when needed, to an insulter’s face to demand satisfaction. Though both or either party to the duel could be liable for manslaughter or murder or attempted murder later on, but such is the price for satisfaction. That is what honour demands out of a gentleman.

That is, if you are a gentleman lah.

I say if some buggers demand the treatment as gentlemen of quality with honour and dignity baked in, worthy of the love and votes of the common folk then let them prove it. Accused of some heinous crime? Grand thievery? Diversion of public funds? No matter. Let the people decide the champion for the prosecution, let the accused fight for his honour to the tune of that Benny Benassi track.

I say recognize duels as a way to settle disputes. The people (well, some people) demand satisfaction.