"If you don't want to lift the veil, don't vote". Ground-breaking as it may sound, the Supreme Court ruling has not even the most remote significance towards secularism, as many people, including the man I worship, Jug Suraiya, seem to be suggesting.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/jugglebandhi/entry/beyond-the-veil
It is just a matter of security and identification, and as such shouldn't be opposed by anyone. Getting a photograph clicked is not a big deal, and the guy at the polling booth isn't a predator. Then again, the decision should be left to the woman concerned to be made. No matter what Muslim groups say (and most of them are in favour of the court ruling), the decision is ultimately the woman's.
As for France, their decision is simply a violation of human rights. The hijab is not always forced on women, and individuals have the right to wear what they like, without being dictated by the government. Not being a Muslim myself, I really can't tell, but a suggested reading is "Does My Head Look Big In This?" by Randa Abel-Fattah.
The title's nice.
ReplyDeleteThank You, Madam. Now please continue wasting your time on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteI will.
ReplyDeleteGetting a photograph clicked is a big deal indeed, because later when we're inflicted with terror strikes, we put the onus on the government.
ReplyDeleteI quite agree with the rest of the post!
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeleteThank You!
right thinking
ReplyDeleteWhat you have written is actually true....its sad and bothering too when people interfere in others
ReplyDeletelife.But not only in France,its happening all over the world.For instance -look at how the Talibans dictate the living of the people in Afghanistan,the attack on the Sikh fraternity in USA after the 9/11 attacks....the list is endless!
That's right...only no one objects to first world interference...
ReplyDeleteI have a slightly different view on this topic. BTW, the blog is beautifully written! I am a fan!
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the hijab, I think the French government has the right to enforce the rule that has been agreed upon/passed by a due process. It is a rule of the society and in a society, its constituents are expected to follow its rule, whether they like it or not. This has nothing to do with individual freedom, and freedom of expression/religion, whatever. The right to freedom (of any kind) cannot trump the agreed-upon norms/laws of the society. Anarchy is sure to follow otherwise. Individuals do not have the right to wear what they like - I cannot wear a swimsuit in a restaurant, nor can I wear business suit at a swimming pool.
I do agree that everyone has the right to protest the rule(s) they disagree with. And if there is enough support and ground swell, the rule(s) will be changed. But until that happens, they should be prepared to face the consequence of breaking the rules - should they choose to break them.
Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou're probably right, but you can't undermine the role of movements in a democracy. Elected representatives can't lord over minorities.