19 Jan 2008

When the issue is NOT an issue

Trinidad once again joins the rest of the world in debating a non-issue, once again proving the old adage "monkey see, monkey do".

Judge Joan Charles seems to have left her brain behind, or perhaps it moved and she is now sitting on it.

The 'learned' judge has invited comments from the public on the matter of whether jurors can wear that atrocious wear, the hijab (and niqab, and bilbab, and jilbab, and whatever abs again there is - with the exception of the six-pack abs of course).

THE ISSUE of a female Muslim juror wearing a burka (the veil covering her face) has now gone public as a judge has sent letters out to the religious community seeking their views on the subject.

It goes a bit further as the Supreme Court will advertise the matter in a daily newspaper for the next two weeks alerting the public. The advertisement invites interested persons to come forward and contribute to the debate.

So now the Supreme Court also lost sanity.

I wonder why they did not invite public comment when Sharma was under siege, or when Shermie got caught in that dodgy land deal, or when Trevor Paul was rehired to shine khaki, or even when Abu Bakr incited hatred of the zakat issue... in so many other things the courts went ahead and determined actions... well, in law.

In this issue, well it certainly isn't about the law anymore. More about popular emotional responses and reactions.

Of course, on another front this is a non-issue. The juror who started all this herself claims:

She told the court, "I have to dress like this. It is not that I have to, it is a choice, either you dress like this or you can dress with the normal hijab.

Judge: "Oh, so you chose it, you have the option under the tenets of your faith to either use the normal hijab, which is the veil around here (the face)?

And a bit further down she (the juror) contradicts herself:

Juror: "I cannot raise my veil, this is my religion. I cannot here."

So two minutes before, it was a choice she made, then after it became her religion. Reminds me of Shermie and several instances where he couldn't make a decision one way or the other. Makes for a severely bruised crotch, the part she should be protecting instead of the face.

While I have my personal stance that this should not even be an issue, that it is NOT a requirement of religion and is another bit of arseness thrown out by sick old impotent Muslim men to quell women from rising (if it was indeed a real requirement of the religion, then ALL women would be compelled to wear it), this should be decided in LAW.

Not by inviting public comment. Or will they change the present laws?