18 September, 2021

Blog

SC Orders Govt. Institutes To Permit ‘Hijab’

De facto Chief Justice Mohan Pieris in the Supreme Court today recalling a visit he made to an international school in Colombo in which Muslim students were dressed in traditional Punjabi attire and said that “I see no reason why this should not be permitted”.

File photo

File photo

He made these remarks when a Fundamental Rights petition filed by a parent of Janadipathi Balika Vidyalaya detailing how she was prevented from entering the school dressed in her traditional attire was taken up before the Supreme Court.

Earlier a student of the school also filed a separate case detailing how she was harassed by the Principal for wearing the punjabi attire which includes a shawl and a trouser apart from the uniform.

The reference to students was made when Counsel Manohara De Silva appearing for the Principal said that the order made by the Supreme Court in the current case should not be streched to another case filed by a student.

While agreeing to the submission made by the Counsel, De facto Chief Justice said- ” I recently when for a ceremony at the Colombo International School and there was a nicely dressed Muslim girl with her head scarf and trousers on, if its good for them I see no reason why it is not good for the rest”.

When the case that was taken up today the Supreme Court  ordered the Attorney General of Sri Lanka to give directions to officials of all public institutions to not obstruct Muslim ladies who are attired in their traditional cultural dress.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Mohan Pieris, S. Sripavan and Priyantha Jayawardena so directed the Attorney General.

The Petitioner was a parent of a student of Janadipathi Balika Vidyalaya, Rajagiriya who was prevented from entering the school attired in a head scarf and gown.

” This is a traditional dress and no one can be offended by it” Mohan Pieris said.

Counsel Manohara De Silva PC who appeared for the Principal however,insisted that the identity of the parent must be ascertained, referring to the face veil.

At that point Counsel M.M. Zuhair who appeared with Hafeel Farisz pointed out that in the current case there is no instance of adorning a face veil, but despite such, the Petitioner was violently prevented from entering the school.

At one point the Mohan Pieris asked the Petitioner- parent to identify her self and when she did he commended the dress.

” This is a beautiful dress  and no one can take offence of it. Its decent enough and she is well within her rights to be attired in it” he told open court.

The case of the parent was thereafter terminated with all parties agreeing to the order of the court.

The case filed by the student is to be taken up on August 4th 2014.

Related posts;

School Principal Ignores Governor’s Orders; Bans Punjabi And Makes Students Worship

 

BBS To Rescue Anti-Muslim Unqualified Janadipathi Balika Vidyalaya Principal

“We Want You To Settle” SC Tells Parties In ‘Hijab’ Case

OIC Questions Govt. Over Its Links With BBS

Hijab Case: “Issue Arose After New Appointment Of JBV Principal”; SC Observes

Anti Punjabi Attire JBV Principal Collects “Legal Fees” From Parents

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 9
    4

    I have my reservations for the De facto CJ for taking over an unofficial and immoral posting. I do not know what prompted him to grant this judgement in favour of the Muslims. If it with no strings attached based on the merits of the case. Hats off.

    • 7
      1

      Ansar

      1.”At that point Counsel M.M. Zuhair who appeared with Hafeel Farisz pointed out that in the current case there is no instance of adorning a face veil, but despite such, the Petitioner was violently prevented from entering the school.”

      2. “At one point the Mohan Pieris asked the Petitioner- parent to identify her self and when she did he commended the dress.”

      3. ” This is a beautiful dress and no one can take offence of it. Its decent enough and she is well within her rights to be attired in it” he told open court.”

      The proper venue for deciding on these matters are the courts. BBS and the disorientated Sinhala “Buddhists” BBS Monks screaming off the stage with hate, that is contrary to True Buddhism, is not the venue.

      Besides, Sri Lanka is not a secular state with clear separation of church and state, with Freedom of Religion. The convoluted and hateful ideas of BBS are being tested and challenged where the politicians are afraid to venture.

      400 years ago Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler challenged the incorrect ideas of the ancients and the Church, and the scientists ultimately prevailed.

      Reason vs. myths and other hate-based ideas needs to be tested in a proper venue.

      It will be interesting to test the BBS ideology with that of Buddha Dhamma as given in the Tipitaka, and expose the Sinhala Buddhist Monks and Mahanayakas.

      • 0
        0

        Read: Campaign To Ban The Burka In Britain. The Wahhabis, The Devil Followers, in action.

        By Dr Taj Hargey is the Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation and the Director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford

        “Supporters of this garment like to pretend that it is a welcome symbol of our society’s multicultural diversity and philosophical tolerance. But such warped thinking is woefully misguided. In reality, the burka is an archaic tribal piece of cloth that is eagerly used by fundamentalist zealots to promote a toxic brand of extremist non-Koranic theology.”

        http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2014/08/03/campaign-to-ban-the-burka-in-britain/

        Full Text. The increasing fashion for young Muslim women in Britain to wear the burka (in contrast to their mothers, who do not) is one of most sinister developments of our times. Supporters of this garment like to pretend that it is a welcome symbol of our society’s multicultural diversity and philosophical tolerance. But such warped thinking is woefully misguided. In reality, the burka is an archaic tribal piece of cloth that is eagerly used by fundamentalist zealots to promote a toxic brand of extremist non-Koranic theology.

        Everyone in Britain, including Muslims, should oppose the insidious spread of this vile piece of clothing, which imprisons women, threatens social harmony, fuels distrust, has grave health implications and is a potent security risk.

        Contrary to the claims of its advocates, it has nothing to do with Islam but is a cultural fad imported from Saudi Arabia and primitive parts of the Islamic world. That is why this week, with the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, I am launching a nationwide campaign to impose a ban on face masks in public spaces in Britain. Such a nationwide prohibition would deal with all types of covering, including balaclavas, but there would be no exemption for the burka/niqab on any spurious, politically correct grounds of religious conscience.

        One of the key purposes of this initiative is to persuade at least 100,000 people to sign a formal petition calling for the ban, thereby obliging Parliament to debate the issue. Despite growing concern from the British public, our pusillanimous politicians have refused to address the burgeoning prevalence of the burka in our midst, as they fear accusations of Islamophobia from the militant fundamentalists and their PC allies.

        Well, it is time to put the needs of British society before the manufactured grievances of the hardliners, whose aim is to replace our liberal democracy with a totalitarian theocracy, the burka serving as a weapon in this far-reaching cultural war. In rejecting the ideology of the zealots, mainstream Muslims should be at the forefront of the campaign for a ban, not least because the burka so badly undermines the credibility and reputation of our faith. There have, of course, been previous petitions and calls to outlaw face masks in public, but all came from the political Right and gained little traction. This campaign is different. It is the first one led by Muslims, speaking for the moderate majority whose voice has been unheeded up to now.

        We invite both Muslims and our other fellow citizens to work together to rid Britain of this alien cultural monstrosity. A key part of the impetus for this move came from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights this month to uphold the ban instituted by the French Government in 2010 on all face coverings in public. Supported by lawyers from Birmingham, a 24-year-old French woman of Pakistani origin took her well-funded case to the ECHR, claiming that the ban was a violation of her — and note the sequence — religious, cultural and personal rights. On every level, this questionable appeal relied on distortions and untruths. Thankfully her case was thrown out, but her arguments illustrate the chronic weakness of any suggestion that we must allow the burka to be worn in public. First, there is no religious requirement on Muslims to don the burka; second, the burka is not a feature of Pakistani culture, where 90 per cent of women do not wear it; third, there is no unqualified human right to wear whatever we want in public.

        In every developed society, personal freedoms have to take account of wider social mores. The French ban has proved to be legally sound as well as sensible. I have long believed that the same measure should be introduced here in the UK to prevent community separatism and social apartheid. And, like the ECHR, I see no basis for the pretence that there is any religious sanction for the burka. The wearing of the face mask is a custom originating in ancient Persia and Byzantium, more than 1,000 years before the birth of Islam. It was upheld by male aristocrats because of social snobbery rather than religion, since they did not want their womenfolk — wives, daughters, sisters or mothers — to be seen by the peasantry. Nor is there any evidence in the Koran to support the wearing of the burka. Indeed, the Holy Book stipulates that men ‘should lower their gaze’ when meeting women to avoid lecherous staring (verse 24, chapter 30).

        So logically, if women were fully covered up there would be no need for such an instruction. Some Muslim clergy claim that the burka is religiously necessary. They assert this because the Prophet Muhammad’s wives allegedly hid their faces in public. These puritanical clerics do not base their theological misrepresentations on the Koran but on the subsidiary and suspect hadith (a collection of books containing the reputed sayings of Muhammad, written 250 years after his death). In any case, this is a wilful misreading of scripture. In fact, verse 32 of chapter 33 in the Koran explicitly states that ‘the Prophet’s wives are not like other women’. So there is no reason to emulate them. Just as revealingly, it is forbidden for Muslim women going on pilgrimages to Mecca to cover their faces. So if such a pre-Islamic practice is banned in Islam’s holiest site, why on earth would it be required on the streets of Britain?

        The truth is that there is no theological foundation for these separatist face masks, as most non-fundamentalists recognise. Only recently, Al-Azhar, the leading institution of Muslim theology in the Islamic world, declared that the burka has no spiritual authenticity. Theology apart, there are many other compelling arguments against the burka. It badly undermines social cohesion by inhibiting effective interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims in the public realm. There can be no meaningful exchange with people if you cannot even see their faces. Moreover, the burka is an affront to the concept of gender parity in the UK. If I tried to wear a ski-mask on a bus or at a bank, I would quickly be told to remove the item or leave, or be arrested. Why should the same rules not apply to Muslim women? The demand for equal rights has always been central to the feminist cause, and in this case feminists should be calling for men and women to be treated equally. Either everyone has the right to mask their face or no one has. There are huge implications for security, after several cases of terrorists and criminals using the burka to evade detection — a particularly worrying development given the explicit, bloody threats of militant extremists.

        In our troubled world, there can be no absolute right to anonymity in public. Another concern is the health risks, for full coverings mean a distinct lack of exposure to sunshine. One recent study of 203 burka-clad women in the United Arab Emirates revealed that all but four were deficient in Vitamin D. If that can happen in a land of blazing heat, how much worse will be the problems in often damp, dark Britain? Our society is already seeing rises in rickets and other bone-related diseases for the first time since World War II. Supporters of the burka talk about freedom of choice — yet it is not women who are being given that freedom, but men who are imposing their will. That is not empowerment but imprisonment. The burka is just another weapon in the jihadist arsenal of misogyny, like forced marriage, female genital mutilation and sexist discrimination.

        It should have no part in British society, where women are supposed to be treated as equal citizens. By tolerating it, we are allowing a form of gender apartheid to grow in our midst. All of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, have a duty to challenge the religious hardliners who have cynically exploited British traditions of tolerance and individual liberty to pursue their own twisted sectarian agenda imported wholesale from the Arab Middle East.

        A start could be made by forcing our politicians to debate the issue by gathering sufficient signatures for our historic anti-burka petition. We cannot continue to accept the creeping Arabisation of Islam in the UK and consequent destruction of our cherished British freedoms. A stand must be made now.

        Dr Taj Hargey is the Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation and the Director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford

  • 11
    3

    This is welcome news. I hope that judgment goes the same way for the students dress as well (Case to be heard on 4th Aug.). After all, by dressing in the Muslim cultural uniform, the girl child is not in anyway displaying pomp and glamor, nor is she drawing undue attention towards herself, but rather displaying modesty with dignity with a demeanor of humility. Some may argue that school uniforms must be the same for all irrespective of religion, but that is not necessarily the case, and the rule is only on paper. Young Muslim girls must be afforded the right to dress in accordance to their religious teachings, which includes covering of the head, whilst not exposing their legs in public.

    • 5
      16

      Very true Marwan. Lets hope the courts allow female genital mutilation, the full burqa, four wives, stoning for adultery, hanging for apostasy, compulsory circumcision, a tax on non-Muslims and all those other wonderful laws that make Islamic life so delightful around the world.

      But actually, this allowance of the hijab is just a prelude to banning the burqa.

      • 1
        1

        Come on Owl, I could bet that you are in a payroll to loan your ass.

    • 1
      0

      Trouble with Islamic clothing is that it is beyond sensible wearing, and even those women who wear them keep protesting for, and longing for more freedom. And those who do accept it, accept it as higher calling, but only after the acceptance of the mandatory torture laws that are in place.

      It’s like: ‘Ok, the divine writ is we must totally cover up. We cannot challenge that law. It is the Most High’s Law. Therefore, we must go beyond our feeling of being boiled in such apparel, and train our minds and bodies to accept the Divine Writ.” Then the comes the culture of blindly accepting the Burkha.

      Then comes the culture of blindly accepting the Burkha. Indeed, rather than its intended use of humility, it is used to show defiance towards other cultures and religions. Sometimes it can be used (like the bound foot of the Chinese women), to imply sexual subjection, hence belying its modesty. And as it is not of contemporary nature, it can sometimes be of sexual provocation in a land that uses other items of clothing. Therefore it defeats the whole purpose of the wearing of the Burkha in the first place. If modesty is what is wanted, then isn’t it better to follow the modest clothing of national(majority) acceptance?

      Therefore, as the original intent of wearing the Burkha was one of demeaning one’s nature, and it is not contemporary and democratic, and is not Liberté, égalité, fraternité in nature, it must be one to be Questioned and Mandated upon.

  • 9
    1

    I’m a little “miffed” that the defacto CJ came to his conclusion/verdict on his personal observation of a “nicely dressed Muslim girl with her head scarf and trousers” as opposed to apply the laws and the fundamental rights of citizens.
    What if he observed a native veddha boy in an amude? If it was not pleasing to his eyes would he ban it?

    God help Sri Lanka when we have idiots like Mohan Pieris as Chief Justice

    • 2
      0

      Let me rephrase your comment
      I’m a little “miffed” that the defacto CJ came to his conclusion/verdict on his personal observation of a “nicely dressed Muslim girl with her head scarf and trousers” as opposed to apply the laws and the fundamental rights of citizens. What if he sits on Judgement in the Colman case?

      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/buddha-tattoo-case-ag-says-men-of-standing-dont-wear-tattoos/

      “Speaking after the Counsel for the Petitioner made submissions, Jayantha Jayasooriya PC who appeared on behalf of the Respondent government officers made a lengthy submission with regard to the social strata and perception of the people who wear Tattoos.
      “You and I, nor any other public servant would not wear a Tattoo. Normal men of standing usually don’t wear Tattoos, and it is in this context that this issue must be understood” he said.”

      Note: My opinion of tattoos is that I deplore Jayantha Jayasooriya PC’s perception

    • 0
      1

      How dare you insult the attire and tuxedos of our very own Native Veddah? Do you remember how Dahanayaka went in Native pampers to the Parliament when the Poplin quota for the schools were slashed.

  • 3
    6

    Let all vedda boys have their rights and come to schools and to work in amude and keteriya and girls with no tops. Let muslim police women don in billa.

    • 0
      0

      …. and let the spayed Sinhalese boys juggle out with dangling nickles.

  • 2
    12

    Shame!

    A very bad decision.

    • 2
      5

      Throughout EU, people are getting enlightened and court has approved the French government’s ban on veil. And here we let a selected few challenge the practice of the entire establishment. Shame!

  • 6
    2

    Good judgement upholding the rights of individual citizens. What right has a pro BBS principal to decide on these matters.

  • 5
    2

    Nimal, Let us have it this way.
    1.More casinos
    2.More Bars
    3.More Brothels
    4.More Shipments of heroine
    5.More revealing clothes for women.
    6.More Rapes
    7.More Rallies of Booru Balu Sena.
    8.More Killings
    9.More kick backs and Commissions.
    10. Last but not the least,More Presidential Pardons for Rapists and Murderers.
    Now this list looks more like the Miracle of Asia . Isn’t it pal.

    • 2
      3

      Ansar, I see you have taken time out to describe the hypocrites of Saudi Arabia. Don’t restrict yourself to the Kingdom. There are plenty of other Muslim countries that fit the bill.

      Welcome to the party oasis of the Middle East. Connected by a causeway to nearby Saudi Arabia, Manama is a popular spot for Saudis to kick back from their country’s restrictive laws. Here they can get hammered, go clubbing, mingle with the opposite sex, and if they’re really daring, they can pick up prostitutes – a practice that’s illegal but widely available. While Manama is still largely a Muslim city, a third of its residents are foreigners, so it has led to a much more liberal culture that gave women the vote in 2001, and let them drive cars. For many Saudi males this proximity to an open culture is irresistible and many jam the causeway and fill flights to the city every weekend.

      Do you want to see what happens when Saudis cut loose and leave the rules behind? You may need to get in line.

      http://www.news.com.au/travel/debauchery-and-gluttony-askmen-examines-the-worlds-most-sinful-cities/story-e6frfq7r-1226644397806

      • 4
        1

        Nimal

        “Ansar, I see you have taken time out to describe the hypocrites of Saudi Arabia. Don’t restrict yourself to the Kingdom. There are plenty of other Muslim countries that fit the bill. “

        Is Ansar a Saudi national?

        If he is then alright, your comment is relevant.

        If he is not where was he born and bred?

      • 2
        0

        Nimal

        If you want to club and label all Muslims as one, you are welcome to your lopsided opinion. I am sure there are more enlightened souls outside who don’t see a connection.

        While you are at it look at a few Buddhist majority countries and tick off the parallels. Start with Burma, and perhaps Thailand. This list could be quite long,,, you could start with murder, rape prostitution…

        The enlightened one will have a lot to say if he was to make a fourth visit to this thrice blessed island….

        Of course this for people like Nimal and doesn’t apply to true Buddhists……..
        Nabil

        • 0
          0

          Particularly Bang Kock in Thailand.

    • 1
      3

      Ansar

      It is common knowledge that a vast majority of the patrons of massage parlours and brothels are people of your faith . This holier than thou attitude is a load of hogwash – no pun intended .

      • 2
        1

        I hope that hog is halal.

        • 0
          0

          Nimal

          “I hope that hog is halal.”

          Yes it can be for a Sinhala/Buddhist stupid.

      • 1
        0

        A visit to the South Western Coast may cherish you with the tourist comfort homes of that kinds of your Ruhune ilk.

      • 0
        0

        Dr. Goebbels,

        We understand, this is no hogwash either. A section of Sri Lankan Buddhists are so devout, that they go take Sil on Poya day and then shower loving kindness on minorities the following day!

        Remember Borella and Aluthgama? Hogwash indeed!

        Nabil

  • 4
    2

    Three cheers to the Chief Justice for a very rational decision. The SC judgement ,one argue on the pros and cons, definitely demonstrates the independence of the judiciary to give an opinion without paying any attention to the howling mob.

    The judgement definitely puts the BBS and Mr Gnassara in their proper place.Their place is in the temple and nothing but the temple. Of course some may argue that the BBS and Mr Ganannasara are not fit for the temple too but that is another matter.

    • 0
      1

      Dilantha

      Indeed many cheers to the SC verdict but with caution
      and on condition that the decision was not a surprise to
      a few.Hijab is the fashionable alternative to Saree
      generation.Head gets covered with the Saree for
      generations and now girls wear everything except Saree
      and needed something to cover their heads.Govt needs to
      respect people’s rights and add more to their rights
      instead of pushing them into seeking justice from courts.
      People don’t need a govt to stand idle watching a group
      of racists challenging and inciting hatred against
      businesses and people’s lifestyles.It is wrong to ignore
      it as only “against Muslims.” It is against all
      Srilankans and purely political.Thuggery against a strong
      group of strong political opinion.Blackmailing.Revenge
      for the defeats the govt faced, in recent elections and a
      warning of the consequences in the future.Their game plan
      is,hiring thugs to destroy everything and then running to
      rescue and rebuild.Sweet revenge.Nothing new added and a
      permanent damage to the future hopes.Muslims are a major
      contributors of modern Srilanka and they won’t be fooled
      that easily.Gnanasara is not a monk,he’s a thug.HE MUST
      NOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN TEMPLES WITHOUT AN APOLOGY TO
      BUDDHIST BELIEVERS,NEVER TO REPEAT THUGGERY.

  • 1
    1

    Superb! You have respect and tolerence for other cultures. I appreciate.

  • 0
    1

    stupid decision by judge and he should be dismissed

  • 1
    2

    stupid decision by judge and he should be dismissed..

  • 1
    1

    judge seems to[Edited out]

  • 4
    0

    Nimal, I wish you and I could live to see who toes the line.
    Truth always prevails over falsehood and natural justice over anarchy and destruction. I for a moment do not endorse Bahrain form of life.Islam is not Bahrain. Just like BBS doesn’t mean Buddhism.

  • 3
    0

    Dr, With all due respect to you, there are good ones and bad ones in all faiths. You don’t blame a religion for that.
    I am sure you are an intellect to understand that.I never blame Buddhism for the destructive and deplorable acts of BBS.

  • 2
    1

    Judge got hijab favours!

  • 2
    1

    Native Veddha, I am very much Sri Lankan Muslim. First Sri Lankan then Muslim. Rest assured that for any reason if Sri Lanka goes to war with Pakistan. We Muslims are supposed to fight along with our Sri Lankan Army against Pakistan. That is what Islam has thought us to do and I will not go against my religion and I am sure none of real Muslims will. That is what Islam is all about contrary to the negative picture painted by vested interests.

    • 2
      0

      Ansar

      “I am very much Sri Lankan Muslim.”

      You have just spoiled the fun. The question was aimed at Nimal.

    • 0
      0

      Ansar

      When Sri Lanka played Pakistan at Kettarama a few years ago , there were hundreds of Sri Lankans waving Pakistani flags . I hope we never have to go to war with Pakistan !!

      • 0
        0

        Dr. Dr. Goebbels

        Here’s what happened in Jan 2013, when Sri Lanka played Australia in Melbourne. Sri Lankans (now naturalized Australian citizens)were waving Sri Lankan flags. Australian commentators were flabbergasted. Here were people who had denounced their former motherland, taken the oath of allegiance to the Australian constitution cheering Sri Lanka on!!!!!!!!

        They didn’t have disparaging racist comments but merely mentioned it and moved on with the commentary. The Australian fans didn’t start a riot either and took the rather unusual spectacle in with good cheer.

        In the recent Football world cup, millions of fans wanted their favourite team to win. Millions of fans from all over the word who follow Premier League Football, among them many Sri Lankans who are Manchester United Fans. Football unifies nations.

        Yet despite our proud tradition and culture of over 2500 years, we get irked when we see a few people supporting another country’s team, in this case Pakistan! It is OK for Australian citizens(albeit former Sri Lankans) not to cheer Australia, but it is not OK for Sri Lankans to another country!

        Because of your ingrained racism, you cannot see a test match between two teams for what it is, a sporting event. It has to be a match between two religions and races!

        Dr. Goebbels, don’t you think you sound pathetic? There is a pithy Sinhala saying which goes like this; “Kanna on unahama, kabaragoyath thalagoya wenawa” An apt descriptor of your argument.

        BTW, I am not even asking you to consider these points;first there are many Pakistanis living and working in Sri Lanka. Second there are many Pakistani Fans who follow their team. Could not these be some of them?

        • 0
          0

          Nabil

          How can you compare Sri Lankans living in Australia to Sri Lankans of the Islamic faith who have been living in our midst for generations ? And this was long before BBS !!

          However , I am happy that we have had a civilised exchange of ideas without name calling and hysteria , which is quite common in this forum . I wish you well , and hope you have a wonderful Eid .

  • 1
    0

    Native, I know the question was aimed at Nimal. Just wanted to clarify the point from my side.
    Hope no harm done . Sorry if it had upset you in any way.

    • 2
      0

      Ansar

      “Hope no harm done . Sorry if it had upset you in any way.”

      Don’t worry too much about what you said or didn’t say. I was only trying to poke fun at him.

      Have a good day.

  • 0
    0

    Trouble with Islamic clothing is that it is beyond sensible wearing in Sri Lanka, and even those women who wear them in Arab countires keep protesting for, and longing for more freedom. And those who do accept it, accept it as higher calling, but only after the acceptance of the mandatory torture laws of whipping, cannings and imprisonment that are in place. It’s like: ‘Ok, the divine writ is we must totally cover up. We cannot challenge that law. It is the Most High’s Law. Therefore, we must go beyond our feeling of being boiled in such apparel, and train our minds and bodies to accept the Divine Writ.”

    Then comes the culture of blindly accepting the Burkha. Indeed, rather than its intended use of humility, it is used to show defiance towards other cultures and religions. Sometimes it can be used (like the bound foot of the Chinese women), to imply sexual subjection, hence belying its modesty. And as it is not of contemporary nature, it can sometimes be of sexual provocation in a land that uses other items of clothing. Therefore it defeats the whole purpose of the wearing of the Burkha in the first place. If modesty is what is wanted, then isn’t it better to follow the modest clothing of national(majority) acceptance?

    Therefore, as the original intent of wearing the Burkha was one of demeaning one’s nature, and it is not contemporary and democratic, and is not Liberté, égalité, fraternité in nature, it must be one to be Questioned and Mandated upon.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.