SHOULD WE EXPECT THIS?

LAST week I mentioned that the first cut is the deepest and today I wish this was not true because the first cut was a disappointment.

The behaviour of our parliamentarians in their early days gives credence to what my critics have always argued; that they have long lost trust in Parliament. I am not sure how I will respond after what I heard was discussed in the House last week.

I fear that the first cut, which is supposed to be the deepest, was the wrong cut. I am now wondering what we should expect from the Legislature. Who would blame me if I come to the conclusion that we are going to have a worse Parliament if parliamentarians will continue along the route they have taken in their early days.

I read that parliamentarians were complaining that they were tricked into passing certain legislation because they were made to pass the laws when they were already rushing for their holidays. I then wondered if such a person is worthy of the responsibility of passing laws for the country.

Basically, the Member of Parliament was saying they had no problem of passing laws without even knowing what they meant. Whether the law was going to sell the whole country it was not important to them but they just wanted to go enjoy a holiday. This then reminded me of the time when the laws governing our elections were passed, where again Parliament was made to hastily pass them without going through the laws and properly debating them. But our jelly-back parliamentarians just simply passed the laws. The question is, if this person is admitting this and he is back in Parliament what will stop such from happening again?

Understand

I wonder if parliamentarians do give themselves time to read and understand the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. I wish the Human Rights Commission had time and resources to go unpack the Bill of Rights in the House.

I have read, in the Constitution, about equality in all spheres of life, especially between the different genders. Is it not discriminatory when female Members of Parliament are told how they should wear their hair? Is the hair necessary for the business to be carried out in Parliament or is it the brains that are necessary? Why treat the female members of the House differently if we are talking about equality?

Somewhere the Constitution speaks about women not being forced to adhere to certain cultures they are consciously opposed to. But we have a Parliament that is forcing women to adhere to a certain culture without finding out from them if they are not opposed to that culture.

The truth is; it is our culture and some of us respect it that women should cover their hair. But in this day and age you cannot force another person to do that. That it was said they could improvise and stylishly cover their hair is not good enough. Why force them to do it in the first place?

The culture argument will not hold for me because I am of the view that it is people who are married or of a certain age that have to cover their hair. Does this mean that girls who are culturally not supposed to cover their hair will never be allowed into Parliament? Is that not discriminatory? Is that not what is discouraging women in the country from running for a Parliament seat? Is it not the reason we have few females in Parliament?

This submission should not be interpreted to say people should dress badly or show disrespect and go to Parliament. No, that is not what I am saying but we should not discourage people with rules that are not necessary. As a country we are supposed to be encouraging women to take up such positions.

Affirmative action

The affirmative action of having four women elected from the regions should come to an end because it appears to be patronising the women yet they are supposed to stand for elections and win them. But with such rules, capable women who do not like to cover their heads will be discouraged and the image of the country will be at stake.

This left me wondering; are we to expect our Parliament to concern itself with such trivial issues that are giving the wrong image about the country? To me it appears there were a lot of issues of importance that were supposed to be discussed than ladies covering their hair.

If they were discussing how they would make sure that they read and understood the Bills before they are passed, that would have been worthwhile. I do not wish to think that this is what we are to see coming from Parliament.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: