Groups » Human Rights

Hijab in public, "secular" institutions

• Anwer Ali Khan Lodhi
  Jun 13 2011, 08:46 PM
  why we raise the objection on dressing if someone is not feeling any problem by wearing that kind of dress? Live and the let the people live!
  
  
• M. S.
  Jun 22 2011, 09:45 PM
  Honestly speakking, i dont see two issues of human rights conflicting in this. How is wearing a headscarf a security threat? Does it threatens the life, liberty and security of a person? If it by some ridiculous reasoning does then wearing normal clothes would also do, they could also hide some potential arms. It is an intrinsic part of a person's identity, something they dont want to discard with. Like the sikhs wear turbans, the nuns thier clothes, and similar other people hijab must not be restricted to the private sphere. This would be a flagrant violation of all the human rights laws and norms which the west espouse and cherish. It is not only a violation of the right to profess your religion, but it is tantamount to dictating this is who you ought to be.
  
  
• Prof. Jaiprakashreddy Patil
  Jun 23 2011, 04:57 AM
  Let every one have the freedom of living their life according to their own reasonable desires and aspirations without hurting others, law and morals.
  
  
• Humaira Ch
  Jun 23 2011, 05:06 PM
  hhhhhg
  
  
• Waqar Azim
  Jun 24 2011, 02:52 AM
  Hello Everyone
  Irrespective of the discussion going on here I wish to point out a new topic for the benefit/information
  of everyone,"What does Peace mean to You"
  We have a society named Public Rights Society of Pakistan(www.publicrightspakistan.com)
  Currently I am its chairman.
  We regularly receive mails from various global organisations including "The Carter Centre"
  Yesterday I received a mail from the Carter Centre on the above topic.
  For the benefit /information of everyone I will like to reproduce the comments of Jimmy Carter
  on the subject:
  
  "Peace is more than the absence of War.There is an inner peace that comes from personnel security and
  personnel freedom.Peace also includes the sense of a mother and father that their children will live,
  that they will have food for them to eat, and that they would not be subjected to a lifetime of suffering
  that could have been prevented."
  
  I have repeatedly read this defination of peace and wish every one to pledge to make this world
  a place where every mother and father can expect a security for their children as above
  and where human beings will ensure security for the children of animals and birds as well.
  Best Wishes for everyone
  [email protected]
  
  
• Deleted User
  Jul 01 2011, 02:46 PM
  Such prohibition is contrary to their right to personal liberty and religion.human agencies should rise against such and the state legislator should act so as not to provoke religious anger.
  
  
• Najeeb Ashraf
  Aug 26 2013, 02:58 PM
  Islam is not a rigid religion, but if a women wants to addopt her own choice Liberty she can wear one.

  [Edited Nov 30 2013]

  
  
• Najeeb Ashraf
  Sep 19 2013, 06:41 PM
  Its a freedom of Ones Religion, No body has got the right to comment or attack on it. Its a Natural liberty of every Religion. Where Liberty falls, that's called Human Rights. If anybody wants to weare Hijab its her liberty.
  
  
• Irfan Ahmed
  Dec 07 2013, 03:46 AM
  Freedom of the individual to wear or not wear HIJAB cannot be interfered with by any nation.i think the universal declaration of human rights itself is controversial as it was proclaimed and drafted in a situation where the participation of the well versed scholars of the famous and beg religions of the world was not satisfied. therefore there is extreme need for the redrafting and reform of the declaration otherwise there will be conflicts between this declaration and other municipal laws. There is no other possibility, as the only alternative - which is not a viable one - would be that the legislator rules in advance any possible situation of conflict (which he never would foresee. Nobody of the creators of the European Communities in 1950ies thought they could ever infringe human rights as a simple economic integration zone,
  I’m afraid the ban will be seen to be discriminatory. After all, if the objection is to religious symbols, why don’t the authorities ban Christians from wearing crosses on a chain around their neck? They say they will do so if the cross is too conspicuous, but that is unfair on Muslims and other religions; they suffer just because their religious symbols happen to be more visible.
  
  
• Najeeb Ashraf
  May 13 2014, 01:56 PM
  There is no such breach of human rights. Its one will.
  
  

Reply

You have to be a member of "Human Rights" in order to reply.

Join