كتب بو ركان في مقالته المعنونة " أيها الدستوريون انكعموا" ، رأيا صدمني، أنقله لكم بالحرف
في نظرنا ان تعليق أي مادة دستورية امر مرفوض، لكن وفي نظرنا ايضا فإن كان التعليق بهدف حماية مواد الدستور والذود عن حقوق الناس، فإن هذا التعليق يصبح مشروعا بل وضرورة ايضا. هذا يعني ان كان تعليق المادة 107 او ما يسميه السذج والمؤزمون بالانقلاب على الدستور بهدف الانتصار للنظام الديموقراطي فمرحبا بالانقلاب. ان كان تعليق المادة 107 بهدف تفعيل المواد 35 حرية الاعتقاد، 36 حرية الرأي، 37 حق النشر فأهلا بالتعليق. ان كان وقف العمل بالمادة 107 يهدف الى تطبيق دستور 1962 كما شاء له المؤسسون ان يطبق، فالجميع من المفروض ان يكون مع هذا الموقف
وخلال مشاهدتي لفلم
حول حياة السير توماس مور، شدني هذا المشهد البليغ الذي أعتبره ردي على الكاتب العزيز بو راكان، بلسان توماس مور
;)
Wife: Arrest him!
Sir Thomas More: For what?
Wife: he's dangerous!
William Roper: Libel. He's a spy!
Margaret More: [Father,] that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: [There is:] God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
Wife: While you talk he's gone!
Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil [himself,] until he broke the law!
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil [the] benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a [great] road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in
Sir Thomas More: [Oh?] And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted [thick] with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
10 comments:
عظمة
ما فهمت
You can only have one law; either God's or man's. Not both
كش شعر ينبي
I remember reading More's Utopia in school for my thesis on the physical nature of his imaginary Utopia but found myself more intrigued by the religious behavior of the citizens of Utopia.
How god designed the human soul to be happy and by living according to the nature and the dictates of reason, they can achieve this commitment to happiness and public good.
but I'm not sure the principles of his Utopia are applicable to this life that we're living, I dont think he was setting morals and principles for us to live according to, like what Jubran was doing in the Prophet. he was just constructing a different society believing in a different type of religion in his book. I dont think he ever believed that god's law and human law could meet in such a utopic fashion.
You are smart and very well read, but you are too timid to do any good for the masses.
Let go of your taboos and you will be just fine.
Good luck
well said
اوافقك الرأي
Ma6goog,
read again, thoroughly ;)
Ayya,
indeed, and that's why we're suffering from our law's schizophrenia.
Dalal Arch,
I agree with you, and I think that this is what Sir Thomas said in the sentence.
As for utopia, at the beginning of this movie there is a small talk on how things are to be run in utopia.
نوافكو
Thanks, I really do appreciate it. :)
My own problem, or irony, is that I pay less attention to my taboos when speaking out of the blogo-sphere.
But I need to work this out.
The allusions you draw and the analogies you paint demonstrate great accumulation of knowledge.
In a time when ugly columns randomly and rapidly erupt in our "fourth authority," it's a true pleasure to find a real writer.
Glad I was led to your blog.
Post a Comment