A long road ahead still!

Looks like it is still a long road ahead.

Yesterday I was elated when I read the papers about how the Cabinet had decided on the policy regarding conversions involving minors. Today I am not so elated any more. This is after what I read in the papers today. It appears that there are many quarters not very happy with the policy made by the cabinet. They argue that the Federal Court had decided in the Subashini case that it is good in law for one spouse to convert the children even if the other spouse disagreed. They also state that Art 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution is authority to say that because of the words "parent or guardian" and not "parents or guardian". They argue that this means singular i.e one spouse.

Q : So what happens if one spouse does this act of conversion to spite the other spouse? Does this mean that the other spouse is left with no remedy? What if the conversions are done without the knowledge of the other spouse?

With due respect I have to disagree with the Federal Court as well as the narrow interpretation in seeking out the meaning of "parent or guardian". I do not think that justice is best served when one interprets the word very narrowly as to how it is being done now. The word parent would necessarily have to mean parents i.e both father and mother! Any contrary interpretation would only bring about confusion and unjust situations. The fact of the matter is that, the Federal Court had erred in that Subashini's case.

So where do we go from here? Looks like I was right in being sceptical about this reversal in policy by the cabinet. It appears to me that there is a very long, long road ahead in resolving this matter.

Isn't religion one of faith? Shouldn't religion be a personal choice instead of being imposed arbitrarily by laws?

It appears that the ball is back at the cabinet's feet. Will it seek to ammend the existing laws and end the illogical nonsense that is going on?

Hmmmm....... sad!

M V Nathan