State prestige and ‘right to remain silent’
years ago, a tribal elder, perhaps a government employee at that time, gave himself the name or title ‘amir’ so that he would be addressed as amir of that tribe.
days and months passed by, and no one intervened or even noticed him, so the majority of tribal elders followed him, and the naming within a short period became a tradition especially by some tribal fanatics.
with the change in the general mood and the arrival of fundamentalist deputies in parliament, some of them began to change and alter the text of the oath that each deputy was required to pronounce before his highness the amir and the rest of the members of the assembly immediately after their elections, and in the first session without which the membership shall be invalid.
days and years passed by and no one drew the attention of that deputy or others because it was unconstitutional, and tampering with the text of the oath, but none of that happened, so others went further and imitated it, and i do not know the opinion of the competent on that matter.
moreover, more than one school principal and deputy, on dozens of occasions, refused to stand for the national anthem or/and respect the procedures of hoisting the national flag because they might think that a piece of music or a piece of cloth is not worthy of respect, and they remained seated in their places, knowing that the explanatory note to the constitution provides an explanation of the article 5 and how important is its symbolism.
since no one objected to their behavior and their disrespect for the national symbol, others followed suit.
some may reason that oath, knowledge and national anthem are matters of a pre-islam era and not of religion, and this may be true, but is it from religion to mediate on behalf of the son of the tribe or sect, even if he is accused of a serious sexual crime?
how is it possible to contest is tribal elections which are criminalized by virtue of the law which they have sworn to respect and to follow? why do they insist and adhere to certain sects and resort to illegal intermediaries, then refuse to stand for the national anthem on religious pretexts?
this is not a kind of game to treat this issue. the national anthem is sublime and so is the national flag, and evokes the praises of the nation’s history and traditions. not recognizing the national anthem is an objection to one of the symbols of the state whose bounties we all preserve.
conclusion: the concerned authorities have the right to remain silent about the behavior of some mps, the last of who is mp fayez ghannam aljumhour, for not respecting the national anthem, but this ‘right to remain silent should include all, not just a number of mps.
note: yesterday, an official from a gulf country asked those in the front rows to leave the celebration held in his honor because they did not stand up when the country’s national anthem was played.
