Kandahar and the cats

Recently, I have noticed a significant use of the terms “Taliban,” “Kandahar,” or any other designation that reflects any extremism when commenting on or responding to some opinions or some draft laws. Some of them use it to describe some of our fellow MPs as an abbreviation of their expression and objection to these ideas, which many see as extremist. The use of such terms is alien to our society and should not be used towards any individual who expresses a point of view that may be correct from his point of view. From the perspective of others, it is nothing but extremism. Yes, we object and discuss strongly as well, but without launching labels and accusations, and of course that applies to some of our fellow representatives, who do not hesitate to make accusations and hurl defamatory words towards those who oppose them, as if they had forgotten that they represent the people, and gained their positions through democratic elections, and especially In mentioning our dear friend, who was quoted as saying, “We seek to get closer to Allah’s law, and we are not ashamed of that, even if an ignorant person criticizes us," Firstly, there is no shame when approaching Allah’s law, and frankly, I do not know how this extra-textual sentence was worded. Second: You should not call your critics ignorant, even though this friend of ours is a respectable and kind person, and I was very surprised by his manner with his critics. The head of the National Assembly, Bou Abdel Aziz, added to that with his impeccable speech, in which he mentioned and described some of them as cats on paper (useless). I wished that he would clearly state who these corrupt cats are, whether merchants or employees, and if they include members of the National Assembly. This constructive speech is not useful. We want to know the truth if you know it. We have the right to know, as this is our homeland, and I hope that we will elevate the discourse level of all parties, making the discussion, argument, transparency, and acceptance of other opinions the basis of cooperation and coexistence. Back to what some representatives proposed, and I begin by proposing to restore censorship of books under the pretext of not harming people’s dignity or defaming them. I am surprised that they did not ask themselves: What is the percentage of books whose authors offended people during the previous decade, which calls for such censorship? Now that books have become available online and readers of digital and audio books have become more numerous than traditional readers, what are you going to do? And a second question: How many fake accounts on Twitter go back to this or that person, which attack people’s dignity, instill strife, and intrigue, and violate Islamic law daily? Isn't it more dangerous and harmful than a book that no one reads? So, what are you doing? Your proposal is valid for the year 1960 and not today, and I refer to the proposal of some of our representatives, those who want to criminalize plastic surgery and set conditions that amount to obtaining approval from the Ministry of Interior. Frankly, this proposal needs to be reconsidered and reviewed by the competent authorities, especially the Ministry of Health, as well as medical and human rights associations. My fellow members, I agree with you that there is chaos and an uncontrolled market regarding cosmetic surgeries, whether in government or private settings. Strict controls must be put in place for the Ministry of Health, in line with what is followed in developed countries. I will give an example: during a jaw surgery that a young man underwent in London, they required him and his parents to visit a psychiatrist twice, at different intervals, and to submit a report from them confirming his psychological readiness for the operation. At the same time, exorbitant fines are imposed on doctors in the event of an error or unjustified marketing of the operation, and everyone knows that our medical errors are difficult to prove and the fines do not amount to the extent of the damage, unlike non-medical and unlicensed entities, such as some salons that perform some cosmetic procedures, such as Botox, tattooing, and others. In fact, we need to be serious about implementing the law, obliging the Ministry of Health to carry out its oversight role, and educating society about the dangers of performing such operations. As for this proposal of yours in its current formulation, it will be interpreted as interfering in people’s freedoms and imposing hegemony on them, as well as harming the medical sector, and the result is nothing, as the neighboring countries have opened the door wide open, and we will find a migration of our doctors to neighboring countries, and people know the way, and your law will not prevent them.

To be continued in the next article.

Stay safe.