Some kids at a school in Texas - where bleedin' else! - are suing over an edict banning boys from having long hair.
When I was at school we not only had regulation hair cuts but also dress codes and the prohibition of sporting a bone through the nose. The idea was to instill some sense of pride in appearance and prepare you for the outside world where there were lots of rules you might not like.
These delightful Texan urchins however claim that having to get their hair cut is not only against a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination but also........wait for it.........against the soddin' constitution! Is there ANYTHING in the USA which some bloody redneck or woke wanker DOESN'T think is against the fucking constitution?
Acording to them, electing someone president when they got seven million more votes than their opponent is against the constitution. Any attempt to scold people who violently protest at the treble-checked, democratic result is against the bloody constitution. Nit-picking about the staging of an attempted armed insurrection which cost five lives is against the constitution. Arresting anyone who tries to stage a coup d'etat is against the constitution. Now, getting your hair cut is against the constitution.
Has ANYONE actually read the bleedin' constitution? By definition, it lays out certain inalienable rights to which citizens are entitled but it is an understatement to say it has become either lost or distorted by the fogs of time.
For clarity, I wrote to Benjamin Franklyn, the man whose proposal brought the constitution into being in the first place. OK, he's been dead for 231 years but I guessed they could just pop this in his "pending" tray.
Dear Ben,
This constitution of yours, just a few questions. After you'd crayoned in freedom of speech, assembly and religion, can you remember anyone jumping up with any other suggestions? For instance, was there some hipply-looking dude who said it was "Well bummer, man" that his mum kept telling him to get a haircut so you decided to include that one?
The bloke there who looked slightly mad, was smeared in blood and had notches on his gunbelt, did he say anything about shooting people being what God wanted so you put that in?
How about the lad who wanted to be called Loretta and to have the right to have babies? Did you add in his wants?
As for violence, getting rid of democracy and a handful of redneck nutjobs being entitled to rule everyone else, what was the general mood of the meeting?
See, thing is, I thought we had certain RESPONSIBILITIES to go with our rights? You know, being responsible for safeguarding others by not driving on the wrong side of the road, not starting fires in neighbours' homes, not shooting people who disagree with you, not hacksawing the heads off those who worship a different God and not jailing people simply because they support Leeds United?
Your constitution, brill though it might be, is a little bit light on the responsibilities side of things. Don't worry, it's like all declarations of entitlements. We've got one called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Again, it's a jolly good thing but is shy of responsibilities and caveats. The result is you get jailed mass murderers suing because they are given raspberry jam at teatime, not their favourite, strawberry. There is no provision which says "Oh, by murdering people you disqualify yourself from having the following rights" - and list choice of jam alongside voting, building aeroplanes and tunnelling etc.
Why not come up with an ammendment? There have been 27 so far so don't feel put out. Another one will hardly be noticed.
Ammendment No. 28: "All rights enshrined in this document to be applicable on a case by case basis."
Kind regards,
Reg.
No comments:
Post a Comment