政一B 邱科翰 (5)

姓名 : 邱科翰
班級 : 政一B
學號 : 07114248

[標題] *India’s Sabarimala: Over 2,000 arrested for blocking women from temple*

[內文] *Police in India have arrested 2,200 people for protesting against the entry of women into a prominent Hindu temple in the southern state of Kerala.*
Hundreds clashed with women to prevent them from entering the Sabarimala shrine last week , despite a historic Supreme Court ruling.
Violent protests were also held in different parts of the state, defying the police’s appeal for peace.
The temple has historically been closed to women of “menstruating age”.
A senior police officer told BBC Hindi’s Imran Qureshi that the protesters, including both men and women, have been arrested for rioting and unlawful assembly.
“We have arrested those who prevented women from entering the temple and also those who violently protested against the court’s order. We hope that this will act as a deterrent when the temple reopens in November,” the officer said.
The temple only opens for brief periods throughout the year.
Massive protests meant that very few women attempted to enter the temple last week and those who tried were forced to turn back.
Protesters believe that the ruling goes against the wishes of the deity, Lord Ayappa, himself.
They say that the ban on women entering Sabarimala is not about menstruation alone - it is also in keeping with the wish of the deity who is believed to have laid down clear rules about the pilgrimage to seek his blessings.
According to the temple’s mythology, Lord Ayyappa is an avowed bachelor who has taken an oath of celibacy, hence the ban on the entry of women.
Hinduism regards menstruating women as unclean and bars them from participating in religious rituals.
While most Hindu temples allow women to enter as long as they are not menstruating, the Sabarimala temple was unusual in that it was one of the few that did not allow women in a broad age group to enter at all.
This was overturned by the Supreme Court last month, with judges observing that “the right to practice religion is available to both men and women”.
The temple did open its doors to women last week as directed by the court ruling. However, not a single woman was able to enter because of the protesters.
Two women managed to reach the main temple premises last week. More than 100 policemen protected them from stone-throwing protesters as they walked the last 5km (3-mile) stretch to the shrine.





…

[相關憲法條文]
憲法第七條 : 中華民國人民，無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、 黨派，在法律上一律平等。
憲法第十條 : 人民有居住及遷徙之自由。
憲法第十三條 : 人民有信仰宗教之自由。
憲法第十四條 : 人民有集會及結社之自由。
憲法第二十二條 : 凡人民之其他自由及權利，不妨害社會秩序公共利益者，均受憲法之保障。

{相關法條}
集會遊行法第一條 : 為保障人民集會﹑遊行之自由，維持社會秩序，特制定本法。本法未規定者，適用其他法律之規定。
集會遊行法第五條 : 對於合法舉行之集會、遊行，不得以強暴、脅迫或其他非法方法予以妨害。
集會遊行法第六條 : 集會、遊行不得在左列地區及其週邊範圍舉行。但經主管機關核准者，不在此限：
一、總統府、行政院、司法院、考試院、各級法院及總統、副總統官邸。
二、國際機場、港口。
三、重要軍事設施地區。
四、各國駐華使領館、代表機構、國際組織駐華機構及其館長官邸。
前項第一款、第二款地區之週邊範圍，由內政部劃定公告；第三款地區之週邊範圍，由國防部劃定公告。但均不得逾三百公尺。第四款地區之週邊範圍，由外交部劃定公告。但不得逾五十公尺。
集會遊行法第八條 : 室外集會、遊行，應向主管機關申請許可。但左列各款情形不在此限：
一、依法令規定舉行者。
二、學術、藝文、旅遊、體育競賽或其他性質相類之活動。
三、宗教、民俗、婚、喪、喜、慶活動。
室內集會無須申請許可。但使用擴音器或其他視聽器材足以形成室外集會者，以室外集會論。
集會遊行法第十四條 : 主管機關許可室外集會、遊行時，得就左列事項為必要之限制：
一、關於維護重要地區、設施或建築物安全之事項。
二、關於防止妨礙政府機關公務之事項。
三、關於維持交通秩序或公共衛生之事項。
四、關於維持機關、學校等公共場所安寧之事項。
五、關於集會、遊行之人數、時間、處所、路線事項。
六、關於妨害身分辨識之化裝事項。
集會遊行法第二十三條 : 集會、遊行之負責人，其代理人或糾察員及參加人均不得攜帶足以危害他人生命、身體、自由或財產安全之物品。
集會遊行法第二十五條 : 有左列情事之一者，該管主管機關得予警告、制止或命令解散：
一、應經許可之集會、遊行未經許可或其許可經撤銷、廢止而擅自舉行者。
二、經許可之集會、遊行而有違反許可事項、許可限制事者。
三、利用第八條第一項各款集會、遊行，而有違反法令之行為者。
四、有其他違反法令之行為者。
前項制止、命令解散，該管主管機關得強制為之。
集會遊行法第二十八條 : 集會﹑遊行，經該管主管機關命令解散而不解散者，處集會﹑遊行負責人或其代理人或主持人新台幣三萬元以上十五萬元以下罰鍰。集會遊行負責人未盡第二十二條第二項但書之責，致集會遊行繼續進行者，處新台幣三萬元以下罰鍰。
…

心得評論：
This week’s topic is heavily focused on equal rights for sexes, with connection to religious freedom. I picked this topic because it aligns with one of India’s most prominent internal issues - discrimination and suppression of women and their rights. It’s more about history and culture than of hate and ignorance, yet somehow this makes the issue more complicated. Past rulings from the court has encountered severe opposition in actual execution, and arguments about “religious autonomy” and “respect for cultural values” were often used to defend against such rulings. These protests protects and strengthens the system which violates women rights.
In this incident, the court ruled the temple’s decision as illegal. However, even after such conclusions were made, the followers of the Hindu faith still decided to act against it. Personally, I don’t think India’s government should tolerate such acts, and I support this crackdown. The constitution of most modern states protects the freedom of religion, but also mentions the separation between church and state as a core concept. A country can have a central religion to serve as, say, a moral guideline. But no way can religious values interfere in government operations and court filings to an extent. This incident, to me, is a step too far. People have the right to adopt whatever religion they please, and that includes all sexes.
The right to gather and form a rally is also a topic to debate. While citizens are free to assemble as they wish, the purpose of said assemblies cannot compromise basic civil rights. And if the rallies themselves are illegal in nature or has the intention to go against state rulings, then law enforcement officials should have the right to dismiss them.
This incident, and the crackdown that follows, in my opinion, should be more common in India. The local authorities should take a more forceful stand to defend women rights, instead of bowing down to “religion and culture”. History were written by men, and it is time to do better.