This is a cute one!

> the cinemas, they need not prove their patriotism at all. For those who
> watch movies thrice a week, they will now need to stand up thrice to prove
> their patriotism. With a popcorn in one hand and a coke in the other. 

Just remember - you will be standing up for the American brand Coke. And the 
pop-corn? Well, that's an American thing too! 


Jim Fernandes
Scarsdale, New York.



On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:06:10 +0530, Sandeep Heble <sandeephe...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> The Supreme Court says the National Anthem must now be compulsorily played
> in Cinemas and all must stand up. I guess everybody seems to be in the mood
> of surgical strikes these days. This time, it’s the Supreme Court’s turn to
> hit those who go to the cinemas for a round of entertainment. What a skewed
> logic of patriotism the Court has come up with. For those who never go to
> the cinemas, they need not prove their patriotism at all. For those who
> watch movies thrice a week, they will now need to stand up thrice to prove
> their patriotism. With a popcorn in one hand and a coke in the other. But
> stand up they must. Why target the cinemas only where people go for
> entertainment? Why is the National Anthem not made compulsory in Government
> offices before the beginning of each day? And why not in the Courts of Law
> before every session? The only silver lining is that the Order has come
> after the completion of the Film Festival or else delegates would have had
> to stand up three or 4 times a day. How absurd would that have been? In one
> of its earlier Judgements the Supreme Court had said judges must remain
> within the limits of the law and not peddle individual perceptions and
> notions. Here, they have done exactly the opposite. Under what law of the
> land should the Anthem be compulsorily played in cinemas? This Order is
> clearly flawed and an attack on civil liberties. Courts are there to
> interpret the law, not to act dictatorial. This is a case of Judicial
> overreach by the highest Court of the land. From the Supreme Court, we
> expected better!
> 
> warm regards,
> Sandeep Heble
> 9326129171


Reply via email to