Plastic

Conservatives have always touted the laws and rules and regulation must not

only be abidding but also be rigid and fixed. However closer re-examination

of issue reveals that although strictness in implementation of laws are

necessary,but rigidity in law for long time is not acceptable in society.

Law must be flexible enough to be adapted suitably to changing needs, times

and places.


First and foremost,historically most of the laws set by the peoples or

governing body has not been absolute forever. For instance, lets take the

example of polygamy. It is known that our earliest ancestors(male) used to

mate with several females. It was acceptable at that point of the time and

once completely legal. If it is judged in current prespective it will be

unaccptable to most of the people rest aside darn feminist. Thus law changes

with changing prespective of the people. As the menality of people changes

(develops) the law need to acclimitaize according to it.Untill recently the

law doesnot provide the enfranchising right to the female. The females were

never given equal status to the male counterpart, even in the monarchies

where the queens were axis of rule. This was not illegal though according to

rules defined at those time. As the circumstance change and mentality of the

people became more rational toward female. The situtation of female started

to improve, this encouraged the proponent of female rights to raise voice

against the prevalent laws.The females were given the right to electthe

government and many other antifeminist laws was changed. Thus laws are

reflection of mentality of people at that time. As the mentality change the

reflection changes.


Mentality changes with the places. The boundry of such change can be more or

less attirbuted to culture. Thus most of nations having different cultures

have different laws and different rules and regulations. For instance the

lets take examples of Gay marriage. The European countries are more rational

toward it. While the Arabian countries are completely against this. This is

culpable crime for them and sin against the almighty GOD. The reason is

European cultures is more open to such disgressions. While Arabian are more

rigid towards this. This difference is not the transgression but it is

progeny of relativism of law. Thus every rational society have always denied

the absolutness of the laws.

While it may be clear that the laws must not be rigid and fixed, it should

be flexible enough to taken into account the account the various

circumstance, times and places.The effiectiveness of the law is defined by

its proper implementation and more importantly to its flexiblity. The bottom

line issue is laws are defined for the people and not that people is defined

for the laws.