传奇故事

篮网老板蔡崇信称尼克斯的夺冠之旅对篮网而言堪称“耻辱”。_我的网站

一 |     纽约尼克斯队至今仍沉浸在队史首个NBA总冠军的喜悦之中，但并非每个纽约人都为此感到高兴。布鲁克林篮网队老板蔡崇信在最近的一次采访中坦言，尼克斯队的夺冠对他旗下的球队而言堪称“耻辱”，他还强调，同城对手的近期成功并不会改变布鲁克林队重建的“发展轨迹”。         “每年都会有一支球队夺得总冠军，”蔡崇信告诉NetsDaily，“恰好今年夺冠的球队就在同一个城市。

二 | 这确实让我们心情不佳，也激怒了我们的球迷，实在令人尴尬。    New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.

Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.

"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.

"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?

Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.

On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.

"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.

"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.

"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.

He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.

The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.

Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:

Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?

Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?

What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?

UNI SM BAV GNK。但在商业领域或是竞技场上——无论体育还是其他方面——都不应让这种尴尬情绪影响自己的表现……我们早有既定计划，正在推进球队重建，目前来看发展势头良好，因此我的想法丝毫没有改变。”          蔡崇信告诉NetsDaily，他依然会坚持自己的计划，在这座极度偏爱尼克斯队的城市中壮大篮网队的球迷群体。今年夏天，尼克斯队举行冠军游行时，有超过200万名球迷聚集在曼哈顿的“英雄峡谷”为其助威。         布鲁克林体育娱乐公司首席财务官彼得·斯特恩在接受《CFO杂志》采访时说，篮网队“为尼克斯队感到高兴”，他们希望借助对手的“东风”来吸引那些原本不关注篮球的球迷。

三 | “我们主要考虑的是如何利用这种积极势头，”斯特恩告诉《CFO杂志》，“我们希望有更多人爱上篮球，尼克斯队的夺冠——甚至他们此前的多次季后赛征程——确实唤醒了许多原本不关注篮球的球迷。球迷们得以亲身参与其中，以全新的方式领略NBA的独特魅力……今年，纽约有不少原本并非篮球迷的人也参加了观赛派对，或以其他方式参与到季后赛的相关活动中。这对正在布鲁克林不断发展的篮网队和自由人队而言是件好事。”          上赛季，篮网队仅取得20胜62负的战绩，排名NBA倒数第三，连续第三个赛季无缘季后赛。上赛季布鲁克林队拥有NBA最年轻的阵容，2026-27赛季他们还将新增三名新秀球员，其中包括第六顺位被选中的米克尔·布朗二世。         两个月前终结了长达53年冠军荒的尼克斯队，将在2026-27赛季与篮网队交手四次，首场比赛将于11月2日在麦迪逊广场花园举行。两队在布鲁克林的首次对决定于2月1日进行。         来源：ESPN。

Current article:http://0b0opx.xuebenwagangqingre.buzz/list_9yte/uti.html

Published on:21:00:58