Tagged: freedom of speech
Law 29: Demonetizing Bin Laden
Buddhism is the true religion of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Let me explain. Gautama opposed the caste system and was attacked – although not persecuted – by the Brahmins. Since then, Savarkar (1883-1966) and other proponents of Hindutva ideology have played down the caste system, to the point of presenting it as a deviation from true Hinduism or Hindutva. Therefore, as they oppose the caste system, they must be Buddhists, unless they are Westernized revisionist brains.
Demonetizing Bin Laden
“Center [Indian Government] had justified the decision of demonetization stating it was taken to crack down on fake currency, black money and terror financing.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2, 2023)
Some governments can’t take any action without justifying it by a necessity to fight terrorism. A potent justification as far as illiterate mobs are concerned, certainly. In 2019, EU stopped issuing its 500-euro banknotes, the highest euro note; these were called “Bin Ladens” because they were allegedly used in criminal transactions (and Western media know of no other criminal than Bin Laden, although mafias have been thriving all over the place for decades). 500 euros is about 45,000 Indian rupees, and one can understand that transactions that must remain cash (because they are unlawful) need high-value notes, but what proportion of “Bin Ladens” were used by Al-Qaeda compared to mafias? – India fighting terrorism with excavators (demolishing for encroachment the property of alleged terrorists running free [see Law 28: “Bulldozer Crackdown”]) and demonetization…
However, Modiji demonetized 1,000 INR notes to replace them with 2,000 notes†, that is, he replaces high-value notes by even higher-value notes. Criminals need cash for their high-value criminal transactions. You and I need cash for groceries; for more expensive purchases we usually make bank transfers. The 2,000 note is evidence that the demonetization has nothing to do with war against crime.
“People seeking to exchange their banknotes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the rush to exchange cash. … The move reduced the country’s industrial production and its GDP growth rate. It is estimated that 1.5 million jobs were lost.” (Wkpd: Indian banknote demonetization) Congratulations, Modiji!
†To be quite precise, demonetized 500 and 1,000 INR notes were replaced by new 500 and 2,000 notes.
The Delhi Car Drag
“Delhi erupts in rage after car drags woman for 7 kilometers; Murder or accident?” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2023)
Some constitutional considerations
“Delhi chief minister demanded death penalty for the accused.” In all countries, it would be senseless for a member of the executive to tell courts what their decision should be, at any stage. But to demand death penalty is even more senseless in India, where, although death penalty exists, only eight executions have been carried out since 1996, that is, death penalty in India is a mockery.
Delhi CM’s demanding a death sentence for what has been said, so far, to be an accident, is senseless. But given Indian Supreme Court (SC)’s decision Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980), even if it is, in fact, a gruesome murder, the demand would still not be in line with actual law, that is, said decision, which limits death sentence to “rarest of rare crimes.” These include crimes involving the “security of the state” and I therefore disagree with SC’s ruling. There exists no reason to make a difference between crimes based on state security. Such a line simply cannot be drawn, unless it means that the life of a public official has more value than ordinary citizens’ lives, or something like that – an abhorrent idea.
Delhi CM talks in the present case of “rarest of rare crime” indeed, the condition for a death sentence. According to the Indian Supreme Court, there is a rarest of rare crime when, to begin with, a “murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.” This cannot be a valid definition. Murders committed in anger or fear are usually more brutal and violent and dastardly than premeditated murders committed in cold blood, and yet it is a well-established principle that premeditation makes a crime more heinous. By emphasizing the graphic element of a crime, the definition overlooks other major aspects, just like a mob reacting to a crime.
In fact, the attempt by SC to define “rarest of rare” contrives a definition that denies the very name “rarest of rare”: “[I]f the motive betrays depravity and meanness, or if a backward or minority community member is killed not for personal reasons but to arouse social wrath, the accused should get death. Other crimes which technically fall into the rarest of rare cases are bride burnings and dowry deaths, a child victim, the assassination of a public figure for political reasons [security of the state, discussed above], or killing a defenseless person because of old age or infirmity.” Hate crimes, political crimes, infanticides, etc. Such a large definition for rarest of rare?! – Given that among the only eight people executed since 1996 in India, we find rapists who later killed their victim, one is bound to think, unfortunately, that rarest or rare are the cases properly brought before a court.
Two female friends, Anjali and Nidhi, left a hotel at 1:30 am on a scooter. Later, street cameras show Anjali’s body dragged by a car. Crowds rioted in anger when they learnt police reported the incident as an accident.
It looks like an accident, but even so the men in the car would be culpable of hit-and-run and manslaughter.
Had the men stopped the car after the accident, the car would not have dragged the body. It remains to be seen if a car can drag a body with the occupants not noticing at once; experts will tell.
a-a) Passengers’ v. driver’s responsibility
There is 1) the accident but also 2) the hit-and-run. The other occupants of the car beside the driver would have to convince a court they did their best to prevent the hit-and-run, otherwise they are accomplices in it. If they failed to report the incident, in all likelihood complicity will be retained.
If a car passenger does not report to police after the incident (without good reason), he will be presumed to have supported the hit-and-run. What if they are all caught while still in the car? Obviously, a passenger cannot stop the driver without risking an accident, so if one passenger urges the driver to stop and the driver won’t listen, there is probably not much else the passenger could do; in this case, I think the passengers should not be presumed accomplices. Passengers can stop a driver but there is always a risk of accident, as the driver is in control of the car.
If all passengers were stoned from alcohol or otherwise, and didn’t even realize there was an accident, then again, they are not accomplices.
When actor Salman Khan’s chauffeur was found guilty of a hit-and-run while Salman, as passenger, got away with it, I assume the court had good reasons for a decision I find counterintuitive, because Salman was the boss, and the chauffeur his employee, so at first I would assume Salman gave his chauffeur the order to keep driving rather than the chauffeur took Salman “hostage.” But perhaps the chauffeur was so afraid of the consequences of the accident that he did not listen to his boss urging him to stop the car. Possibly.
This is not only an accident but also a hit-and-run, and not only a hit-and-run but also manslaughter. The difference with murder is that the driver and passengers probably didn’t intend to kill Anjali by dragging her, they had rather hoped the body would detach, alive, from under the car so they could drive away, released from this “burden.” However, the drag was an act of violence causing injuries that resulted in death: the definition of manslaughter.
Someone (a YouTube user) said “[accused] having knowledge” is enough in Indian law to characterize murder, “not only mens rea” (a legal term for “intent”). Knowledge of what, he did not tell, but I think I can connect the dots, and that puzzles me because it means Indian law has no proper distinction between murder and manslaughter, which, if true, would be a shortcoming. In the present case, for instance, the men probably knew they were committing a violent, potentially lethal act, but death was not their intent (mens rea); their intent was more likely to have the body released from the car or the car released from the body, although, in their recklessness, they were certainly aware this could provoke death.
Delhi CM, who demands a death sentence for them, seems to have another appreciation of the facts; he may think they dragged a person unknown to them with the purpose of taking her life, that they had a design to choose a random prey to torture and kill her or took the opportunity of an unexpected traffic accident to satisfy murderous instincts and they enjoyed it. But neither the chief minister nor I is a judge of the facts. The jury will settle it. In the meantime, as the chief minister talks his mind, I assume I can talk my mind too.
The facts of the case as known so far from reports by Indian media seem to point to manslaughter rather than murder, unless the men knew the victim, a point the police said they are investigating. If the men knew the victim, the police may find biographical elements in their relationships that could constitute a plausible mens rea for murder, for instance if they bore her a grudge for some reason or other. Absent a previous relationship, there seems to be no other possible mens rea other than, for instance, a murderous mindset oriented toward random gruesome acts (but if the men don’t have a criminal record, this will hardly obtain, unless a psychiatric report points to the same) or a hatred for women that would make the case a femicide, a hate crime (which the Commission for Women has hastily presumed without, in my opinion, good reason, if not the assumption that Indian males, or all males, are prone to roaming streets for killing women – but is this assumption or prejudice? To be sure, Anjali’s clothes were torn by the long drag, and this could make think of rape.)
c/ Police conduct
As for police conduct, which has been questioned, we heard that a first police report talked of an accident, and this triggered street demonstrations or riots. If there was only “accident” in this report, then truly the report seems light, as a hit-and-run was also obvious. But a hit-and-run is not yet, per se, a murder/manslaughter either. Assuming the report was about accident and hit-and-run, one could still be puzzled and ask: How did the men not notice there was a body under their car? I have been watching Indian channels on YouTube these last days, and since the Anjali case surfaced, already two other car drag incidents occurred in India, as in Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) yesterday, Jan 6, when a cyclist was dragged by a car over one kilometer before the driver stopped. On videos, we see pedestrians rushing toward the vehicle to alert the driver that he was dragging somebody; apparently, the driver had not noticed it at once. In the Delhi case, I read some people say a “decent” driver’s not noticing is impossible, but is it so certain? For one, it probably depends on the condition of the roads: where a car ceaselessly bounces up and down due to the road’s unevenness, it probably takes longer to notice the presence of a dragged burden under one’s car. Nevertheless, in case police did sloppy work, this is not evidence of coverup yet rather than incompetence or neglect. Even if police try to protect a politician among the car passengers (or is he the driver? – One of the accused is a local BJP politician), Nidhi’s interview in front of cameras can be of no help in that regard, as far as I can see, contrary to what is said by some: Nidhi’s testimony as we know it (see iii) can’t cast the least shadow of a doubt on the main facts, unless something escapes me. If the testimony can’t change nothing in that respect, I fail to see why police would have staged it.
Assuming police are trying to protect the BJP politician, their best asset for this at the present stage would be Nidhi, that is, they would shift attention from the men to Nidhi. She would be the one responsible for the accident and the men would have noticed nothing, neither the accident nor the drag, they’re cleared. If police staged Nidhi’s interview, as some suggest, they would have knowingly induced her to tell lies, such as “Anjali was drunk and I wasn’t, and yet she insisted to drive” which would, unanticipated by her, later be dispelled by forensic expertise (no alcohol found by the postmortem) and cast serious doubts on her personality. Therefore, if the claim is police interference, insistence on charging Nidhi is not quite consistent, because Nidhi’s words may have been staged: apparently an attempt to clear herself but in fact a trap diabolically laid for her by police.
The victim’s friend
Nidhi was witness to a hit-and-run that would likely result in homicide, seeing Anjali dragged away under a car. She probably ran for her life, thinking: “If these monsters notice me, a witness to their crime, they’ll want to kill me too, so indifferent are they to strangers’ life.” Then she went back home. Why not to the police? At 2 am in the morning, the safest was straight home. Perhaps she didn’t even know where the police station is, nor was there anybody around to tell her, or she didn’t dare ask, for that would have shown she was helpless and men could have raped her. And she didn’t have police number on her phone: who cares about that at 20 something? So, Hindustan Times says she went home, probably thinking of asking for advice. She then did nothing for the next two days: if this means she reported on her own initiative after three days, then she finally reported. Why so long? Perhaps the first day she was completely out of her mind, then the second day she thought it was already too late and she hoped she would escape investigation, and the third day she had remorse and reported.
But Nidhi’s behavior is a secondary and minor question, just as the accident is secondary in importance to the possible crimes, hit-and-run and manslaughter. Absent further elements that may surface later, in the previous paragraph I attempt an explanation. Some added in the meantime elements about her criminal record (drugs), and the hypothesis that she hid for two days to allow time to erase traces of alcohol or drugs in her blood (she would have been the one intoxicated and not, as she said, Anjali). But all in all, it is not clear how her behavior could be of great relevance to the main issue, unless one nurtures the idea of a premeditated murder of Anjali in which Nidhi would be implicated. Even if Nidhi were found liable for not reporting and/or the accident (cf. the allegation that cameras show she had her hands on the handle a few moments before the accident), that wouldn’t change the elements regarding hit-and-run and manslaughter.
The Commissions for Women
Does the National Commission for Women make a statement each time a woman dies a violent death in India or is there something special here?
The Commissions for Women, national commission and Delhi commission, add fuel to the fire; I now suspect one or the other instigated or incited the riots, or at least provoked them by making provocative statements. Who first claimed it was a femicide, with rape and what not, in defiance of the police report? (Anjali’s clothes were torn due to, according to expertise, the drag, but as the body was half-naked people at the CW thought it likely was a case of rape and murder.)
Delhi Commission then sharply criticized Nidhi’s interview and threatened her with legal action for her “character assassination” of Anjali (who Nidhi said was drunk and yet insisted on driving the scooter). Is it character assassination when Delhi chief minister demands death penalty for the men in the car, who are still presumed innocent (like all accused before a judgment)? Is it character assassination when one or the other Commission for Women spins a femicide yarn out of thin air? Bureaucrats would be the only ones allowed to talk? – I think the Commission for Women is embarrassed by their femicide spin in defiance of the preliminary police report. So-called “character assassination” is allowed in a trial and then (in a trial) it is no slander: when you are accused of something, you are allowed to defend yourself, and that may mean to shift responsibility onto others’ shoulders. (Of course, if you are found to be lying, your defense will be disregarded.)
“Rave Parties in Saudi Arabia: Crown Prince MBS Stuns the Old Guard with Modernization Push.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2023)
At the same time, Italy criminalizes rave parties. In Italy now, organizing a rave party will owe you up to six years imprisonment. The law has just been passed. Italians have had enough and know better than MBS.
Rave party means hundreds or thousands of people gathered in the dark with loud music covering everything. Alcohol and drugs will circulate uncontrolled in Saudi raves because tourists are now welcome in the Kingdom, which delivered no tourist visa until a couple of years ago. But the main concern is probably the opening of the land of Islamic holy sites to cultural forms that are increasingly considered, in the very West where they originated, as repellent and degenerate, even if rave parties did not imply invasion of property and noise pollution on several square kilometers, so much so that it’s just got banned in Italy.
I don’t know the rules about alcohol and tourists in KSA; I only know the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where tourists can get alcohol at hotels and private homes. I am told the rules are not the same. However, KSA, the new tourist destination, will likely follow UAE’s example, for you can’t invite a drunkard to your place and deprive them of their booze.
P.S. “Woman Who Went Topless After Argentina’s World Cup Win Escapes Arrest in Qatar. An Argentine woman, seen flashing in videos from the stadium, has appeared to have escaped any action.” (News18, Dec 22, 2022)
One of the strange things about the moon is that, while you need launch pad and rocket to escape Earth’s atmosphere, it only takes a little aluminum foil bug to escape the moon’s. I know gravity is not the same but you’d almost believe a man will get lost in the lunar skies instead of remaining on the lunar surface, so easy it is to escape the satellite’s atmosphere.
“China Restarts ‘Mission Nepal’ Against India. A purported China dove has been made Prime Minister.” (Firstpost, YouTube, Jan 2023)
A combined invasion of India by China and Nepal would be dramatic for India.
A medical use of cannabis was contrived as a wedge for recreational use. At Woodstock, no one said a word about medical use but they had a lot to say about recreational or existential or philosophical or whatever use. Medical use was contrived by people who had smoked weed at Woodstock and were looking for a way to make their new pastime accepted by society. That is, they perjure the Hippocratic Oath. From recreational and illegal to medical to recreational and legal.
The Air India Flight’s
Urinating and Indecent Exposure Case
“Drunk man on Air India’s New York-Delhi flight urinates on woman co-passenger.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
The regulator wants sanctions against the “negligent” cabin crew, but pay attention that the crew is also a victim of the indecent exposure (“After urinating, the man continued to stand there, exposing himself”), even if they were not urinated upon (this a crime I am unable to define legally at this stage, having no example in mind). Air hostesses and even stewards were in a state of shock, as victims themselves, and could not properly handle the passenger who was shamelessly exposing his parts to them. All in all, I think the National Commission for Women should make a statement.
The indecent exposure dimension of the incident has been completely played down so far and this is shocking in its own right. Crew hostesses have a right to damages, just like the lady who was urinated upon in addition to damages for being urinated upon. Indecent exposure is in the Indian criminal code (sadhus being outside the purview of the considered section). Therefore, you can’t sanction the crew as if they had not endured something foul themselves.
“Indian criminal code is not applicable in aircraft flying over foreign airspace. Also, if the man is a foreign citizen and he urinated when the aircraft was flying over foreign air space, then India does not have any jurisdiction. It is the country in whose airspace the aircraft was when the crime was committed, that has the right of jurisdiction and the right to conduct investigation and trial in that country’s court and punishment in that country’s jail.” (B.) – It is the Indian national regulator wants sanctions against the “negligent” crew; therefore, I assume the sanctions must be taken with due consideration to Indian legislation.
The crew evidently reported the incident to their management, and it is the managers who didn’t report. One must not confuse two different things: 1) the handling in the cabin of a crazy man who was a danger to everybody. If you think that intentionally urinating on people is common and does not betray an altered, potentially dangerous state of mind, just let us know. Then, 2) the report to authorities, and it is the management or direction’s duty, because clearly this kind of decision is deferred to the latter. I am therefore confident the company’s management or direction will be sanctioned for not reporting the dreadful incident to authorities and the cabin crew will get damages for being harassed by a sex freak.
Had a steward knocked the freak out, he would be the one prosecuted, for assault and battery. And the crew are not pledged to protect from piss a passenger’s body with their own bodies. “Preventing this [a crime] from happening,” as a YouTube user wants it, by “pinning him [the freak] down” is no more the crew’s than the passengers’ responsibility, it’s called a citizen’s arrest. If their employment contracts include arrest power, like contracts of bouncers in nightclubs, then all right, the cabin crew may be sanctioned, but I doubt the contract of an Air India hostess includes such things.
Insult To a Foreign Head of State
and French Hypocrisy
“Iran threatens France over Charlie Hebdo’s ‘offensive’ cartoons of Khamenei.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
“U.S. backs France on freedom of expression.” Why did the United States not stand up for freedom of expression when French President Macron filed a complaint against a poster depicting him as Hitler? (See Law 27) Was there no concern about freedom of expression then? Let’s wait and see French government’s response to Iran, but if their answer is that freedom of expression is guaranteed in France, I urge the media to ask them why Macron lodged a complaint when he saw a picture of him as Hitler, and about several other recent instances of executive attempts at stifling speech.
As far as hate speech is concerned, it tends to be permitted in France to abuse Islam, but not other communities. This is the problem, which in fact makes Iran’s overall position not contrary to freedom of speech as far as France is concerned, since their demand amounts to asking the same legal protection from hate speech for Islam as other communities have in France, that is, to stop state discrimination against Islam. If France is a free-speech country, Iran’s demand is that France be a nondiscriminatory free-speech country.
French law represses speech, make no mistake about it. As to the present controversy, there existed in France a crime of insult to heads of foreign states (like Ayatollah Khamenei) until 2004, when France was condemned for this legislation by the European Court of Human Rights. But as with the specific crime of insult against the national President, which was cancelled in 2013, again after a condemnation of France by the ECHR, and replaced by the general crime of public insult, a foreign head of state is still allowed to sue people in France for insulting them. This is to let Ayatollah Khamenei know that French laws unreservedly support his concern, and he is welcome to sue Charlie Hebdo and ask for damages.
The saffron bikini in Pathaan movie, which has aroused anger among Hindus, is a useless provocation. Artists must pay heed. The ire was certainly anticipated by all in the business and yet they did not refrain. An excuse such as “We thought the color was nice for the dance scene” would be frivolous; another color, less charged with sensitive symbolism, would have been as fine. So why?
Saffron bikini v. national flag bikini
Excerpts from All India Roundup, Aug 13, 2015: “10 celebrities who insulted the Indian national flag.”
“[Tennis player] Sania Mirza was pictured sitting with her bare feet that appeared to rest on a table next to an Indian flag. Isn’t [it] shameful!”
“[Cricket player] Sachin Tendulkar was accused of insulting the Indian flag, when pictures of Tendulkar celebrating his birthday on March 2010 by cutting a tricolour cake went viral.”
“Back in 2000, designer Malini Ramani also landed herself in trouble when she wore a flag dress.”
“Bollywood’s bold actress Mallika Sherawat got embroiled in legal trouble when she draped herself with the tricolour.” [She was nude but draped in the flag.]
“King [Shahrukh] Khan was booked by Pune police for allegedly insulting the national flag. He was booked on the Compliant of LJP national secretary Ravi Brahme that SRK allegedly insulted the tricolour in a video uploaded on youtube.”
“However small-time actress and model Gehna Vashisht must be severely condemned for her indecent act and was rightly taught a lesson by the people by wearing a tricolour like a bikini.” [She was assaulted by an angry mob and then arrested by police.]
“A case was filed against Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan for covering his body with the national flag in a manner insulting the national flag.”
“Narendra Modi…has been accused of insulting the national flag by a social worker of Pondicherry, who has lodged a complaint against Modi for wiping his face using the tricolour scarf he was wearing.”
So much sensitivity over national symbols in that country, but saffron bikinis are fine even though saffron is also a symbol? If those complaining about a national flag bikini don’t see a problem in a saffron bikini, they are double-faced.
“‘I killed 25 Afghans and I am not sorry’: Prince Harry’s chilling confession.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
If HT got its content from the leaked Spanish version, I think there is a translation mistake. Prince Harry did not “serve in the army,” the army is serving him as hereditary Prince of the British Kingdom. However much I would like to think he is a citizen like the others, and a soldier like the others, the medieval concept of his hereditary function is an obstacle to such a feeling. I might not be the only one.
Prince Harry is the only one thinking he did war like the others. Come on, guys, break the news to him. – I will believe a British Prince did a soldier job when he dies on the front, but it never happens.
Any military command knowing what military intelligence is would never send such a sensitive target on a military front. Imagine the Taliban getting intelligence that Harry is in chopper #9: all Taliban rockets on the spot would be for poor Harry. No, he must have comfortably enjoyed his trip across the beautiful land.
Philo 36 : Il n’y a pas d’anthropologie possible du Dasein
« Nous avons besoin de concepts pour décrire le monde, mais nous avons besoin de redoubler ces concepts lorsque nous nous pensons décrivant le monde. Et ainsi de suite dans une régression infinie. » Nous pensons le monde et nous nous pensons décrivant le monde : en quoi cela déclenche-t-il une régression ?
Nous aurions : le monde (1), penser le monde (2), se penser pensant le monde (3), penser cela (4). Ensuite, on peut se penser pensant cela [se penser pensant (4)] (5), penser cela (6), se penser pensant cela (7), penser cela (8), se penser pensant cela (9), etc. Ce n’est pas une régression à l’infini mais une oscillation ; je pense et me pense pensant, voilà tout. La difficulté ne paraît pas être sous la forme d’une régression à l’infini. Est-ce le modèle « spéculaire » de la conscience qui appelle cette formalisation, avec l’idée que penser est un miroir et se penser un autre miroir, deux miroirs en regard l’un de l’autre créant une mise en abyme ? Un exemple de régression à l’infini clairement défini sous cette forme est le « mode » sceptique exposé par Sextus Empiricus : une proposition doit se prouver, ce qui requiert une autre proposition qui doit être à son tour prouvée, etc.
Le problème est celui de l’inclusion. Ce problème vient des logiciens et de la pensée mathématique, et sa transposition au monde de l’expérience n’est pas légitime : aucune connaissance empirique, c’est-à-dire hors des objets a priori de la connaissance, n’est concevable sans cette inclusion du sujet dans le monde. Ce qui est nécessaire, ne pouvant être autrement, n’est pas un problème. Par exemple, le « je mens » n’est pas « autoréférentiel » dans le monde vécu : l’autoréférence n’existe que dans une logique formelle a priori ; dans le monde vécu, je peux dire « je pense » sans que ce soit un paradoxe, car cela signifie seulement que « je viens à l’instant de mentir » ou que, m’arrêtant dans un long exposé fantaisiste, j’avoue à mes interlocuteurs que cet exposé est un pur produit de mon imagination. Il n’y a donc pas lieu de parler d’esquive quand le problème est ignoré en philosophie, car la philosophie est autre chose que la logique formelle, comme c’est autre chose que les mathématiques pures, comme c’est autre chose que n’importe quelle discipline spécialisée, la cryogénie, la thermodynamique ou la charronnerie. Les problèmes spécialisés de ces domaines n’emportent guère de conséquences en philosophie, et c’est pourquoi Kant, qui a décrit dans sa troisième décennie d’existence la formation des nébuleuses de façon toujours correcte aujourd’hui (le modèle dit de Kant-Laplace, quand on veut bien ne pas omettre le nom de Kant) a ensuite entièrement laissé de côté les questions spécialisées de science positive (au grand étonnement de Carnap). Prétendre introduire l’autoréférence dans le Lebenswelt est un procédé sophistique.
Glose sur « je mens ». – Ce n’est, nous l’avons dit, que dans la méthode apriorique de la logique formelle pure que cette phrase peut être autoréférentielle, que l’on présente la chose « En disant que je mens, je mens » ou comme on voudra (pour que l’autoréférence soit bel et bien établie, il faut que la proposition soit d’une lourdeur considérable). Ceci est possible car la logique fonctionne comme les mathématiques à partir de définitions a priori : « Soit la proposition ‘en disant que je mens, je mens’… » : ici la proposition est autoréférente par définition, c’est-à-dire que l’autoréférence est posée, à partir des seules caractéristiques formelles de l’énoncé. Mais quand on prétend, sous le même énoncé, trouver encore l’autoréférence dans des exemples tirés de l’expérience, réelle ou imaginaire, on se fourvoie. C’est ce que nous avons montré en discutant et critiquant la parabole proposée par Ferdinand Gonseth (Philo 6 : Des « forces nouvelles » pour la logique…). Le raisonnement qui s’appuie sur des observations ne s’appuie pas sur des définitions. Quand on observe quelque chose, on n’observe pas une définition ; une définition ne vient qu’au terme des observations. Et les définitions d’observation, que l’on emploie pour les objets de notre expérience, ne sont pas des définitions a priori et ne peuvent servir de point de départ au raisonnement de la même manière : elles ne servent qu’à permettre d’autres observations et non pas à résoudre formellement un problème dans un accord absolu.
Glose sur « Ce qui est nécessaire, ne pouvant pas être autrement, n’est pas un problème. » – On me répliquera qu’en mathématiques tout est nécessaire et que l’on y résout pourtant des problèmes. Il y a deux types de problèmes, les problèmes aprioriques –ceux des mathématiques dans l’intuition pure, ceux de la logique dans l’entendement pur, ceux de la métaphysique dans la raison pure– et les problèmes de la phénoménalité. Les premiers sont dans le domaine de ce qui ne peut être autrement (les lois a priori), les seconds sont dans un domaine dont une partie ne peut être autrement (lois naturelles) et l’autre peut être autrement (libre arbitre). Dans les problèmes de physique et des autres sciences, les problèmes portent sur la partie de la phénoménalité qui ne peut être autrement. À présent, si l’on veut traiter l’inclusion elle-même en problème, quel pourrait bien être ce problème ? Je ne peux ni prendre le monde-en-tant-que-totalité comme un objet de la nature à l’instar des autres objets ni exercer ma liberté pour être hors du monde. C’est en ce sens que l’inclusion étant nécessaire, elle n’est pas un problème dont la solution serait à chercher. L’inclusion n’est pas un objet soumis aux lois mais est elle-même une loi, elle est le domaine même de la phénoménalité qui ne peut être autrement, à savoir que je suis un sujet dans le monde.
Ensuite, la volition a ses problèmes qui tous relèvent de la phénoménalité pouvant être autrement, à savoir que je ne peux être mû par un vouloir que si ce mouvement est possible. C’est ce que j’appelle mon libre arbitre. À cet égard aussi, celui de la volition, l’inclusion dans le monde ne se laisse pas appréhender comme problème, puisque ce serait vouloir un mouvement impossible. Autrement dit, la phrase « Ce qui est nécessaire… » est inconditionnellement vraie des problèmes de la volition : cette dernière se forme en résolution uniquement vis-à-vis de ce qui peut être autrement. Mais si l’on admet que dans la phénoménalité tous les problèmes sont de volition, et que l’on étudie les lois naturelles non pour les changer mais pour changer les phénomènes qui leur obéissent, alors la phrase est vraie inconditionnellement de l’ensemble des problèmes de la phénoménalité.
« En fait, le monde qu’il pense est le monde dont il crée le sens en lui-même. » Ceci est un truisme, car penser (le monde ou autre chose) n’est certainement pas autre chose que créer du sens en soi-même. La précision censée donner de l’épaisseur à ce truisme est la suivante : « Le monde qu’il pense est le monde dont il crée le sens en lui-même, non pas en sa personne physique, ni même en sa conscience psychologique mais en un pur mode d’ordre logique. » Qu’on puisse créer du sens en soi-même entendu comme personne physique se laisse écarter sans davantage de considération, sauf à dire que la personne physique change en fonction de ce que la personne pense (ce qui, cependant, n’est pas faux à tout point de vue : le corps étant selon les stoïciens le signe de l’âme, on déchiffre l’âme par les mouvements du corps, du visage, etc.) ; que ce sens, donc, soit créé en soi-même, non comme conscience psychologique mais comme pur mode logique, est faux a priori puisque le sujet est, envers le monde, non dans une pure relation logique mais dans un rapport de vouloir engageant la conscience psychologique, les appétences et autres.
« Comme aurait pu l’écrire Descartes ‘tout ce que je pense, c’est ce que je suis’. » Descartes aurait sans doute pu l’écrire après avoir écrit « Je pense, donc je suis », mais il ne l’a pas fait, peut-être parce que quand je pense une chimère, je n’en suis pas une pour autant.
« Il n’y a donc pas d’autre regard qui puisse regarder penser le sujet, si ce n’est le sujet lui-même car la pensée n’est pas une chose qui a un état présent et qui change mais c’est un devenir qui n’existe que comme devenir. » Le lien de cause à effet n’est guère évident, ni la définition donnée de la pensée. Sur ce dernier point, d’abord, quelque chose qui devient et quelque chose « qui a un état présent et qui change » paraissent se ressembler beaucoup, voire être la même chose par définition, sauf à comprendre, et l’on n’a pas vraiment le choix, qu’il n’y a pas d’état présent dans le devenir, c’est-à-dire pas de présent, mais nous ne voyons pas non plus pourquoi l’on devrait se passer de cette notion, le présent. Pour ce qui a trait, ensuite, à la causalité, dire que la proposition « la pensée est un pur devenir » doive avoir pour conséquence que seul le sujet peut se voir lui-même penser (cette conséquente semblant, du reste, vraie en soi) est douteux, car les sphères des concepts de devenir et d’intersubjectivité n’ont pas de relations immédiates bien établies entre elles, du moins qui me viennent immédiatement à l’esprit. De quelle manière, si la pensée était au contraire « un état présent et qui change », un autre regard pourrait-il regarder penser le sujet ?
Je lis qu’on a pu « reprocher » à Husserl un « supposé idéalisme mais… » ; il conviendrait tout de même d’expliquer pourquoi la qualification d’idéalisme devrait être acceptée comme un reproche.
–C’est Husserl lui-même qui se défend d’être idéaliste.
–Le reproche n’est donc pas tant que Husserl soit idéaliste mais qu’il prétende ne pas l’être alors qu’il le serait, un reproche bien plus décisif que le premier puisque, dans celui-là, il n’est pas permis de dire que le sujet soit tranché de manière définitive autrement que par dogmatisme, tandis qu’un reproche d’incohérence peut être incontestable.
Un reproche semblable pourrait être que « la question de l’apprentissage est importante dans la pensée de Husserl, mais peu mise en valeur », car c’est une forme d’inconséquence, donc d’incohérence, que de peu mettre en valeur une question importante. En effet, si la question est importante, elle doit être mise en valeur, et pas seulement un peu. Si elle n’est que peu mise en valeur, c’est qu’elle n’a pas une grande importance. Par conséquent, ou bien la remarque est juste et alors Husserl est inconséquent (et c’est sans doute grave pour la valeur de cette pensée), ou bien la question de l’apprentissage chez Husserl n’est guère importante puisqu’elle est peu mise en valeur, ou bien elle est importante et bien mise en valeur et c’est l’auteur de cette réflexion qui n’a pas bien vu cela.
Il n’y a pas d’anthropologie possible du Dasein
Il est certain que Heidegger n’a pas pensé une anthropologie, et pour cause : Heidegger rejette l’approche anthropologique comme une construction secondaire, et fourvoyée par rapport à l’ontologie, donc aveugle à la question de l’être. Il ne peut y avoir une anthropologie du Dasein. Faire un tel reproche à Heidegger n’a guère de sens.
Le bannissement des poètes ? Ça fait quand même des millions de gens à bannir…
Le capitalisme, c’est beau comme du communisme. « Nous changeons de modèle. En étant provocant, je dirais que nous rejoignons presque celui de l’Allemagne de l’Est communiste. À l’époque, les familles allaient à l’épicerie sans savoir ce qu’ils (sic) allaient y trouver et s’adaptaient au jour le jour. Nous revenons [avons-nous donc été l’Allemagne de l’Est ?] à ce type de quotidien. » (P. Duchemin, sociologue de la consommation, interview dans Le Parisien du 9 décembre 2022)
The BDS movement is facing challenges of a singular nature in US and Europe. Although both the US Supreme Court (NAACP v Clairborne Hardware, 1982) and the European Court of Human Rights (Baldassi and others v France, 2020) have struck down statutory repression of boycott and, specifically in the case of the Baldassi decision, repression of Israel boycott, legislatures and governments are deliberately ignoring the judicial branch of power. In US, several state legislatures have passed anti-BDS laws that presently must be struck down one after the other in courts, in a long, tedious ongoing process that leaves the deterrent effects of the statutes largely untouched in the meantime. In France, although the country was condemned by the ECHR for its repression of BDS militancy, the government has refused to acknowledge the decision as far as its national legal order is concerned and it maintains the texts that repress BDS militancy; therefore, the legal deterrence against Israel boycott remains largely unscathed there too: only people with the wherewithal to face a long trial, possibly up to the ECHR, will dare advocate BDS, as the repressive texts remain in place. This blatant disregard for a judicial decision shows that France does not shrink from ignoring the rule of law about which it is so fond of giving lessons to other countries.
However, Baldassi and others, from Baldassi and others v France, have been cleared of charges and paid damages by the French state, and as a result all other BDS militants whom the French state wants to harass will be granted the same by the ECHR, no matter what the French government and French courts say. Moreover, if there is such a thing as the rule of law in this country, French courts will judge the same as the ECHR, no matter what the government says. If there is, again, such a thing as the rule of law.
By reaffirming the texts repressing Israel boycott after the Baldassi decision making it illegal for national states to repress Israel boycott in all countries of the Council of Europe, the French government has committed a true – in French – forfaiture, a dereliction a constitutional duty. However, “France” has no part in this dereliction of duty: the act is merely the government’s. Courts are expected to abide by the rule of law and Baldassi is the law of member states of the Council of Europe. BDS is a protected right in all these countries, including France.
Freedom of speech without possibility of reach
“Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” With this slogan the new ownership and direction of a famous social platform tries to justify their keeping censoring constitutionally protected speech (namely, hate speech) while blaming the previous owners and management’s suppression of speech on the platform. Given that the rationale for freedom of speech is, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “the free flow of ideas,” freedom of speech without possibility of reach is certainly not worth the trouble of a constitutional amendment, and not even worth the ink with which the First Amendment was written. This rhyming is a pathetic gimmick from a cheap advertising agency.
“China to invade Taiwan by year-end? Taipei says ‘quite sure’ of Chinese military aggression.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 12, 2022)
Would Western countries make a casus belli of a Chinese attack on Taiwan? To begin with, the military industries of these countries rely on rare-earth metals extracted in China. Taiwan’s increased concern is understandable: its Western supports are half-paralyzed by their own sanctions against Russia and besides they could hardly supply both Taiwan and Ukraine at the same time at the levels Ukraine is currently afforded.
Make no mistake, we are not doing espionage, not disclosing classified files: all this is public information. An article in The Conversation from June 24, 2019 (here: French language) explains that China is imposing extraction quotas on rare-earth elements and tungsten out of an “environmental concern,” then the paper goes on explaining how microelectronics engineers and technology management in general overlooked the supply dimension of components, and now the problem is how to (a) diversify supplies (but is this possible? “Rare” in rare earth means you don’t find it everywhere) and (b) find substitutes to these critical raw materials (how long will it take?). You don’t need to read between the lines to understand what it is about. China is the leading exporter of rare-earth elements.
“Prima alla Scala, l’arrivo di Meloni insieme al compagno: i saluti ai fotografi.” (La Repubblica, YouTube, 8/12/22)
“Dio, patria e famiglia”, dicono, ma si parla dal suo “compagno”, non marito. Dio, patria e compagnanza!
Dio, patria e famiglia. Come, famiglia, con donne così che non possono essere mogli? La compagna con il compagno, dove sta la famiglia qui? – Basta un “compagno”, la famiglia è per gente di niente, eh.
Meloni insieme al compagno = famiglia come nel Dio patria e famiglia. – Dio patria e famiglia, ma Giorgia Washingtoni ha cose più importanti da fare che fare famiglia. Basta un compagno.
“Sono una donna, sono una madre, sono italiana, sono cristiana.” Ma non è moglie. Dio, patria e famiglia senza moglie.