“Delhi: 200 African nationals attack after police detain Nigerians for overstaying.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube)
Unusual passivity of Indian police faced with a mob. Unusual because a few days ago, for instance, as a crowd had gathered in front of actor Salman Khan’s house for his birthday, at some point police started to bludgeon the crowd, showering it with a rain of blows. Police passivity, however, is to be expected with foreign migrants: if police bludgeon them, their state will complain to Indian authorities and it is embarrassing, whereas when Indian police bludgeon Indians, no foreign state complains, only, perhaps, NGOs. In India, bludgeon blows are for India’s children only. – Note that this police passivity was the cause two people escaped.
The U.S. is waging a “microchip war” against China, which is strange since China is the uncontested export leader of raw materials for chips. When you depend on someone for going on with you production, you avoid boycotting them, in general.
If China depends on foreign know-how for chips, as the current U.S. block on chip exports assumes, how can this obstruction not accelerate China’s plans to invade Taiwan, given Taiwan’s acknowledged know-how?
Police State and the Impairment of Reporting to Authorities
When police are feared by wrongdoers and law-abiding citizens alike, reporting of crimes is impaired. This is what happens in police states, where police misconduct is uncontrolled and people fear police arbitrariness as much as crime.
A complement to the Delhi Car Drag Case (see Law 29).
Why do you, NDTV, insist so much on Nidhi’s behavior? (Nidhi is the victim’s friend, whose behavior, namely her failure to report the accident, has been questioned.) Nidhi’s reporting would probably not have saved Anjali, who probably died after a few moments of dragging. On the other hand, a male witness said he alerted the police but they remained apathetic. What’s the point of focusing on the side issue? Not reporting a crime is not as culpable as committing the crime. Instead of focusing on a report that allegedly remained largely unheeded, why this insistence on a poor girl’s escape, who may have feared for her life as a witness to a criminal hit-and-run? Are you afraid of the police? If you, a media, fear the police by not investigating in depth an unheeded report after you made news about it, why would Nidhi be braver than you and want anything to do with the police?
Six days ago, on YouTube, you made news with: “‘Woman’s body dragged, cop car didn’t even try…’: Eyewitness to NDTV.” The witness is quoted saying: “I told the PCR (Police Control Room) vans and pointed at the car, but they didn’t even try to catch it.” You’ve got a case of unheeded report, but now you prefer to insist on a poor girl’s not reporting to authorities, even though your very information shows that reporting may have been to no avail, for why would the police take heed of her report while they didn’t heed the report of the man you interviewed?
The Fondling Conspiracy and the Commission for Women
“AAP, BJP [two Indian political parties: the former Woke and the latter Hindutva. AAP holds Delhi governorship, BJP is head of the coalition in power at the central government] Protest On Delhi Streets As Face-Off Over Mayor Poll Continues.” (NDTV, YouTube) There is a woman in the demonstrations. Most probably, in such unruly crowds her buttocks and nipples were fondled by greedy hands. We need a statement from the Commission for Women.
Delhi air pollution is also a big problem. The smog reduces CCTV cameras’ efficiency. Women will be fondled by perverts but camera images will be too blurry, too unclear to serve as evidence. We need a statement from the Commission for Women.
The smog is a conspiracy. Women will be fondled by strangers whose faces can’t be seen on CCTV cameras because of too thick a smog.
“Poor visibility.” A huge fog is expanding over Northern India and will make all CCTV cameras ineffectual because camera lenses function just like the human eye. The Commission for Women expects a big wave of fondling in the streets.
Women of all confessions are fondled daily in urban centers. Do you call that fondle jihad?
Defence v. Smear
A Complement to “Breakup as Abetment to Suicide” (in Law 28). Actor Sheezan Khan was arrested after co-actress and ex-lover Tunisha Sharma committed suicide.
In court, what India Daily is calling a “smear campaign” by Sheezan’s team is legit defense. A smear campaign is something prosecutable under libel law. But as Sheezan Khan is tried, it is “No holds barred,” he and his lawyers have the right to “smear” as much as they wish in court, if they think it can clear him. Technically, this is no smear, no slander, no libel at all, but a legit means of defense, a most legitimate means, so the headline “smear campaign in court” is wrong. (A trial opposing parties is basically nothing else but parties “smearing” each other.)
Pay attention that a man placed under police custody and tried for abetment to suicide after a breakup is something unheard of. I believe this was made possible by love-jihad fantasies and prejudice and is plain wrong. Be that as it may, the unheard-of nature of the case needs an explanation. A rational explanation. Absent such an explanation, it looks like a case of prejudice: Because he is a Muslim and she was a Hindu, he was kept in custody and is tried on a frivolous claim. In a normal, functional political order, safe from love-jihad fantasies, a man would never have been kept in custody, but simply interrogated.
A mistake was made, a man’s rights have been disregarded, and my assumption is that the reason for this mistake is prejudice, not the principles or the laws in force. A first information report (FIR) cannot always have police custody as consequence. The present FIR is for abetment for suicide and the facts invoked are a breakup. This is no serious ground, with due respect to the grieving family. Abetment to suicide is a crime requiring mens rea (intention), but to suppose that the intent of a breakup is to make one’s lover commit suicide rather than the usual reasons why lovers break up, is unwarranted absent further elements hinting at the same, clues which the police themselves declared were nowhere to be seen (“no love-jihad or blackmail angle”). Therefore, this FIR from a grieving family should never have led to a man’s custody, even less to a 4+14 day custody, and denial of bail.
Police had two flimsy reasons to arrest Sheezan Khan: 1) the vague assumption that he had committed a crime (murder?) and 2) a vague FIR that should not have led to harsh measures, because there was no element of mens rea to support it. One flimsy reason plus one flimsy reason doesn’t add up to a good reason. Sheezan, therefore, should have been interrogated as a normal person, without custody. Some politicians publicly voiced their opinion on the case, suggesting a love-jihad angle. Lack of firm ground for arrest plus those kinds of hardly veiled political pressures plus a certain climate in the country where such concepts as “love jihad” can bubble up to begin with, lead one to question the reasons for the custody and trial. In this context, custody can be thought to be a way to obtain false confessions. If this sort of arrest is the normal practice of the country, then let me know; in that case, there would be nothing special about Sheezan’s arrest but my critic would become institutional, as I would oppose on principle a practice that allows this as a routine.
“RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, of Hindutva ideology] chief tells Muslims to shun ‘idea of supremacy’.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube)
If one praises the Sepoys of 1857, is it supremacism?
There is nothing wrong with holding one’s credence superior, and no one should be asked to think he doesn’t have better opinions than others. Indeed, if I thought your opinion were as good as mine, I wouldn’t even call my opinion an opinion at all, it would be like having no opinion. I guess you can call this supremacism. The very word “tolerate” implies disagreement. You disagree with what you “tolerate” but you tolerate it; if you didn’t disagree, you wouldn’t “tolerate,” you would “endorse.” This is the meaning of toleration: we are not endorsing each other’s opinions. This, not liberalism (which is mush), is the correct view.
I think Brahmins don’t support RSS (prove me wrong). RSS lacking Brahmin support for their New Age ideology is like royalists in European republics who want to restore the throne and altar while being scolded by royal heirs and the Church alike.
“Austrian court drops accusation of terrorism against Professor Farid Hafez.” (Al-Jazeera English, YouTube)
Prosecuting authorities should be held accountable for their misconducts, but European laws grant them immunity. These authorities could place each and every one of us, Europeans, in the same legal limbo for years, and nothing could be done as far as law is concerned. This is despicable. Professor Farid Hafez has suffered duress for which he will never be compensated.
If there were no fairer authorities than these in the world, does it make my words less true? Would it be less true that, in these countries, which claim to be beacons of freedom, citizens can be subjected to such treatments without recourse and without compensation, and are asked to say “thank you” when after years of legal limbo, police harassment, all sorts of damages to their peace and reputation, a judge says they can be free? If this is a beacon of freedom, then any other place is just as fine. The hypocrisy of these regimes is as appalling as their disregard for citizens’ rights.
Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two Sikh bodyguards after the 1984 military assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest site of the Sikh community. The two bodyguards were her most trusted and favorite servants, they had never failed in their service. But she had ignored the bodyguards’ true personality, their devotion to their faith. Did she not have the slightest clue that she might have wronged the Sikh faith with Operation Blue Star? The turning against and killing her by two most reliable men suggests that the operation was more than a little harsh and inconsiderate. There was obviously some blindness, an almost unbelievable naiveté on Indira’s part, that she failed to perceive the two bodyguards as wounded men of faith.
The Mukherjee Commission
The Indian government was asked by a court to have an investigation and report made on Subhas Chandra Bose, a.k.a. Netaji’s death, but as the report concluded that the known version (plane crash) was not true, the government buried the report.
The Mukherjee Commission was set up by the government following a court order. The commission worked from 1999 to 2005. In its report, it rejected the plane crash theory. The government rejected the report of the Commission, “just like that,” as they say in the film Gumnaami about these historical facts. I find no word to express my moral indignation at this, but in legal wording it is contempt of court and breach of constitutional duty by the Indian government. The government was constitutionally bound by the commission’s conclusions. Its rejection of the report is blatant arbitrariness, it is arbitrariness on the face of it and, to be quite precise, in your face, that is, a slap in the face of all Indians.
The above facts are the subject of Gumnaami, a 2019 film by Srijit Mukherji, of which the opening and end song’s lyrics read, in the film’s translation, as follows:
Subhash, Subhash the heart of India is here
The hero of India who we’re all proud of is here
Subhash is the heart of India
Subhash is the pride of India
Subhash is the respect of India
Subhash is the dignity of India
He’ll lead a storm called India
He’ll bring glory to India
To the foreign masters he’ll be a terror
Nudity v. Nakedness
“Mumbai Police sent a notice to Bigg Boss fame U. J. [no need to publicize the actress’s name here] on BJP leader and Maharashtra Mahila Morcha [BJP women’s wing] president Chitra Wagh’s complaints for ‘indulging in nudity publicly on the streets of Mumbai.’” (India Today, YouTube)
“I am independent, will wear what I want,” reacted the actress. The truth is she wears what she is told by photographers. Obviously, the nudity took place during an outdoors shooting, so there should be several people summoned, as it is a conspiracy.
Someone then claimed to me there was no nudity. The actress was summoned for nudity not because, I assume, she was naked on the street, which would have led to her arrest on the spot, had she escaped assault by an angry crowd in the first place, but because of improper attire. Risqué attire is nudity plain and simple. If you cover your body with transparent plastic bags, you are nude as per the law, make no mistake about it. And the same reasoning applies to all risqué provocation to the law and to the peace of decent people.
Indian law makes a difference between scant clothing and obscenity, for the section does not apply, expressly, to sadhus who go around naked. Using Gandhi or sadhus in the argument misses the difference. (The difference is unmistakable but you know how people are.) Obscene nudity is not nakedness per se but rather clothing that appeals to prurient interests. I unreservedly agree with Indian authorities that public space must be kept free from such prurient attires.
Indian authorities apply the law. If you are not happy with the Indian Obscenity Law, then have it changed. We will see if people follow your reasons about “Taliban rule” and what not.
“Saudi bans ‘Abaya’ for Muslim students in exam halls; Crown Prince orders adhere to uniform.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 2022)
The video does not show the uniform that female students will have to wear instead of abaya, so this piece of news is wanting.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) otherwise said: “The decision is entirely left for women to decide what type of decent and respectful attire they choose to wear.” Not so for female students, as they will have to don a uniform other than the abaya. – Still, at the same time that they defang the mutawa, the religious police, this. Consequently, I believe Saudi women will wear indecent and disrespectful attire in public, because there no longer is police enforcement of the decency rule. The abaya is a consensual sign of decency. For every innovation in female attire, there will be a question regarding its decency but no one to properly enforce the rule and, at last, no one to bother about it because it will be too much strain to monitor each fashion change in the endless race of vanity.
If you look at Pakistan’s current Minister of State for foreign affairs, Mrs. Hina Rabbani Khar, you’ll see she wears a veil. Yet her veil reveals all her hair, and not only the hair but also the hairdo; it is only a piece of cloth attached to the back of the head. If this is decent attire, then wearing no veil at all is no less decent because the difference between this sort of veil and no veil lies somewhere between nil and minimal. Presumably, Saudi women’s fashion will follow the same direction as a result of Saudi authorities’ current stand against the traditional and rational abaya. Instead of decency, mockery.
With Mrs. Rabbani Khar’s veil, you also see the ears. With the earrings. It would be a pity not to be able to show such expensive jewels, would it not?
Meanwhile, in Western countries, the next trend in lawmaking will be menstrual leave. Mark my words.
(Post-scriptum. According to some, the abaya ban in exam halls has been motivated by a will of Saudi authorities to prevent the use of crib sheets, as the attire would facilitate it.)
“BJP government in MP [Madhya Pradesh] punishes man with bulldozer action for assaulting girlfriend.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 25, 2022)
On the one hand
The man’s house being “illegal,” it was bulldozed because of its illegality and certainly not because of assault and battery by the owner on his girlfriend. Can you image a system where the administration bulldozes one’s house because of battery, and this even before any judgment by a court of law? No, the assaulter was not punished by the government for assaulting somebody: he will be judged for his assault and, as to his house, as it was found illegal it was bulldozed. If the house had been bulldozed by virtue of an extrajudicial decision of the government, and that were normal, then India would not abide by the rule of law. But the whole story has nothing to do with administrative “punishment” of a wrongdoer. This is not how the law works.
On the other hand
If certain illegal houses, a certain slum had been brought before a court already, MP government had a court order to demolish the slum, not a permission to demolish some of the houses at the government’s discretion. Then, assuming MP government chose to ignore the order based on governance considerations, by allowing some people to live in illegal houses it detracted from the principle of equality before the law. Then, when it punishes a wrongdoer from the slum by bulldozing his house, the government commits another breach of the principle, as the wrongdoer will be punished not only by way of the penalty prescribed by law but also with demolition of his dwelling, which presumably is not in the code under the head of assault and battery. The government may believe to correct one breach, a “plus breach” for the individual (who benefits from government tolerance, in disregard of real estate law), with a “minus breach” (adding an administrative penalty, namely cancellation of said tolerance, to the usual, expected judicial penalty), but in reality it only accumulates breaches of the equality principle.
My take on the issue is that operations of this kind do not reduce crime and are not even aimed at this. If it took bulldozers to prevent violence, the laws should be rewritten to replace prison by bulldozing. But the government thinks it’s got a convenient tool to exercise a judicial power of its own, which it does not have by virtue of the separation of powers. By ignoring real estate law and, in many cases presumably, property rights of landowners whose land is illegally occupied, it creates a slum jurisdiction in which the real judicial power is the government, instead of courts, because there is no defense against an administration that can send a bulldozer to demolish one’s house, and slum dwellers therefore fear not as much the courts as the government. This preeminence of the executive is authoritarian. Slum dwellers are at the mercy of officials, completely dependent on their flippant whims, without recourse. (In such grey zones, drugs and prostitution rings could be run by law enforcement and other officers themselves.) Such governments have no enticement to eliminate slums and on the contrary a direct interest in maintaining them. The only way to see that change is to reject the government’s claims to behave as property law enforcer against individual slum dwellers.
In (i), I overlooked the slum dimension of the issue, which is that slum dwellers are at the mercy of government officials. Also, as several people live in the house, there is a collective dimension to the punishment which is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which India is a signatory state (although, technically, the wrongdoer and his family are not punished with bulldozing for the wrongdoer committing battery but for the family’s illegal occupation of land).
Some people argue that MP government’s maneuver is good deterrence, as trials are long processes. – However, even if a trial can be long, there is such a thing as pre-trial detention, especially for murderers and violent criminals, which are named by these people. Many accused are kept under arrest while their trial is going on, so the remark is absurd. Then, bulldozing the illegal house of a wrongdoer, not because of illegal occupation of land but because of something else, is not permissible. First, the government tolerates illegal occupation of land regardless of landowners’ rights. Then, officials blackmail the squatters by threatening to bulldoze illegal houses not because a landowner is harmed by illegal occupation but because a squatter does something wrong, and that something can be anything, from battery as in the present case (but the criminal code has no such penalty as bulldozing a house in punishment for battery) to looking askance at one or the other official’s conduct. Finally, bulldozing a house where several people live in retaliation for the wrongdoing of one person is against legal principles of the civilized world and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This story, once understood, is appalling publicity for the Indian regime. It talks of slums, that is, lawlessness for landowners; it talks of extrajudicial punishment, that is, lawlessness for slum dwellers; it talks of collective punishment, that is, lawlessness for everybody.
“J&K [Jammu and Kashmir] government bulldozer action against Hizbul Mujahideen deputy chief. According to authorities, Ghulam Nabi Khan alias Amir Khan had a wall built on encroached land as an extension to his house in Liver Pahalgam in the south Kashmir district. Khan is a self-styled operational commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen outfit and had crossed over to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) in the early 1990s and is operating from there.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 31, 2022)
Is “bulldozer crackdown” (Hindustan Times) the specific penalty against “terrorists,” then, rather than the legal response to encroachment? – India fighting terrorism with excavators. Now I better understand the phrase “the long arm of the law”: it talks of the articulated arm of excavators.
I’m impressed how Indian authorities punish terrorists for their violations of urban planning.
What a show of powerlessness by Indian authorities! To have people labeled terrorists and punish them for estate encroachment…
“‘Burn Indian High Commission’: Maldives ‘India Out’ campaigner Adil Riza arrested.”(Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 25, 2022)
I disagree that the tweet, as presented, is incitement to arson. Abbas Adil Riza claims the 2012 riots and arsons in Maldives were provoked by India and the damages have not been compensated. “We should start with embassy” is to read in this context, the asking of compensation. In the same way that some threats are true threats and others are merely rhetorical tools in controversies, this tweet is rhetorical, not incitement. The tweet means Maldives has a right to compensation for the 2012 arsons. As India may acknowledge its debt and pay it, the payback alluded to, arson for arson, is not a true threat; it is obvious that arson cannot repay arson, this is merely a way to express the urgent need of compensation after the alleged damaging interference. The tweet is not about Maldives’ retaliation but about Indian reparations. There is, to be sure, a form a rhetorical threat in it, namely: “Absent reparations, Maldivians may retaliate with arson against the embassy and other Indian estate in Maldives.” However, as the threat is conditional, it cannot be incitement, and rather a rhetorical tool in an ongoing debate about reparations or about the events of 2012.
Only in BJP India:
Breakup as abetment to suicide
“BJP [political party with Hindu nationalist ideology] MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] R. K. [I do not wish to publicize the MLA’s name on this blog] said if there is any love-jihad angle in actor [actress] Tunisha Sharma’s suicide, then the police will probe that and take strict action. The BJP MLA added the communal angle after Tunisha’s co-actor Sheezan Mohammed Khan was arrested and sent to police custody for four days based on the complaint [for abetment to suicide] by Tunisha’s mother.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 2022)
The love-jihad spin deserves some explanation first, for a Western readership. Some Hindus believe that Muslims practice a form of jihad these Hindus call “love jihad,” which takes the form of relationships of Muslim males with Hindu females, the aim of which would be to alienate the latter from their religious community and any other malice conceivable. And now to the point.
Breaking with one’s lover is not abetment to suicide. First of all, extramarital relationships are not protected by the law. When you are dropped like a bag of dirt, you get a broken heart, whether you can live with it or not. If you want your relationship to be protected, do not consent to anything outside marriage.
“The FIR [first information report] says that the breakup may have pushed Tunisha to the edge.” A man arrested for breaking up with his girlfriend is here the salient and weird piece of news. The love-jihad spin by a MLA was unfortunately predictable, given the arrested man is a Muslim; it is the predictable and deplorable sequel of something unexpected and very lawfare-like. Merely breaking with one’s girlfriend is not abetment to suicide, which requires intent and some form of direct incitement and/or active psychological pressure. Even if the breakup were the direct cause of suicide, it still would not be abetment, absent further elements hinting at intent and pressure; therefore, that such a vague FIR (“breakup may have pushed T. to the edge”) can serve to arrest a man is appalling. The police themselves may be engulfed in love-jihad fantasies and prejudice, to allow this.
“Cops … maintain that there is no angle of blackmailing or love jihad yet.” So why was Sheezan Khan arrested? Do they want to torture him to get false confessions? The mother’s declarations, as described, do not support the case for abetment to suicide. There used to be, in Western countries, a crime of fraudulent or deceitful seduction (tentative translation of French “séduction dolosive”), which would apply to false promises of marriage as here alleged. However, it is obsolete in the liberal “emancipated” West, and as India is so eager to be as liberal as the West on morality issues, I believe it does not exist in India either. But to talk, in lieu of this, of abetment to suicide, on the grounds presented, is frivolous.
Sheezan Khan has nothing to do in police custody. Police said there is no blackmailing or love-jihad angle “yet,” and the complaint for abetment to suicide is frivolous: to presume intent to abet suicide in a breakup is completely unwarranted. A man being grilled in police custody after his lover’s suicide is appalling publicity for the Indian regime, it is outrageous. In any case, a breakup cannot per se give enough reasons to presume intent to abet suicide, or love jihad, or blackmail, or whatever, and arrest a man.
“Gujarat Shocker: BSF [Border Security Force] Jawan [soldier] lynched after fight over his daughter’s ‘obscene’ video. The soldier along with his wife had decided to confront the accused teenager for allegedly circulating the video. However, on raising the issue with the teenager’s parents, the accused’s family attacked them.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Dec 2022)
The more liberalism ruins authority within the family and community, the more it is compelled to repair its mistakes with harsh liberticidal legislation, such as against so-called revenge porn. Liberalism is against families because it is against freedom. If you don’t want obscene videos of yourself on the web, then don’t allow videos to be made of you to begin with. Liberal laws do not have in view payment for acts but rather shielding from payment for acts. You agree that a video is made of you, but you call the police when it is released; yet it is you allowed the release by allowing the video to be made. You’re asking the state to repair your own mistakes. You were lured by promises of lustful liberty and now you beg the police to beat up your lovers with bludgeons and torture them in dark cellars. You are the ones asking for a police state.
In police states, women have their lovers killed by police in basements to prevent revenge porn. Termination is paid by the taxpayer. What kind of state is India?
In France, revenge porn is admissible evidence in a divorce case, yet it is a crime. Think about it.
A man should not marry a woman whose obscene videos are circulating on the internet.
“Twitter’s Deep Involvement with CIA [after FBI] Now Out in the Open | Twitter Files” (Firstpost, YouTube, Dec 2022)
So, Twitter is basically an intelligence department within the public administration, and yet all this commercial advertising on the platform? Shocking.
In the Year of the Rabbit
Not one country will lift a finger to help Taiwan. China’s quarantines have had an impact on the world economy, with tensions on many production lines. You can’t go to war against the workshop of the world, it would have to be a blitzkrieg and that’s impossible against China. It must be a war of attrition and you can’t fight such a war against the very workshop of your armies.
On hypothetical “Western sanctions against China”: the phrase sounds so unreal. How could any country impose sanctions against the workshop of the world? The workshop would keep producing, but its “sanctioning” outlets would collapse.
It is because of foreign investment that China became the workshop of the world, and why has foreign investment gone to China to begin with? Because of profit maximization and free trade. That is to say, companies won’t leave China unless it becomes less competitive, less attractive, or because national states see China as a threat and force companies to leave the country, i.e., if there are sanctions against China. Western sanctions against China are no more unthinkable than a completely different makeup of the world economy, but they are unthinkable in today’s situation.
Companies coming in a country on commercial considerations and leaving on political considerations, are leaving to their own commercial detriment. In Europe, so many factories have shut down over the last decades. As unions say, when this happens, this is not only a factory that is closing but also know-how that goes lost; as the industrial base has been narrowing, redundant skilled workers cannot find jobs for their specific skills any longer and must apply to unskilled jobs. National relocation of industry would be a long process, and this must deter nations from taking sanctions against their workshop, China, because in the short run they will suffer from them more than sanctioned China.
Criminal trials do not require complaints. Imagine a man without family and he is murdered. He can’t complain because he’s dead and relatives can’t complain because he had none; yet the authorities will investigate the case to bring the culprit before a court of law. Another example: A man having one relative is murdered by his relative. The victim won’t complain because he’s dead and the relative won’t complain because he’s the murderer. Complaints are not needed in criminal cases for justice to be done.
On Indonesia’s extramarital sex ban. If governments are allowed to ban drugs, there is no reason why they could not ban extramarital sex. When you take drugs, is it any less your own business? Extramarital relationships are the business of any government having marriage regulations, that is, of all governments. Pay attention that, where adultery is not banned, it is a legal cause of punitive divorce. Where adultery is not banned, there is divorce for misconduct. However, when the situation between the spouses is asymmetrical, this civil procedure is wanting, so a criminal procedure may correct the asymmetry and restore harmed spouses in their rights.
The lèse-majesté laws of UK are shrouded in mystery. 1) When one cabinet member said these laws are no longer valid, the statement was later recanted. As it was recanted, it is to be assumed one still faces imprisonment for life in case of lèse-majesté. 2) Police arrested demonstrators with placards “Not my queen etc.”; the demonstrators were later released, and the authorities explained it was the demonstrators’ right to demonstrate. So what, if I’ve got the right to demonstrate and am nonetheless arrested (demonstration terminated) and later released? This is very convenient. No trials: oh so liberal! No demonstrations: oh how they love their monarchs!
“Italia e Turchia sono storicamente i due attori principali del Mediterraneo.” (Giorgia a Bali) Bello. Adoro. Dato che Giorgia Meloni non è sposata, dovrebbe provare a diventare la seconda moglie di Erdogan, per consolidare i legami dei due attori principali.