Tagged: Saudi Arabia
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 Case
“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 U.S. 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 several other 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 discrimination against Islam. If France is a free-speech country, then 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 was in France a crime of insult to heads of foreign states (like Ayatollah Khamenei) until 2004, after 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 more common 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 okay 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.
Law 28: Breakup as abetment to suicide and other weird tales from the real world
“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.