Tagged: Taiwan

Law 31: Aurangzeb’s Ghost

January 2023

Cram Jihad

UP [Uttar Pradesh] Boy Kills Self Over Study Pressure | Another Life Lost In Kota.” (Mirror Now, YouTube) [Kota is known as India’s “cram city,” where “students from across the country pay steep fees to be tutored for elite-college admissions exams.”]

Given the Tunisha Sharma precedent (see “Breakup as abetment to suicide” in Law 28), I assume someone’s got to be arrested. As breaking up with one’s girlfriend can be construed as abetment to suicide absent any clue of mens rea, most certainly academic pressure is “cram jihad.” Find the culprits and act; do not wait for your BJP MLA to scold you.

BJP MLA: “If this is cram jihad, justice shall be done!”


Marital Rape or the Offense of Sex Denial?

The notion of marital rape is a scam designed to destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage duty is a thing, and these duties include sex. A woman who does not want sex with her husband should file for divorce. If something must be criminalized at all, it should be denial of sex to one’s legitimate spouse, because it is fairer overall to criminalize a denial of rights than one’s getting their due.

In case so-called “rape” applies to acts of torture on occasion of sex, then said crime is torture, battery; a new crime of marital rape is not needed at all. And if the wife does not accept acts that a court would perhaps be reluctant to characterize as torture, she should file for divorce. As soon as she makes her wish to divorce known, sex without her consent could be deemed a crime. This is no “marital” rape yet because the marital duty would be suspended during the divorce procedure.


The Indian Supreme Court is set on canceling the so-called “Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)” about rape, which decriminalizes marital rape: “Sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his wife, the wife not being under 15 year of age is not rape.”

The first part of this short essay (paragraphs 1 & 2) tells you about my position on the Supreme Court’s intentions. I now would like to comment on this “Exception 2.” The mention of the wife’s age is strange because: “Marriage for men below the age of 21 years and women below 18 years is a punishable offence under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.” Even if Exception 2 mentioned the wife’s age as “being under 18,” rather than 15, that still would be strange, as it makes no sense to hypothesize a situation where the wife is under 18 because if the wife is under 18, then, given the 2006 Act, marriage is void; it is no marriage at all but rather a criminal offense, and there cannot be a “marital” rape where there is no marriage in the first place.


Aurangzeb’s Ghost

Police Files Case Against 8 People for Dancing with [17th-century Mughal King] Aurangzeb’s Photo in Maharashtra.” (Times Now, YouTube)

What is their crime? I mean, “dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo” may be an obvious crime but what is it? I’m a foreigner.

Answer from a YouTube user: “Aurangzeb killed and forcefully converted many Hindus and demolished thousands of temples. This was done by all kinds of Muslim rulers actually, but celebrating and chanting slogans [praises of a man] who destroyed India, it is obvious good people with sentiments and non-Muslims will get hurt. This is the same as if one were celebrating and dancing with the picture of Osama Bin Laden, who killed thousands of Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers, and expecting Americans not to feel bad about this.”

So, the crime of dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo is incitement to terrorism (even though Aurangzeb lived more than three hundred years ago)? American law does not care about people’s feelings being hurt by this kind of political speech, because the law promotes free speech and the free flow of ideas. “Because of the First Amendment, incitement to terrorism or other forms of crime and unlawful violence is constitutionally protected free speech, unless it can be proven that the speech is ‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action’ and ‘is likely to incite or produce such action’.” (Wikipedia: Incitement to Terrorism) People dancing with Bin Laden’s photo in the U.S. would not be arrested or summoned, and tried, even if angry mobs wanted to lynch these people, in which case they would get police protection.

Media: There is no offence in a saffron bikini, India guarantees freedom of speech. Media: FIR [“first information report” by police] against 8 for dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo. [For an explanation of saffron bikini, see Law 29: “Saffron Bikini.”]

Year in, year out, in all museums and galleries of world capitals, there are permanent and temporary exhibits on Mughal art, Mughal miniatures, Mughal civilization, Mughal history…, but here “FIR against 8 for dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo.”

Aurangzeb Alamgir


Ahead of the 2024 General Election, Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned the BJP workers against making irrelevant remarks against movies as it hampers the development agenda of the party.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 18)

Avoid remarks on Raj Kundra porn case and Bollywood filth as if the party’s finances depended on it!

Remarks on lowbrow movies are necessary.


Pioneering Menstrual Leave in Communist Kerala

Pioneering Move by the Kerala Government | Menstrual Leave for College Students Announced.” (Mirror Now, YouTube)

One fails to see the point of a leave for students unless there are the same kind of truancy rules for students as for school children. In Europe, university students are free to attend the lessons or not; their presence is expected only in case of assignments. If students think they can pass exams without attending lessons, the choice is left to their own appreciation. Therefore, a leave would not make any sense there. This is not the workplace. But a menstrual leave at the workplace, which would allow women to be on paid leave about one day per month (one day out of twenty days), while their male colleagues must keep working, would have, in reaction, consequences you don’t want to imagine.

Menstrual leave for university students means there are truancy rules at Kerala universities same as for school children. Where students are free to attend lessons or not (absent individual assignments), a leave is meaningless, for you don’t need a leave where to show up is up to you. This tells you all you need to know about Communism in Kerala and its “pioneering” measures. Either they’re all children or their measures are window-dressing. Try the same at the workplace and we’ll see how frivolously shifting greater workload on men’s shoulders will be welcome.


Harmeet Dhillon, a prominent Indian-American attorney, has claimed attacks by her fellow Republican party leaders over her religion. Dhillon, who is running for Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman, has alleged that she is facing bigoted attacks because of her Sikh faith.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube)

As she says in the tweets presented in the video, she received “threats” by donors that they would stop donating if she adopted this or that line of conduct. Strange as it may seem, such kinds of threats by donors are supposedly illegal in the U.S., so a donor is supposed to give money to a candidate without knowing what the candidate’s choices will be once elected. The law was designed to prevent corruption, but what sense does it make? It’s as if a donor were blindfolded and threw a cheque in the air and the candidate on which the cheque falls could pocket it. No, people donate because they wish this or that policy, and the American anticorruption law is absurd.

As to Dhillon’s religion, as more and more GOP candidates define themselves as upholders of Christian values, you bet they find the idea of a Sikh chairperson a little odd. She can cry about discrimination but party members chose who they want as chair, and if they don’t want a Sikh woman, and even don’t conceal they don’t want her because she is a Sikh (or a woman or both), to the best of my knowledge there is no civil rights recourse open to her because the GOP is a private organization, like a club, and same as the law does not compel you to invite Sikhs at your wedding party, which is private, it does not compel you to have a Sikh chair if you don’t want a person as chair because she is a Sikh. She nonetheless has the right to complain about discrimination before the public opinion.


According to the film The Gandhi Murder, 2019, by Karim Traïdia and Pankaj Sehgal, British and Indian police knew there was a plan to assassinate Gandhi but decided not to prevent it, that is, they are complicit in the assassination.


Entrapped by the Commission for Women

A day after S. M., the chief of the Delhi Commission for Women, alleged that she was harassed and dragged by a drunk driver, a video of the incident shows her confronting the man, who has been arrested. S. M. has alleged that when she tried to stop the driver, her arm was trapped in the car window [she apparently tried to grab the keys in the car] and she was dragged 15 metres.” (NDTV, YouTube, Jan 20)

This “inspection,” as the DCM chief calls it (“We keep doing inspections but this one was different, I decided to stand alone on Delhi streets. I wanted to understand what a woman goes through.”), looks like entrapment to me. This is a police job, as kerb-crawling is illegal: Is she a police officer? Even if she were, I disapprove of entrapment and many judges disapprove of it too. With these kinds of “inspections,” you prepare the police state where police entrap poor men from the lower class by promising them crores of rupees and providing them with guns and bombs, and then arrest them for terrorism for saying “yes” (when, in fact, the man only wanted to swindle them and go away with the money 🤑). I disapprove of the Commission for Women’s methods. And of S. M.’s trying to grab the driver’s keys.

Sorry but if this man is condemned there is something wrong with India. He is an altruist. Imagine you contrive a completely unnatural situation, a lone woman on the roadside in the dead of night pretending she’s waiting for her relatives to pick her up but they are not coming. The man stops his car, asking, out of human benevolence, if she needs a lift. She says she is waiting for her relatives to pick her up, so he leaves. Then, he drives by again, say fifteen minutes later. The woman is still there. Shame on her relatives to let her wait alone in the dead of night! He offers to give her a lift again because he sees that her relatives are not responding, are not reliable on this occasion (he doesn’t know it is a made-up story). She then starts to scold him and tries to grab his keys. Who in the world would not think she is a psycho and he must flee? Normally, when police start to act rough, they must shout “You’re under arrest!”, so that people realize what is happening; here I think she started acting rough without disclosing her identity and the driver thought he was assaulted.

Sorry but when you see helpless people, it is human instinct to try to help if one can, and we all know it is not safe for a woman to stand alone in the dead of night.

Entrapment is morally wrong

Entrapment contrives unreal situations where lawful citizens are pushed by police toward acceptance of crime. The official swindlers can easily persuade you to commit a crime because they are not afraid of consequences, as they are the ones whom criminals are supposed to fear in real situations. If we were criminals designing a crime, all of us would have doubts about outcome, risks, consequences, the worth of it, even moral pangs, and at any time one or several of us may desist. When police officers entrap a man, however, they have none of these doubts: therefore, they can be persuasive as no criminal can.

The entrapped man is persuaded that crime is riskless and the reward assured, his moral balance is impaired. Police are making him willing to act, sweep all his scruples away, on the notion that the deterrent effect of the law is nonexistent. Whereas we all agree that legal deterrence plays a major role in public order, police arrest a man whom they made believe in his invulnerability. This is the old tale of Gyges’s ring in Plato: Would you act the same if you possessed a ring granting you the power of invisibility? Turns out the ring does not exist, and police were spinning a tale; the only guilt of the man they arrest is his gullibility.

The salient point about entrapment is the superpower of persuasion held by law enforcement officers as comedians, actors, a power which no criminal can have because they all stake their own lives. I am not talking about covert agents in criminal organizations, who risk their lives if uncovered; entrapment is something different. With entrapment, agents have no greater stake than the success or failure of the operation, while the “victim” of their theatrical acting wants to think in real-life terms but is presented with a picture of reality that he would never accept had a police department not intended to alter his perception, and the more incredible the lies (they can give the illusion of invulnerability because they have the state behind them, with bottomless sources of cash and arms) the more impressive they must be.


The next day, Jan 21, the story took a new spin as some BJP members, finding that the driver was an AAP member, perhaps even AAP worker, claimed the incident was staged. (The two main political forces in Delhi currently are Hindutva BJP and Woke AAP.)


Just a week after China and Bhutan held a meeting and decided to push forward boundary negotiations, India’s Foreign Secretary V. M. Kwatra made a two-day visit to the Buddhist kingdom.” (NDTV, YouTube, Jan 20)

The King of Bhutan is ready to be Dictator of India at the invitation of RSS-BJP, a Buddhist party that renounced the caste system following the teachings of Gautama Buddha.


Criminal v. Enemy

US designates Russian Wagner mercenary force a crime organization.” (Al Jazeera English, YouTube, Jan 21)

They are defiling the language of justice by applying it to their discriminatory politics. If Wagner is a criminal organization, by the same token Blackwater (now Constellis) is a criminal organization, but as their politics is against Wagner and not against the underpinnings of the organization, which would allow a regime to criminalize Wagner and other such organizations, they are not telling the law but defiling it.

Someone, willing to establish distinctions, calls my attention on the fact that the Wagner group recruits members among prison inmates, contrary to Blackwater. This person thus believes the Wagner Group can be called a criminal organization and Blackwater otherwise. To be quite frank, he or she seems to have recanted this point of view, as the message only appears in my notifications, not on the public thread. Of course, the recruitment is completely immaterial, and the remark amusing at best, by showing how hasty reasoning (convicted recruits = criminal organization) can lead one astray. As the army itself is not infrequently a possible form of alternative punishment for convicted criminals (boot camps), the remark is even more futile. And if using the workforce of convicted criminals were itself criminal, the whole penitentiary system of the U.S. would be.

Absent a serious ground distinguishing the Wagner Group from other mercenary organizations, to label it a “criminal organization” is a misuse of law. The move shows the limits of proxy war. If America wants to act against the Wagner Group, it should declare it an enemy organization. An enemy is someone who, although they use the same means as us, acts contrary to our interests. Declaring Wagner a criminal rather than an enemy organization is contemptible on two grounds: 1) it allows U.S. to pretend staying out of the war; 2) it calls criminal an enemy, that is, someone using the same means as America (Blackwater). Again, if Wagner is criminal, Blackwater is criminal, and law enforcement that goes against one criminal and not against the other although both commit the same crime, is discriminatory.


US Secretary of State Antony Blinken raised alarm over Beijing’s intentions over Taipei and said China is ‘no longer comfortable’ with status quo on Taiwan.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 22)

The U.S. is not comfortable with the status quo, as they went from “U.S. pledges support for one-China principle” to “Taiwan is a sovereign state” in November 2020. The one-China principle was the status quo, but the U.S. denounced it. This 2020 shift was an incredibly hostile move toward China. – America is the status quo breaker, but they are spinning a yarn where China is the status quo breaker. This is undignified.

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.