India-US Strategic News and Discussion

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Mar 2012 21:24

subodh wrote:abhiskek - that is a bit circular. the Indians who came here as immigrants are a self selected group - those are the ones that chose to come here

They are not entirely self-selected. They are also selected by Americans. Not all visa requests are accepted. If education is not a criterion then America would not mind if you were replaced by a randomly chosen Indian.

a real racist shouldnt care, your skin colour should triumph all.

Right. As I mentioned in a different thread, it just means that the value of your education is greater than other factors like race. As far as ordinary Indians are concerned, they don't have enough education/skills to protect them from other "factors".

Thanks Rudradev for posting that article.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 21:25

subodh wrote: Doc Shiv - that is a strawman. No one is denying the terrible cost India has paid thanks to US policy vis-a-vis the orcs next door. That should not stop us from being objective when it comes to observing the US from inside, and branding Americans as uniformly 'racist' or describing American society in a broadbrush as degenerate is a simplistic way out.

No. You do what you think is right and Dharmic Subodh. Don't ask me to join you. I will do exactly what a lot of people do - that is will not give a damn about being what you believe is fair. As long as there are people such as yourself being fair to the US - a few odd characters like me should not matter.

After all Indians are supposed to "understand" that there are a lot of good people in the US and a few bad actions from the US should be "understood" because they are not anti-India but just pro US. Just like this case was not racist, but just a good legal system that went a bit wrong. So my attitude and statements should not cause anyone in the US any discomfort or worry.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 21:29

Rudradev wrote:
ramana wrote:
Isn't that the open fly torn shirt argument that Shiv reminds us all the time?

Actually, what Shiv calls "open fly torn shirt" is formally considered a universal fallacy in the academic study of logic and rhetoric. The academic name given to such an argument is tu quoque, or "you do it too." This may be the preferred term to use when engaging non-BRFites, particularly in the West: but for our purposes here, "open fly torn shirt" works just fine

Interesting "tu quoque"? as in two cock?

I've learned something.

But also "Pot calling kettle black". But the torn shirt-open fly analogy was culturally appropriate when talking about Pakis

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 21:34

ramana wrote:
Rangudu wrote:Isn't that the open fly torn shirt argument that Shiv reminds us all the time?

And when the matter is Amercian society why bring in Hindus in India?

Ramana

The point is that the argument, "I'm going to do some bigoted or borderline illegal things because my culture is like that" is bogus.

Indian/Hindu culture is a vast sea of practices, some of which are unchanged while others evolved over time. Some of the practices are just out of date today.

If someone wants to use "my culture is like that" argument to condone bigotry, then it is perfectly logical IMHO to call out some extreme facets of the same culture.

Heck I personally get uncomfortable when I see two men kissing or making out, even on TV. I also don't know what makes a person gay. But I don't think that is a reason to say it's ok for me to be bigoted.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Mar 2012 21:36

Indian/Hindu culture is a vast sea of practices, some of which are unchanged while others evolved over time. Some of the practices are just out of date today.

I dont think foreigners can judge this on Indian culture.
Also foreign paradigm or western paradigm cannot be applied on Indian soceity to declare that "Some of the practices are just out of date today."

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 21:37

BTW Dr.shiv,

What is this "Free sex" strawman you are raising? AFAIK, there is no law in the US that allows public sex. In the Dharun Ravi case, the alleged sexual encounter took place in a shared dorm room i.e. a private space and Ravi was not in the room at that time.

subodh · Post by **subodh** » 22 Mar 2012 21:38

Doc - I dont expect or care if you are 'fair' to or about the US, and my being fair or not is irrelevent. That is not the point i am making. Also, I couldnt care about 'defending' the US to you or anyone for that matter.

My point is simple. This is a very complex, and broad society - and like it or not, influences India very profoundly, mostly for the worse - via the vile scum next door. If we are to understand how things work here, from the inside, it helps to go beyond simple one word labels.

Abhishek - so - education triumps race for 'racist' Americans? ok.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 21:39

Rangudu wrote: Heck I personally get uncomfortable when I see two men kissing or making out, even on TV. I also don't know what makes a person gay. But I don't think that is a reason to say it's ok for me to be bigoted.

R man. lets not get into this. As per your attitude it is OK for you to be dishonest as long as you are not accused of being bigoted. I prefer to be called bigoted. But I will be honest. Each to his own. I prefer honesty to taqiya. But some people may need to do taqiya for survival.

Some US laws force dishonesty and pretence under some guise or the other. This is one of them

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 21:41

Acharya wrote:I dont think foreigners can judge this on Indian culture.
Also foreign paradigm or western paradigm cannot be applied on Indian soceity to declare that "Some of the practices are just out of date today."

Huh? what foreigner? I am an Indian citizen and I'm sure not the only one who believes that some practices of my culture are out of date. Is shaving of a young widow's head acceptable today? Or is the wife supposed to keep quiet if a husband hits her?

This has nothing to do with McCauleyism or any conspiracy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 21:42

Rangudu wrote:BTW Dr.shiv,

What is this "Free sex" strawman you are raising? AFAIK, there is no law in the US that allows public sex. In the Dharun Ravi case, the alleged sexual encounter took place in a shared dorm room i.e. a private space and Ravi was not in the room at that time.

R man - I call homos screwing in a shared room while being visible to a third party as "public sex". Are you trying to teach me about US laws?

How many men have to see two homos screwing before the US calls it "public sex". Sharia requires four witnesses for rape. What does US law say? Is one witness not enough to make it public? Heck the room was as much Ravis as the homo's.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Mar 2012 21:43

>> Abhishek - so - education triumps race for 'racist' Americans? ok.

Yes, but even people who come from India on temporary assignments face bad behavior.. If you graduate from an IIT, then you should expect good behavior from people who know your credentials.

If you are like Amartya Sen, the president of US will invite you to White House.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Mar 2012 21:46

Rangudu wrote:
Acharya wrote:I dont think foreigners can judge this on Indian culture.
Also foreign paradigm or western paradigm cannot be applied on Indian soceity to declare that "Some of the practices are just out of date today."
Huh? what foreigner? I am an Indian citizen and I'm sure not the only one who believes that some practices of my culture are out of date. Is shaving of a young widow's head acceptable today? Or is the wife supposed to keep quiet if a husband hits her?

This has nothing to do with McCauleyism or any conspiracy.

It was a general statement and not about your post or views. What you mentioned are not Indian practices/culture (is the wife supposed to keep quiet if a husband hits her?).
We have to be careful that we should not transport western social views into our Indian society.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 21:50

shiv wrote:R man - I call homos screwing in a shared room while being visible to a third party as "public sex". Are you trying to teach me about US laws?

So if a man and a wife have sex during honeymoon in a hotel room when the hotel manager opens the door for a legit reason (e.g. water leak), they are having public sex?

Does a landlord have the right to broadcast a tenant husband and wife having sex?

It was a shared room and the other roommate was not there. Ergo it is a private space.

If the American kid was banging a girl, would you call it public sex?

Ravi had is part of the room only. He has no right to touch or film the other part without permission. The law is clear on this.

It was a private space with two consenting adults who had an legal expectation of privacy.

BTW, if Ravi had walked in, it would be different. He filmed it and vroadcast it live to people who had no rights to the room.

You are completely wrong about this.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 22 Mar 2012 21:50

Rangudu wrote:
Acharya wrote:I dont think foreigners can judge this on Indian culture.
Also foreign paradigm or western paradigm cannot be applied on Indian soceity to declare that "Some of the practices are just out of date today."
Huh? what foreigner? I am an Indian citizen and I'm sure not the only one who believes that some practices of my culture are out of date. Is shaving of a young widow's head acceptable today? Or is the wife supposed to keep quiet if a husband hits her?

This has nothing to do with McCauleyism or any conspiracy.

Shaving of widows head was a part of medieval society. Western medieval societies were perhaps even worse than Indian societies. this has been discussed before.

Domestic violence is by no means uncommon in the US. And I have seen even white american women grinning and bearing it on occasions.. In one case a badly trashed lady came to the ER , but claimed to have fallen from stairs accidentally . turns out she did not want trouble with her husband , as the kid was unwell and they were in need of money. if anyone uses examples of medieval practises followed in India and than claims west to be all holy and nice , they are being hypocrites .Sexual violence against ones own kids too is quite common in the US .Ask any pediatrician how often does , he/she see cases of battered babies ?

subodh · Post by **subodh** » 22 Mar 2012 21:50

Abhishek - this is a country with 300 million people - and has its generous share of chutiyas, to put it crudely.

Among those are racists, @holes, idiots and ignoramuses. As i said, in an individual capacity, I have had my share of this crop - you can chose to play victim, you can chose to give it back, you can chose to prosecute, or you can chose to ignore. I dont endorse or criticise anyone's personal choice on this matter - my pick was to give it back in double measure.

But i would be dishonest if I exptrapolated it to imply i faced institutionalised racism - I never did. Doesnt mean i wouldnt have if i was in alabama (to randomly pick a place) and not in NY city.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Mar 2012 21:51

Why do some Indians start attacking India and Indians when the matter of discussion is/are issues in US?

Dr Shiv, on appropriate threads/occasions has been really hard on India/Indians too, but I really dont get the need to bring out a prejudiced caricature of India out of the Economist if the weakness of US are being discussed.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 21:54

Sanku wrote:Why do some Indians start attacking India and Indians when the matter of discussion is/are issues in US?

It is absolutely appropriate if "Indian culture" is used as an excuse for anti-gay bigotry. Culture can never be an excuse for hate, much less illegal activities.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Mar 2012 21:55

subodh wrote: But i would be dishonest if I exptrapolated it to imply i faced institutionalised racism - I never did. Doesnt mean i wouldnt have if i was in alabama (to randomly pick a place) and not in NY city.

Subodh, your not facing institutionalized racism so far does not mean

1) You wont see it in future (most Indians face it only after a certain point of time in US, once they start wanting a "bit more" from the system, and not merely be content to be extremely thankful with getting the roti-kapada-makan trip)

2) Others dont see it in similar places you have walked through through similar life stages.

I wonder what kind of "acceptance" would you have if you came to office wearing a dhoti, heck forget dhoti, just go to office with a large tilak, or namam, or vhibuti or any such mark.

Let us see how much love respect and tolerance for other culture really exists in NY.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Mar 2012 21:57

Rangudu wrote:
Sanku wrote:Why do some Indians start attacking India and Indians when the matter of discussion is/are issues in US?
It is absolutely appropriate if "Indian culture" is used as an excuse for anti-gay bigotry. Culture can never be an excuse for hate, much less illegal activities.

I still dont see the need to attack India and Indians for that. The most that should be said is, "XYZ is incorrectly using the argument of Indian culture to defend the indefensible"

Some have taken the extra and completely unnecessary step of attacking India/Indians.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 22 Mar 2012 22:00

w.r.t the US , one is less likely to face racism of any sort in the noth east , or the bay area california .. If one is in the bible belt , places like okhlahoma , that you ll probably have faced instance of racism by now.

In the silicon valley , population is multi-racial . While north east people are too busy to be racist . New york has a culture of its own. One usually does not even know ones neighbours .not even their race..one is moving too fast ..but new york cannot by any means be extrapolated to the rest of the country .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 22:01

Rangudu wrote:
shiv wrote:R man - I call homos screwing in a shared room while being visible to a third party as "public sex". Are you trying to teach me about US laws?
So if a man and a wife have sex during honeymoon in a hotel room when the hotel manager opens the door for a legit reason (e.g. water leak), they are having public sex?

Yes. It is public alright. Would you jail the hotel manager for that. How come Ravi is convicted?

Does a landlord have the right to broadcast a tenant husband and wife having sex?

Did Dharun Ravi broadcast it?

It was a shared room and the other roommate was not there. Ergo it is a private space.

If a legitimate occupant of the room walks in it is no longer private

If the American kid was banging a girl, would you call it public sex?

Of course I would

Ravi had is part of the room only. He has no right to touch or film the other part without permission. The law is clear on this.

US law says that a man who shares a room must film only one half of the room?

It was a private space with two consenting adults who had an legal expectation of privacy.

BTW, if Ravi had walked in, it would be different. He filmed it and vroadcast it live to people who had no rights to the room.

That is precisely what i am laughing at with regard to the US's idiotic laws. One homo can bring a partner into his room and have sex in there and the law will declare it as "privacy" if the other roomate walks in, perhaps with friends of his own. But if he stays out of the room and sees all this on camera it is an invasion of privacy. That is the one of the most stupid things I have heard in recent times. You are telling me that this is US law?

subodh · Post by **subodh** » 22 Mar 2012 22:05

Sanku

1. Sure - anything can happen in the future. That doesnt mean much in this context.

2. Yes, I am not a social scientists and can only speak about my personal experiences - having said that, there is a fair contingent of Indians on the street and in my organisation - and none i know seem to have faced any institutional racism eitehr, that they have brought up with me.

3. Neitehr my Dad when he was young, nor I when I grew up in India, or worked in banking in India - dressed that way, or did any of that. Why would I do that here? To get a rise out of people?

In reality, NY city is poor example to prove your point - i am not sure its majority white anymore, its such a melting pot of races and nationalities that most abberant behaviour is easily explained by inherent NY cussedness. As i said, parts of Alabama may well be very racist, and not just against Indians, but against black, mexicans, etc - so? Unless we understand the parts that are not racist and understand why that is the case, appreciating why some still are, and how that makes the whole tick, is hard.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 22 Mar 2012 22:05

Rangudu wrote:...
Does a landlord have the right to broadcast a tenant husband and wife having sex?
...

shiv wrote:...
Did Dharun Ravi broadcast it?
...

He did broadcast it. That is how Dharun and others were able to see it on the computer in a different room. In the second instance he was inviting others (on his twitter account) to watch the video feed.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 22 Mar 2012 22:12

shiv wrote:
Rangudu wrote:BTW Dr.shiv,

What is this "Free sex" strawman you are raising? AFAIK, there is no law in the US that allows public sex. In the Dharun Ravi case, the alleged sexual encounter took place in a shared dorm room i.e. a private space and Ravi was not in the room at that time.
R man - I call homos screwing in a shared room while being visible to a third party as "public sex". Are you trying to teach me about US laws?
How many men have to see two homos screwing before the US calls it "public sex". Sharia requires four witnesses for rape. What does US law say? Is one witness not enough to make it public? Heck the room was as much Ravis as the homo's.

2 Adults (i.e. neither were minors) engaged in consensual sex behind closed doors is not public sex. Otherwise all activity would be public including all your business in your home behind closed doors. The act was being broadcast secretly by Dharun on a webcam without the knowledge of his roommate.

You do need a lesson on US laws. Too much piskology makes you think you know it all but are really showing your ignorance of US laws. Arguing for the sake of argument only adds to the noise. You of all should know better than that.

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 22 Mar 2012 22:24

gakakkad wrote:w.r.t the US , one is less likely to face racism of any sort in the noth east , or the bay area california .. If one is in the bible belt , places like okhlahoma , that you ll probably have faced instance of racism by now.

In the silicon valley , population is multi-racial . While north east people are too busy to be racist . New york has a culture of its own. One usually does not even know ones neighbours .not even their race..one is moving too fast ..but new york cannot by any means be extrapolated to the rest of the country .

Explicit racism is not found in these areas. Does not mean implicit/subconscious racism is absent! There is more to it than meets the eye. Will post more on this later.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 22:28

BijuShet wrote:
shiv wrote:...
Did Dharun Ravi broadcast it?
...
He did broadcast it. That is how Dharun and others were able to see it on the computer in a different room. In the second instance he was inviting others (on his twitter account) to watch the video feed.

Yeah I got that, but I just wanted to know if he broadcast it so it would be visible to anyone say on YouTube or some public site.

As far as I can make out, in the USA it is a criminal invasion of privacy inviting a jail sentence to set up a webcam to see what is happening in a part of a room that you do not occupy, but it is not an invasion of anything at all if you are thrown into a room with a person whose habits are alien to you. You are supposed to think is is quite OK for the roommate to bring in friends whom you don't know and are supposed to trust them with no concern at all and supposed to behave like a gentleman and stay out of the room while your roommate has sex with his same sex partner. As Rangudu pointed out - in the US you cannot be honest of you are disgusted by homosexuality. You have to pretend to be quite OK with it. If you don't mind it, you could watch it by walking in and it would not be an invasion of privacy, but watching it via a remotely controlled camera is an invasion of privacy. For that you get jailed.

That sounds so freaked out to me that I am ridiculing it. Oh yes the US has laws about homosexuality and about webcams and privacy, but the same US makes no allowance for all the exceptional factors in this case. At best it is a bad and unfair verdict. Trying to defend it as a great triumph of justice being done is bullshit. if this is justice then the US is racist. The level of credibility for the two statements is the same. There are just too many weird things there to call this justice. i see nothing praiseworthy here.

praksam · Post by **praksam** » 22 Mar 2012 22:31

gakakkad wrote:w.r.t the US , one is less likely to face racism of any sort in the noth east , or the bay area california .. If one is in the bible belt , places like okhlahoma , that you ll probably have faced instance of racism by now.

In the silicon valley , population is multi-racial . While north east people are too busy to be racist . New york has a culture of its own. One usually does not even know ones neighbours .not even their race..one is moving too fast ..but new york cannot by any means be extrapolated to the rest of the country .

My experience is entirely opposite

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 22:34

Dr. Shiv,

1. Dharun Ravi shared a live feed with 3rd parties i.e. he broadcast it
2. Videotaping the other roommate's part of a shared room IS a violation of privacy and prima facie illegal.

BTW, Ravi not just did it once but did it again. To use the hotel manager analogy. If the manager had used a hidden camera and then repeatedly broadcast it, he is violating the law.

There is no gray area here and you just don't understand US law. Again, you are completely wrong here and this is not an issue of interpretation.

I suggest you READ the facts of the case first. Ravi did not use a webcam to just watch the video himself. He shared it live with a third person AND posted the link on Twitter to his 150 followers to attend a "Bacardi and beer gay sex watching party"

Are you aware of this at all?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 22:35

BijuShet wrote: You do need a lesson on US laws. Too much piskology makes you think you know it all but are really showing your ignorance of US laws. Arguing for the sake of argument only adds to the noise. You of all should know better than that.

I think the laws are stupid judging from what I have read so far. I do not think they are fair at all. I am not sure why anyone wants to give me a lesson in US laws and and try and convince me that they are not stupid. Why should anyone even be bothered about my opinion on this so much as to give me lessons on American laws?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Mar 2012 22:35

if you walk in on a room mate who is in flagrante delicto, then you should apologise and walk out (regardless of room mate's orientation) or if you're invited to join in and it appeals to you, you should join in

you should not be calling all the dorm mates over to watch or listen and you should definitely not be filming it for sharing over the internet unless your room mate has explicitly invited you to do so. you should certainly not be humiliating someone because of their sexuality.

most people have informal rules and codes of conduct about these things. that said, i agree that this is a stupid prank gone wrong, i dont think the suicide was because of the forced outing alone, and i dont think that this kid should be severely punished

habal · Post by **habal** » 22 Mar 2012 22:41

the managers of american system has setup a system whereby they encourage homosexuality and homoeroticism as a means to subversion of individual and family but are careful to keep far away from actual scene of overt support so as to not fall into direct conflict with civil society. It is mostly backroom managing of public opinions and setting up of courts to give funny verdicts. Create lots of minorities and vested interests and play them against each other and against the majority seems to be the game here.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 22:42

Dr. Shiv,

I suggest again that you use Google-ji and READ the case facts.

Ravi was charged with violation of privacy NOT for accidentally viewing his roomate having sex but for:

(a) Deliberately setting his laptop to point to the roomate's bed
(b) Watching the video with a third party
(c) Posting a link on Twitter and inviting 150 people to watch it

If all of this is not illegal in any country, I sure as hell hope they write laws to ban it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 22:44

Rangudu wrote:
1. Dharun Ravi shared a live feed with 3rd parties i.e. he broadcast it
2. Videotaping the other roommate's part of a shared room IS a violation of privacy and prima facie illegal.

<snip>

Are you aware of this at all?

That is what i have gathered. What is not illegal in America is for a homosexual roommate to bring in a partner into the room and have sex in that room with that partner. While it is an invasion of privacy to monitor what the roommate does with a camera in America, it is also illegal to object to homosexual sex in your room. In other words, as per American laws, Dharun Ravi not only has no right to use a webcam, he has no right to object to a stranger being brought into his room for sex.

IF Dharun Ravi had objected to that. He could have been accused of being bigoted against homosexuals which is something that you are not allowed to do by law in the US. Is that right? Homosexual sex with a stranger in the other half of the room that is not yours is legal. But watching it with a webcam is illegal.

If that is right, then I think the law is extremely unfair. Dharun Ravi has been screwed by circumstances while people are defending absurd laws.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 22 Mar 2012 22:45

shiv wrote:... has sex with his same sex partner. As Rangudu pointed out - in the US you cannot be honest of you are disgusted by homosexuality. You have to pretend to be quite OK with it.

Doc saahib

What has "same sex" got to do with your argument? Second, whether one is disgusted or not, one should not be bigoted, just like homosexuals are disgusted with hetero sex, but they don't go out and start attacking heteros. Honesty got nothing to do with it unless you mean honesty of your feelings.

That said, as I said before, Mr. D. Ravi was not bigoted (going by what he said acording to New Yorker), and shouldn't be punished so harshly for a stupid prank.

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 22 Mar 2012 22:45

Guys,

Can we cool off from discussing Homosexuality? I know many people in India who are homosexuals. The gay underground in India is HUGE, and I am not a "liberal-shiberal" who is planning to shame others into accepting what I believe.

No discussion of homosexuality in derogatory terms! Please!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 22:51

matrimc wrote: What has "same sex" got to do with your argument? Second, whether one is disgusted or not, one should not be bigoted, just like homosexuals are disgusted with hetero sex, but they don't go out and start attacking heteros. Honesty got nothing to do with it unless you mean honesty of your feelings.

Who has attacked anyone here?

It is one thing to feel disgusted by homosexuality and keep quiet about it for fear of being declared as a "bigot". It is another matter to have the same homosexual having sex in your room with no way of your objecting to it. In the US you simply have to say "I'm lovin it. I'm no bigot" The minute you object to homosexuality in your own room you are branded a bigot in the US.

That is what I find so ridiculous.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Mar 2012 22:53

habal - the US system was as discriminatory towards gays as any other. it is through political activism from the 1970's following the civil rights movement that american gays became a signficant force in terms of shaping political opinion. i am not sure that in the bible belt there is much tolerance for gay people. i was in boston on the day that mass. passed the gay marriage act - i had no clue, but as i walked across the square in front of the courthouse, i discovered protestors for and against the law and two cops chatting to each other - saying something along the lines of "well, i guess we gotta put up with this s***t..." and a rabbi calling down fire and brimstone on the sinners. for every american who is pro, i think there may be 20 against

shiv - would you be equally disgusted if your roomie was doing lalchix in your shared room?

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 22 Mar 2012 22:54

Dr. Shiv,

You're saying something similar to "I know I hit that person and it is illegal, but he was looking at me strangely and making fun of me. It is unfair that THAT is not illegal"

Seriously?

Your argument is also like Sunni extremists or those that killed Ahmaddiyas in TSP who say, "While killing Shia/Ahmedi is bad, it is also bad that they are allowed to practice their bad practices that are so offensive to my religious beliefs"

In the US gay/straight/3-way/4-way whatever sex is legal between consenting adults. Everyone knows this and Ravi certainly did.

There is no provision in a standard tenant contract that says that either roommate cannot bring in a stranger into the room.

Ravi had no right to violate his roomate's privacy by broadcasting a private act between two consenting adults. The hate crime charge was bogus for sure but the privacy violation was more than warranted.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 22 Mar 2012 22:54

shiv wrote:
BijuShet wrote: He did broadcast it. That is how Dharun and others were able to see it on the computer in a different room. In the second instance he was inviting others (on his twitter account) to watch the video feed.
Yeah I got that, but I just wanted to know if he broadcast it so it would be visible to anyone say on YouTube or some public site.

As far as I can make out, in the USA it is a criminal invasion of privacy inviting a jail sentence to set up a webcam to see what is happening in a part of a room that you do not occupy, but it is not an invasion of anything at all if you are thrown into a room with a person whose habits are alien to you. You are supposed to think is is quite OK for the roommate to bring in friends whom you don't know and are supposed to trust them with no concern at all and supposed to behave like a gentleman and stay out of the room while your roommate has sex with his same sex partner. As Rangudu pointed out - in the US you cannot be honest of you are disgusted by homosexuality. You have to pretend to be quite OK with it. If you don't mind it, you could watch it by walking in and it would not be an invasion of privacy, but watching it via a remotely controlled camera is an invasion of privacy. For that you get jailed.

That sounds so freaked out to me that I am ridiculing it. Oh yes the US has laws about homosexuality and about webcams and privacy, but the same US makes no allowance for all the exceptional factors in this case. At best it is a bad and unfair verdict. Trying to defend it as a great triumph of justice being done is bullshit. if this is justice then the US is racist. The level of credibility for the two statements is the same. There are just too many weird things there to call this justice. i see nothing praiseworthy here.

He did do a live feed of the video and let his followers on twitter know about it. It is a different matter that besides him and a few others in Molly Wie's room no other people wanted to see it.

In the US and many other places it is a criminal offense to video record others without their knowledge especially inside their home or property. You can video record in public like at a park etc but inside one's home there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for any individual. I am not too sure but I believe it is an offence to do so in India as well. I think there was a case of a landlord in Pune who did the same in India to a few of his female tenents and got in trouble with the law for that act.

There is no taqiya required in the US.
From Wiki:

Taqiyya (alternate spellings taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah), meaning religious dissimulation,[1] is a practice emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[2] This means a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are under those risks.[3]

To not be comfortable with something is not the same as pretending it is okay to show others. It is fine to have a contrary opinion about homosexuality but if you want to publicise such an opinion by writing or talking with others then you should expect to be countered by the other side. That would be true in most societies. I hold a right of center political point of view in Indian politics and for that people call me chaddiwalla, Hindutvavaadi etc. Such name calling/heckling is expected by me and does not change my point of view. Similarly people who hold anti-gay point of view and talk openly about it will attract labels such as Homophobic etc. No one is asking you to like or agree with Homosexuality but if you act against Gays then it is likely they will act against you and that concept is true for any grouping of Humans.

The verdict in this case is not fair and no one here has tried to defend the verdict. Some tried to explain what happened and what led to such a verdict. Even the Judge made a comment about the poorly written law but the jurors were presented the facts, given the definition of the law and asked to decide based on that definition. The law in this case will get reviewed more closely after this verdict and may be changed in the future to be more impartial. The NJ legislature shares some blame for writing the law but once passed it is the law of the state of NJ. I hope this explains the issue better.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2012 23:00

Rangudu wrote:Dr. Shiv,

I suggest again that you use Google-ji and READ the case facts.

Ravi was charged with violation of privacy NOT for accidentally viewing his roomate having sex but for:

Yes but Ravi is not supposed to complain if his roommate brings in a stranger and indulges in a open sexual act in the same room. That is no invasion of any type. That is OK as per US laws . It is the roommate's right to bring a stranger in and have sex in the room. That is quite OK. Ravi can have no legal objection to that.

That is the situation that I find so ludicrous. As a completely hypothetical example, if that sexual partner had murdered the homo in the room and left, clearly Ravi would not have been implicated in any way. But had Ravi filmed that murder and nailed the case, Ravi would still have to be jailed for invasion of privacy.