Bharat Rakshak

Most members of the Communal violence bill belong of the usual multi-tasking gang of communist crooks http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?op ... 3&Itemid=1

Communal & Sectarian Violence Bill, 2010 Advisory Group
Advisory Group Members
Abusaleh Shariff
Asgar Ali Engineer
Gagan Sethi
H.S Phoolka
John Dayal
Justice Hosbet Suresh
Kamal Faruqui
Manzoor Alam
Maulana Niaz Farooqui
Ram Puniyani
Rooprekha Verma
Samar Singh
Saumya Uma
Shabnam Hashmi
Sister Mary Scaria
Sukhdeo Thorat
Syed Shahabuddin
Uma Chakravarty
Upendra Baxi

Aruna Roy, NAC Working Group Member
Professor Jadhav, NAC Working Group Member
Anu Aga, NAC Working Group Member

Joint Conveners of Advisory Group
Farah Naqvi, Convener, NAC Working Group
Harsh Mander, Member, NAC Working Group

Drafting Committee Members
Gopal Subramanium
Maja Daruwala
Najmi Waziri
P.I.Jose
Prasad Sirivella
Teesta Setalvad
Usha Ramanathan (upto 20 Feb 2011)
Vrinda Grover (upto 20 Feb 2011)

Conveners of Drafting Committee
Farah Naqvi, Convener, NAC Working Group
Harsh Mander, Member, NAC Working Group

^^ Wow, truly a "eminent" and "un-biased" drafting committee....
Next, we might have Kalaignar and family in a GoI appointed committee to probe charges against Kanimozhi and A.Raja!!

^^^Wasn't someone trying to compare "intelligence level" between those chosen by the dynasty and those who fall outside the pale and still dare to have "shady" influences - on the sly? Say Teesta Setalvad must be more intelligent therefore by definition than BT or Laloo Prasad!

This is actually good. I think the bill should be introduced - and given the majority that the p-secs have [the left has been taught a proper lesson, and this is an issue on which they will have no problems - so surely they will join in] in legislature - it is likely to be passed without much problem. We will see more of the pseudo-secular pseudo-nationalists forced to come out openly in the bill's defense - at the least try to paint it as no-big-deal/similar bodies and structures already exist etc., etc. Then will start application [who represents the "majority" in that NAC sooo concerned with protecting "minorities"?] of the bill according to the sweet will of the Congress and whoever falls in line with the prevalent requirements of the caucus at New Delhi. I see great potential in this!

somnath wrote:

RamaY wrote:Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples?

Simply because unlike Laloo or Thackrey, the "remote controller" in RSS was not an identifiable entity -it was always an anonymous, ubiquitous Ram Lal, who remained in the "shade", while influencing executive decisions - appointment of cabinet ministers, petrol pump allotments...

RSS has organizational leadership and you can identify with them for periods they are in charge.

By your definition UPA2 is more shadier than anyone else because no one know who is whose candidate as we saw in Radia-gate.

Know Sonia's communal violence bill drafters



1) Harsh Mander http://bit.ly/jyTVG7 || http://bit.ly/ms4xqd || http://bit.ly/dDqoPE

2) Anu Aga: 1 of India's richest women, a harsh Modi critic & obviously a Padma Shri

3) Aruna Roy: A Magsaysay award winning anti-Hindu psec http://bit.ly/kbRlDm

4) Jean Dreze : A Belgium citizen who's an Indian for less than 10 yrs 'drafts' bill!

5) Farah Naqvi, who pushed one Gujarat 2002 case to Mumbai & 're investigated' by CBI!

6) Mirai Chatterjee, Another Modi baiter,having Guj Muslim agenda. http://bit.ly/kVOgZr

7) AK Shiva Kumar read a comment by Viren here. 'Secular'! http://bit.ly/iZ4DmQ

Narendra Jadhav, A Buddhist by law. Seems a moderate so far. http://bit.ly/iujLOG

9) Teesta Setalvad (till Feb 11). India's loudest liar, Modi baiter. http://bit.ly/lcnw5Y

10) Shabnam Hashmi (Advisor): Blatantly anti Modi. 'come & shootme' http://bit.ly/llXQRC

11) Syed Shahabuddin (Advisor): Anti-Hindutva, Babri masjid agitatorhttp://bit.ly/lo5xwW

12) John Dayal (Advisor) India's loudest conversion agent, anti-Hindu http://bit.ly/kiBUS2

13) Niaz Farooqui (Advisor), a mullah demanding Muslim reservation! http://bit.ly/k8px7N

14) Just Hosbet Suresh, loudly called Bush a terrorist, with Z Naik! http://bit.ly/keoYrZ

15) Sister Mary Scaria - Her bio is pretty much Jesus, Jesus & Jesushttp://bit.ly/iOx9B7

16) Gopal Subramaniam : Wasn't his residence a 2G scam headquarters?http://bit.ly/gAgJbi

http://nationalizer.org/?p=265

Kiyani, Pasha, Dawood, Rahul Butt and Hafeez Saeed seem to be missing from that list

Mahendra wrote:Kiyani, Pasha, Dawood, Rahul Butt and Hafeez Saeed seem to be missing from that list

mullah, you are getting old. These worthies will be in the drafting committee set up by sonia gandhi on the lines of NAC, which will release guidelines on how India will negotiate with pakistan. It will be called the National Security Committee, not be confused with the National security council

Arnab asks right question:"how can you presume that majority can't be victim of minority"

http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4374323.cms

http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4374324.cms

In places like Kerala, Assam, West Bengal etc where the population of say muslims is around 40-45% in some districts and majority in some others, how do you classify them as minorities? Is a community which is 40% strong really a minority?

What about localities where some communities are a majority even though at state level they may be minorities? In WB recently, muslims beat up hindus and tore down a temple too, led by a TMC MLA, as they were majority in that area.

In places like Kerala, Assam, West Bengal etc where the population of say muslims is around 40-45% in some districts and majority in some others, how do you classify them as minorities? Is a community which is 40% strong really a minority?

What about localities where some communities are a majority even though at state level they may be minorities? In WB recently, muslims beat up hindus and tore down a temple too, led by a TMC MLA, as they were majority in that area.

Bill is to make sure that god's work continues without any significant opposition from heathens. They want to emasculate heathens and avoid the repeat of Dang and Orissa. And vote of "peacefuls" is another added benefit. Listen to John Dayal: instance of minority attacking majority is one in billion .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi ... =emailpage

Indian state switches to less costly security for Mumbai gunman

kasab gunman??

Ravi mullah a search in google defines gunman as

A man who uses a gun to commit a crime or terrorist act.

somnath wrote: What sec 74 says is this..

Presumptions as to offences under this Act.- (1) If in a prosecution for any offence committed under this Act, it is shown that the accused committed or abetted or conspired to commit the offence of hate propaganda under section 8, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the offence committed was knowingly directed against a person by virtue of his or her membership of a group.

It refers to a presumption of "offences", not a presumption of "guilt"...Shorn of the legalese, what it means IMO is that in a "hindu-muslim" riot situation, if a hindu is accused of murdering a muslim, then it will be presumed that the murder motive was the hindu-muslim communal issue, and not anything else...Hence, the case will be tried under the provisions of this Bill..

Not presumptive "guilt", certainly..

But it is bad enough ... when somebody criticizes a missionary, for example, it will be deemed to be a hate crime against Christians.

The presumption is that any criticism of members of a 'group' (i.e. minorities) is a hate crime against the minority.

Pranav wrote:But it is bad enough ... when somebody criticizes a missionary, for example, it will be deemed to be a hate crime against Christians.

The presumption is that any criticism of members of a 'group' (i.e. minorities) is a hate crime against the minority

Doesnt work like that..IF there is a communal riot situation, THEN any crime committed by a member of the offending "group" (whose definition is the issue) against the "suffering group" would be construed to be under the new "Communal..." law...

The crime still has to be proven in a court of law - just that prosecution will be using this new law rather than existing laws that exist for that specific crime...

somnath wrote:

Pranav wrote:But it is bad enough ... when somebody criticizes a missionary, for example, it will be deemed to be a hate crime against Christians.

The presumption is that any criticism of members of a 'group' (i.e. minorities) is a hate crime against the minority

Doesnt work like that..IF there is a communal riot situation, THEN any crime committed by a member of the offending "group" (whose definition is the issue) against the "suffering group" would be construed to be under the new "Communal..." law...

The crime still has to be proven in a court of law - just that prosecution will be using this new law rather than existing laws that exist for that specific crime...

No, there is no limitation that there has to be a communal riot situation. If you look at section 8,

Hate propaganda.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, whoever ... disseminates or broadcasts any information, or publishes or displays any advertisement or notice, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to promote or incite hatred ... or is likely to expose the group or persons belonging to that group to such hatred, is said to be guilty of hate propaganda.

So, if you say anything that "can reasonably be construed" to be "likely" to "expose persons belonging to a group" to "hatred", then you are guilty of a hate crime.

So basically, if you criticize a member of a minority, then you can expect full punishment.

Pranav wrote:No, there is no limitation that there has to be a communal riot situation. If you look at section 8

Yes, you are right - I hadnt seen this...I was responding on the hypothesis of "prsumptive guilt" versus "presumptive offnce" - clearly its the latter not the former in the draft...

However, this provision too isnt different from existing provisions in law about "inciting hatred" etc -I am not a lawyer, but I do know that ther are existing laws that deal with speech/writing/broadcast inciting violence (I an che k with someone who knows) - Sec 8 seems to be only excapsulating that...Nothing more..

somnath wrote: However, this provision too isnt different from existing provisions in law about "inciting hatred" etc -I am not a lawyer, but I do know that ther are existing laws that deal with speech/writing/broadcast inciting violence (I an che k with someone who knows) - Sec 8 seems to be only excapsulating that...Nothing more..

There seems to be an intent to override all other protections - section 8 begins with "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force ..."

The NAC wants to make the anti-blasphemy laws stronger and only work one way !!! We are witnessing an explicit attempt to rape India's liberal values.

Pranav wrote:"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force ..."

Which is usually standard in most "new" laws that have intersections with (parts of) existing laws...Especially if the new law is aimed at setting out new standards in a specific area which the older law covers generically..This, by itself isnt a big deal..

the real issue is really with the definition of the "group" - you change that to something more equal-handed, and the law should be pretty unexceptionable...

Arjun wrote:The NAC wants to make the anti-blasphemy laws stronger and only work one way !!! We are witnessing an explicit attempt to rape India's liberal values.

There are NO anti-blasphemy laws in India - its ultra vires the Constituion! Criminaility is being addressed here....

somnath wrote:

Pranav wrote:"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force ..."

Which is usually standard in most "new" laws that have intersections with (parts of) existing laws...Especially if the new law is aimed at setting out new standards in a specific area which the older law covers generically..This, by itself isnt a big deal..

It is a big deal if the new standards are much more draconian. For example, criticism of a minority person or institution that would be protected speech under defamation laws could well get you jailed as a "hate criminal".

somnath wrote: There are NO anti-blasphemy laws in India - its ultra vires the Constituion! Criminaility is being addressed here....

This is an anti-blasphemy law by the back door.

However, it is much more draconian than the Pakistani Sharia laws. Pakistan only outlaws criticism of their prophet. Here every minority person or institution is afforded the same immunity from criticism as the prophet is in Pakistan.

Pranav wrote:It is a big deal if the new standards are much more draconian. For example, criticism of a minority person or institution that would be protected speech under defamation laws could well get you jailed as a "hate criminal".

"Hate speech" is not even covered under defamation - there are stringent provisions of law against that under IPC...(Confirmed that with someone who should know!)..

the whole language in Sec 8, "inciting hatred.." et al, is standard in IPC provisions as well..As I am not a lawyer, took recourse to friendly internet neighbourhood Wiki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India

I am usually not a great fan of Wiki - but unless they are quoting the laws and examples completely erroneously, one gets the idea..

In fact if you look at Sec 8, it refers to the same (as Wiki above) Sec 153A of IPC as the "prosecuting" law, thats all..If you further go down to Chapter VIII (penalties), the punishment for "hate propaganda" is nothing but what is defined in 153A -3 years/fine...

Net net, they are broadly simply defining existing provisions under this new law..the purpose of the law seems to be largely to set up the National and State Councils - the "penal" provisions are largely from existing laws (in some cases, this law lays down more stringent punishment, but they are broadly in line with existing laws for those offences)...The only glaring issue is the definition of "group" - which is what needs to be rectified..

Pranav wrote:This is an anti-blasphemy law by the back door.

However, it is much more draconian than the Pakistani Sharia laws. Pakistan only outlaws criticism of their prophet. Here every minority person or institution is afforded the same immunity from criticism as the prophet is in Pakistan

Well, if there isnt a blasphemy law to start with, it cannot be made "stronger", isnt it?

Second, there are big differences between criticism and "hate speech" - those are subjective and often blurred, but at least legally there are..(Description of Shivaji in a manner - is that criticism or hate, for example)...Its finally upto the executive and polity of the country to take those calls...Blasphemy is a different concept altoegther...

Well, if there isnt a blasphemy law to start with, it cannot be made "stronger", isnt it?

Just because it is not titled as such does not mean it does not exist. The bulk of India's 'hate speech' law should more properly be titled as blasphemy laws.

Hate speech laws need to focus on actions and speech that explicitly incite or provoke a group to commit violence on another group or person. Blasphemy on the other hand seeks to outlaw any speech or action that merely goes against the feelings or 'doctrinal faith' of another group. The latter is what India unfortunately has, though it has been rarely used practically - and now the retards at the NAC want to further strengthen and make one-way this medieval regulation.

Arjun wrote:Just because it is not titled as such does not mean it does not exist. The bulk of India's 'hate speech' law should more properly be titled as blasphemy laws.

Thats quite bizarre - by that definition, all countries, barring the US have blasphemy laws! Because most countries have laws against hate speech, many of them toughened in recent years, and by first glance defined pretty much similarly to IPC sections (which are anyway British era) or Sec 8 of this draft..

And can you point out how the definition of "hate propaganda" in this law is materially different from current IPC - given that the law itself references 153A IPC , with penalties from therein?

there is an issue with the definition of "group" in this draft - and even if its tabled in Parliament in its current form, the select committee version will change it to soemthign else..Barrign that, not much to be overly critical of - though dont see the necessity of a new law to be honest - the issue is on implementing existing laws, new laws dont help..

BTW,

Blasphemy on the other hand seeks to outlaw any speech or action that merely goes against the feelings or 'doctrinal faith' of another group. The latter is what India unfortunately has, though it has been rarely used practically -

Can you quote which section of the Indian law treats it likewise? Sec 153A IPC, which defines hate speech today, says this..
http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indian ... /s153a.htm

(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, 2[or]

2[(c) Organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence of knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,]

somnath wrote: the whole language in Sec 8, "inciting hatred.." et al, is standard in IPC provisions as well..As I am not a lawyer, took recourse to friendly internet neighbourhood Wiki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_India

In fact if you look at Sec 8, it refers to the same (as Wiki above) Sec 153A of IPC as the "prosecuting" law, thats all..

Section 8 criminalizes anything that "that could reasonably be construed" to expose "persons belonging to that group to such hatred". So it is persons (i.e. individuals) that are being protected from criticism, by virtue of their minority status. Which goes very much beyond 153A.

The following passage

(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility

as well as this one, Section 295A

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.[4]

taken together these should be appropriately termed as blasphemy laws when applied in the context of a religious group. My understanding is this is a far more loose interpretation of 'hate speech' than any such law in the western world who are the next closest to Indic civilization in terms of liberalism. I have not researched this extensively though - but can you point me to any other hate speech regulation in the western world that has such an all-encompassing definition of hate speech as the one above?

Arjun wrote:taken together these should be appropriately termed as blasphemy laws when applied in the context of a religious group. My understanding is this is a far more loose interpretation of 'hate speech' than any such law in the western world who are the next closest to Indic civilization in terms of liberalism. I have not researched this extensively though - but can you point me to any other hate speech regulation in the western world that has such an all-encompassing definition of hate speech as the one above

I am not a lawyer, much less an "international lawyer", so I wont know offhand...But hate speech laws have been strengthened all over, that much i do know...To describe on the basis of "lack of knowledge" eitehr ways that our laws are "blasphemy laws" is eggregious...

But now, by defining comparative laws of "western world who are the next closest to Indic civilization in terms of liberalism", I dont even know what you are gting at...That is as subjective as it gets...DOes it mean that Eastern countries en masse have illiberal constituions?

Pranav wrote:Section 8 criminalizes anything that "that could reasonably be construed" to expose "persons belonging to that group to such hatred". So it is persons (i.e. individuals) that are being protected from criticism, by virtue of their minority status. Which goes very much beyond 153A.
.

There is a difference between "hatred" and "criticism" - the law deals with the former..Sec 153A does the same thing, in a different language...The definition of "group" is an issue, thats well taken...

somnath wrote: There is a difference between "hatred" and "criticism" - the law deals with the former..Sec 153A does the same thing, in a different language...The definition of "group" is an issue, thats well taken...

It's a very critical difference in language - criminalizing the exposure to "hatred" of individuals belonging to a minority goes far beyond merely preventing enmity between groups.

For example, I could say something about an individual belonging to a minority, which somebody might "reasonably construe" as exposing that minority person to "hatred", which then becomes a "hate crime".

So, a big difference between this and 153A.

somnath wrote:I am not a lawyer, much less an "international lawyer", so I wont know offhand...But hate speech laws have been strengthened all over, that much i do know...To describe on the basis of "lack of knowledge" eitehr ways that our laws are "blasphemy laws" is eggregious...

Simple tests of common sense are more than enough to get to the root. All it takes is to see what are the defining grounds constituting hate speech in different nations - which is not too hard data to obtain. Most western countries define hate speech using strictly defined words such as 'threatening', 'inciting hatred', 'slanderous' ....India is fairly unique in using extremely loose terminology such as 'promoting ill-will', 'promoting disharmony', 'outrage of religious feelings' - that can be applied for blasphemy or any other convenient target for that matter.

But now, by defining comparative laws of "western world who are the next closest to Indic civilization in terms of liberalism", I dont even know what you are gting at...That is as subjective as it gets...DOes it mean that Eastern countries en masse have illiberal constituions?

Not really. If you look at the major civilizations - Indic / Hindu, Western, Chinese, Muslim - I would rank Indic as highest in innate liberalism followed maybe by Western. Which is why I merely mentioned that while we should ideally be setting higher standards of liberalism than all others - at the least our laws should be comparable to the liberal Western world.

^^^
I see it's the usual....Somnath mahashay explaining to us illiterates the complex vocabulary and phonetics of Pseudo Secular Law and chastising us for our primitive Hindu fascist views....God, if only we could grow a brain in those skulls...

Pranav wrote:For example, I could say something about an individual belonging to a minority, which somebody might "reasonably construe" as exposing that minority person to "hatred", which then becomes a "hate crime".

So, a big difference between this and 153A

First, its not a random "somebody" - the prosecution, ie, the police has to charge a person of that crime, and then the court has to convict..

Second, Sec 8 says this..

Hate propaganda.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, whoever publishes, communicates or disseminates by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise acts inciting hatred causing clear and present danger of violence against a group or persons belonging to that group, in general or specifically, or disseminates or broadcasts any information, or publishes or displays any advertisement or notice, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to promote or incite hatred or expose or is likely to expose the group or persons belonging to that group to such hatred, is said to be guilty of hate propaganda

It talks about actions (or intentions) to incite hatred against a "group"/persons of that group..So a general criticism of a "muslim individual", just as an example, does not qualify...

In essence, not different from 153A, which says

By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities,

Arjun wrote:Simple tests of common sense are more than enough to get to the root. All it takes is to see what are the defining grounds constituting hate speech in different nations - which is not too hard data to obtain. Most western countries define hate speech using strictly defined words such as 'threatening', 'inciting hatred', 'slanderous' ....India is fairly unique in using extremely loose terminology such as 'promoting ill-will', 'promoting disharmony', 'outrage of religious feelings' - that can be applied for blasphemy or any other convenient target for that matter.

Ahh common sense..Not sure what common sense defines "promoting disharmony" as more or less "loose" than "'inciting hatred"..But common sense would surely define that laws, even while being similar in terms of broad principles philosophically, will be drafted/implemented according to the socio-political praxis of the specific country...

I wont get into a discussion on "liberalism" - not sure that Indian society is 'liberal" at all in the classical sense of the term, given our strong emphasis on family, caste and other collective forms - quite contrary to the first tenet of liberalism..But tis a POV, and anyway not my area of interest...

somnath wrote: First, its not a random "somebody" - the prosecution, ie, the police has to charge a person of that crime, and then the court has to convict ...

Undefined terms like "hatred" and "reasonably construe" lend themselves to abuse.

somnath wrote: It talks about actions (or intentions) to incite hatred against a "group"/persons of that group..So a general criticism of a "muslim individual", just as an example, does not qualify...

It does criminalize inciting "hatred" against "persons" of a group. The bar is pretty low - it does not have to be "hatred" against the group as a whole. So, speaking against even an individual can be criminalized.

What if someone talks about pedophilia and other crimes by Christian clergy, say. Any discussion of criminality by members of a group can be "reasonably construed" to be inciting "hatred" against "persons belonging to that group".

somnath wrote:Ahh common sense..Not sure what common sense defines "promoting disharmony" as more or less "loose" than "'inciting hatred"..But common sense would surely define that laws, even while being similar in terms of broad principles philosophically, will be drafted/implemented according to the socio-political praxis of the specific country...

Bottomline for the purposes of our discussion is this- whatever can get a person into trouble in Pukistan under its blasphemy law is also outlawed under the letter of Indian law - the only difference possibly being the severity of punishment. If you prefer that we equate ourselves to the failed state of TSP given 'the common socio-political praxis' that we share with them (classic MMS-speak) - I have nothing further to say.

I wont get into a discussion on "liberalism" - not sure that Indian society is 'liberal" at all in the classical sense of the term, given our strong emphasis on family, caste and other collective forms - quite contrary to the first tenet of liberalism..But tis a POV, and anyway not my area of interest...

Liberalism has multiple meanings depending on whether you are speaking from a perspective of economy or religion or individual rights. From a standpoint of religion, liberalism is most commonly understood as being anti-dogma. Therefore, Hinduism (assuming you are aware of its basic principles) is by fairly objective parameters, the most liberal of all religions. Caste discrimination etc that you talk about are negatives - but there is nobody attempting to defend it on the basis of any Hindu doctrine.

Only those who have an understanding of the importance of liberalism would have an interest in defending it. Since liberalism is not an area of your interest - it is perhaps no surprise that you constantly align yourself with forces that seek to undermine liberalism in India.

Second, Sec 8 says this..
Quote:
Hate propaganda.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, whoever publishes, communicates or disseminates by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise acts inciting hatred causing clear and present danger of violence against a group or persons belonging to that group, in general or specifically, or disseminates or broadcasts any information, or publishes or displays any advertisement or notice, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate an intention to promote or incite hatred or expose or is likely to expose the group or persons belonging to that group to such hatred, is said to be guilty of hate propaganda

What about the concept of Dar Ul Harb and Dar Ul Islam, what about so many passages in the Koran inciting hatred against Jews, Christians, infidels and Muslims who don't personally believe in indulging in violent jihad? The WKKs who are putting this up don't understand the implications. Indians must fight to enhance freedom of speech and that must include valid criticism of doctrine.

abhishek_sharma wrote:VHP leader shot at, tension in Nagori town

Ah, well...he was communal onlee, so deserved it...
Must be a retaliation for 1992 Babri and 2002 riots ( since everything from SIMI to Kerala muslims in J&K are finally justified by that reason)

Pranav wrote:Undefined terms like "hatred" and "reasonably construe" lend themselves to abuse

These terms are there even in the current laws (153 and 295 IPC)...About misuse, that is a different question altogether - no law can prevent attempts at misuse...If people wanted alibis to "go after" someone, there are enough laws already in the statute to do so - a new law isnt required...

Pranav wrote:What if someone talks about pedophilia and other crimes by Christian clergy, say. Any discussion of criminality by members of a group can be "reasonably construed" to be inciting "hatred" against "persons belonging to that group".

Again, it doesnt require this law to interpret that in the fashion you define...Sec 153A, as well as 295A of IPC can also be used nicely enough.

Sec 295A

[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.]

As I said, misuse is a different concept..What is to be questioned about this draft really is - why is it required (all that it wants to do, barring the commisions, is already there in the books)? that is the basic question...

At the end, the good thing is that this is a "draft of a draft" - the final draft needs to be prepared by GOI, Ministry of Home, which will table it in Parliament...So if people think that this draft is taking too liberal a view of what constitutes "hate speech", they should give that feedback - though even those opposing this draft are not making this point at least...

Arjun wrote:Bottomline for the purposes of our discussion is this- whatever can get a person into trouble in Pukistan under its blasphemy law is also outlawed under the letter of Indian law - the only difference possibly being the severity of punishment

I thought given our respective ignorance about law, we had exhausted what is to be discussed on this bill...the basic point was on the issue of "presumptive guilt" construed by someone - clearly that isnt the case...But this Paki business got me thinking...So despite the fact that you have no knowledge of law, you have concluded the bolded section?

Sec 153 and 295 have been posted here before...I thought I will check out the Paki Blasphemy law as it exists..

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legis ... f1860.html
Sections 295 to 298...

If you think that 153A/295A, barring in a very superficial way, mirrors the Paki law by letter, I can only say that it is "RSS/Deoband conprehension" (as compared to my MMS-speak )...

As I was at it, though will check out some of the others as well...

British anti hate speech law ..(they made one specifically for this in 2006)..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... 001_en.pdf

Irish law...
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/ ... print.html

Of course, these are just "anti hate speech" laws...There would be other statutes taking care of the various tnhings included in 153 and 295 in India...

I reckon all of them approach blasphemy laws in some shape or form?!

Arjun wrote:Liberalism has multiple meanings depending on whether you are speaking from a perspective of economy or religion or individual rights. From a standpoint of religion, liberalism is most commonly understood as being anti-dogma. Therefore, Hinduism (assuming you are aware of its basic principles) is by fairly objective parameters, the most liberal of all religions. Caste discrimination etc that you talk about are negatives - but there is nobody attempting to defend it on the basis of any Hindu doctrine
Only those who have an understanding of the importance of liberalism would have an interest in defending it. Since liberalism is not an area of your interest - it is perhaps no surprise that you constantly align yourself with forces that seek to undermine liberalism in India

You cant desist from taking personal potshots, isnt it? I would normaly ask you to give instances of that claim, but no point, irrelevant..
I was referring to liberalism in its classical definitional terms, from (fading, >decade-old sociology-elective) memories...Not sure if anyone's done a "liberalism of religions" analysis, and adjudged hinduism to be the exemplar on that - if you have, maybe you should post it somehere! As far as I am concerned, both Taslima Nasreen and MF Hussain are symptoms of illiberalism of society..And RSS presents the same level (though different types) of obscurantist rubbish as Deoband...Both are antithetical to modern India - now if certain definitions of "liberalism" includes one but not the other, it is behind the times..But thats JMT, you are welcome to your definition of liberalism!

"Obscurantist" etc are typical jargons from bootlickers of DU Hindu-basher community - a doyen of whom is thought to have reached the high watermark of his eminent historian carrer by lambasting and suppsedly "exposing" the "Hindu" obsession with the cow.

In spite of equating "Deoband" and "RSS" in one smooth slimy speech - overall we rarely see as frequent lambasting of "Deoband" or alluding "shady" activities to Deoband in every alternate post. Such bashing of Congress links to Islamism or EJism - is not found. The "hate" speech is always about RSS-RSS-RSS. Does that speak of the "party" affiliation? I have at least many time early on stated that the BJP/RSS need not be the only force to rely on for the "right". They may exist or not, they may not function to the order required or not. It is the direction that is important and not necessarily the org. Do we have any similar comments from the poster who constantly derides and ridicules on-the-sly only RSS/BJP/Hindutva - ascribing derogatory or cheap epithets to its functionaries or followers [typically the supreme and sole comprehender of "Queens English" appears to have a repertoire only of slangs that would be avoided in formal polite "Queens" English!] - also on Congress/Deoband/Communists/EJ? No not a single derogatory comment - no ridicule - unless those rare occasions when they have to be equated with the hated "Hindu".

Who decides what will or has "hurt" the sentiments/feelings of a religious community? Is it simply the propensity to come out into the streets and mob or riot only by members of Islamic or EJist groups? Are "mobs" from different communities treated similarly? Or only those groups considered by Congress/Deoband/Communists to be having a natural right to "mob" on any excuse of their "religion" having been insulted - can riase the claim and the gov and courts will only listen to them?

Ban on publication of "hate" material would immediately ban every copy of Quran, the Hadith of Shahi Bukhari, and the Hanafi Sharia law [ urge to kill idolators/recommending enslavement and rape, dispossesion and slaughter of "idolators" - there are at least 17 different publications in India, with the majority being published from certain New Delhi publishers right under the nose of the Congress stronghold and centre of the modern Congress/Deoband/Communit Padshahi]. Moreover these books are not published as historical narratives or historical texts - but as books of faith applicable/source for current practice. The Indian courts have defined "Hinduism" as being only about "tolerance" in a ruling that does not specify the basis or items or context for that tolerance - meaning it can be for everything and anything. This was perhaps needed to emascualte the legal basis of any future claims by anyone calling himself a Hindu to have suffered insult/hate from any Isalmic or EJist cleric [ridiculing of Hindu divinity/religious practices/"idolatry" is rampant in Islamist and EJ circles and frequently comes out in the press]. If you have been defined by the Congress/Deoband/Communist [CDC] to be "tolerant" of everything thrown at you - you cannot have a legal basis to claim "insult/hurt". This is what ideological junior flunkeys like what we see here justifying any and every step by the CDC - have been working on in the name of "modernism"!

Ideological shenanigans aside - moving beyond "obscurantism" and "modernism" should have meant a greater maturity of tolerance for criticism. Much greater provision for allowing people to freely be able to explore, inquire and criticize and be contradicted in return. Why should only the "Hindu" be critiqued [just because some bootlickers of CDC have had financial benefits and status bestowed by their political leash owners?] and mashed to a pulp by the one-sided [no debate allowed against them] interpretations/reconstructions - while not a single such criticism pours from the CDC affiliated "chaamchas" against Islamism or EJism or their ancient narratives and "modern" texts and claims?

One favourite [and slightly edited version] of Rabindranath's poem is uncannily quoted here by certain people who all apparently share an affiliation to the CDC by their open and frequent attack only on "Hindutva" - "chitta jetha bhoyshunyo/uccha jetha shir". That poem has a line on fearlessness in facing ideas. The ideological sliminess and the basic insidious spinelessness shows up in quoting those lines and shouting about rejecting "obscurantism" while at the same time jumping up and down to support further restrictions on criticisms and "fearless" exploration of religious practices/doctrine of only Islamists and EJ's.

This is the root problem. Using modernism as a false cover to protect medieval Islamist or Church style control only in favour of these religions.

By the way how about using "Condeom" as short for "Congress+Deoband+Marxists"?