Again, not illegal to make fun of dead people.
In India? Who knows? Probably not NSA worthy, but I wouldn't bet against anything being illegal in India.
I certainly know one person who was kept in jail for years for mocking one dead person (PBUH). That person did eventually get out on bail only to soon have his throat cut. But I guess that case ties into mocking religious feelings of a community (but then, so does this case).
Also, I think you probably missed the part where I began and ended my comment by emphasizing that I think this is government misusing the laws to punish dissent.
India seems to have completely given up on any attempt to genuinely implement common law principles that judicial systems worldwide are based on. Instead of conviction and eventual prison being the goal (along with the presumption of innocence until conviction), our system seems to rely mainly on pre-conviction detention as a deterrent for criminal activities.
All relevant participants in the system (namely the police, the judiciary, the criminals and the citizens) have given in and accepted the fact that convictions are hard and extremely rare to come by. Instead, the process itself is the punishment. The goal of the police is to keep everyone in jail for as long as they can. Judges also regularly deny bail to the accused when they think that there is some preliminary evidence. And the citizens also join in this game by asking for ever stringend laws that make getting bails difficult for more and more cases. (I think most people in India don't even realize that "non-bailable" is just supposed to mean that bail is not automatic, but to be given on the consideration of a magistrate.)
> Erendro wrote on his Facebook wall: “The cure for Corona is not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & commons sense. Professor ji RIP”
and
> Wangkhem wrote: “Santhi Sanyung na yadrabo, oh!!! RIP #Rashikang_Kangyet Hayeng nga chaani.” (Rough translation: Cow dung cow urine didn’t work. Groundless argument. Tomorrow I will eat fish.)
The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked. If you want to see mocking in a free country go here https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/ . India is not a free country.
Source?
>The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked
Now that is just dishonest. Both the posts are available on this link https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...
How is saying "Cow dung, cow urine didn’t work, oh!!! RIP" after someone's death not mocking them?
“The cure for Corona is not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & common sense. Professor ji RIP,” Leichombam had written
This is mocking? And mocking should lead to many months of nonbailabe arrest without trial? This is one of the most egregious examples of clamping down on free speech. The statement is true and helps educate citizens who are being misinformed nonstop by hindutva affiliates about cow urine.
In a free country we can have forums like this https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
The 37-year-old was held under the stringent National Security Act for saying "cow dung and cow urine don't work." While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time and wanted the case to be adjourned till tomorrow, the judges ordered his immediate release.
"We are of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner would amount to violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. We direct him to be released today by 5 pm with a personal bond of ₹ 1,000," a two-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.
> I mean, the reality is bad enough as it is. There is no need to exaggerate.
You reminded me of how American commentary seems determined to push the obviously false claim that Uyghurs in China are being oppressed because of their religion, when it would be so much easier to defend the claim that they're being oppressed because of their race. (Even easier would be that they're being oppressed due to dissidence.)
Most people are just repeating something they've heard, and couldn't analyze the merits of a claim if they wanted to.
This is something I have thought about a bit over last several years. A lot of people I trust to have good intentions seem to regularly indulge in untruths or exaggerations to rile up support for their cause.
One particular example that comes to mind is how pretty much all liberal voices (including nobel peace prize winner Kalyan Sathyarthi) spread lies about a child labour bill in India that was passed in 2016. All of them were saying in unison that this bill was weakening the existing child labour laws and will allow all sort of child exploitation. So, I decided to read the bill and the original act that the bill was supposed to amend. I was stunned. There was absolutely no truth to the claims. The bill was actually making the child labour law much, much more stringend and I, even with my programmer in bug-fixing mode brain, couldn't conjure up a single hypothetical scenario where a child was forbidden from working earlier would now be allowed to work. So why were all these people lying? Why would Kalyan Sathyarthi, of all people, who has saved hundreds of thousands of children from child labour and trafficking, lie about something that pertains directly to his life's work?
The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.
So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that it introduced the exemption.
It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too was only allowed after school hours or during vacations.
>So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption
I pretty much said the same thing in my original comment.
>>The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.
>this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference
This article is definitely more thorough than most others I have read, and at least quotes you relevant passages from the laws and points out all the different ways in which the bill was an improvement. But in the end, even this article ultimately concludes by calling the bill "one step forward and two steps back", which is a lie. The introduction teases you with "Thirdly, the legislation actually reduces the scope and applicability of some of the earlier provisions on prohibition of child labour" but that claim is never substantiated within the article.
Tangential, but I'm fascinated by the name of the mentioned "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" of 2009. You don't often hear about your right to be compelled to do something.
Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies.
Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim.
>How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out?
Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law.
Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on.
But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
A claim of "lots of liberal media are lying about an Indian law" cannot be refuted by citing that same media, and making him say it repeatedly doesn't seem likely to yield any further insight.
He also does not respond to simple yes/no questions. Does the law relax the restrictions on child labour for family businesses- yes/no? Several paragraphs about programmer brain, but no answer to simple yes/no questions.
How absurd is it that several dozen media articles cant be trusted, but an hn comment about programmer brain debugging the law, with no citations, must be trusted.
Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day.
There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more.
>You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader
I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.
Reporting claims that (1) the Uyghurs are suffering under much more oppression than other Chinese groups, such as live-in minders and a legal ban on owning kitchen knives; and (2) this is because of their religion.
These two claims cannot both be true. Islam is one of the traditional religions of China, and it benefits from legal and social recognition not given to e.g. Christianity. You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs. Or to make the argument that reports of the Uyghurs' oppression are accurate. But you can't make the argument that the reported oppression is due to religion, or that it's just another example of the same oppression that other groups experience.
If you asked the Chinese, they'd tell you that Uyghur oppression comes from the Chinese not wanting to have their schools bombed.
> You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs.
Again, that is not the point in dispute. My position is even more anti Chinese than the norm, that what is happening to the Uighurs is bad but just not unusual for China. Your argument against mine then is that things are actually better for the other groups, but you really don’t provide any evidence of that, and I can guarantee you that it’s not (other minorities, Tibetans especially, Christians, especially those outside the official church, Hui over the last decades, re education camps for everyone, etc…).
I read you as postulating these facts:
- 10-40ish years ago, Hui, Christians, Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Mongols, pro-reform Han, and various other groups were subject to various repressive measures.
- Today, Uyghurs, Falun Gong, and other ethnic Tibetan groups are still subject to similar measures.
- Hui and Christians are not, today, subject to similar measures.
These facts do not support the idea the the repression of Uyghurs and Tibetans is due to religion. They very much do support the idea that their repression is due to dissidence. Uyghurs and Hui avow the same religion, but the treatment of one of those groups diverged from the treatment of the other. Why? College professors may have avowed no religion at all, but were sent to reeducation camps en masse. (Granted, more than 40 years ago.) Why?
I overall agree with the point that many indian authorities have been using laws to punish dissent, but that is a little disingenuous. The specific context in that case was that those comments were made about the death of a BJP leader. So, those people were jailed for mocking the death of a politician, not for merely saying that cowdung does not cure covid.
I mean, the reality is bad enough as it is. There is no need to exaggerate.