Doubtdispelled wrote:And this I don't understand at all...

Delhi rape convict's statement forces Rajya Sabha adjournment

The rajya Sabha was adjourned for 15 minutes after women MPs led by Samajwadi Party MP Jaya Bachchan stormed the well of the house demanding action against Tihar jail authorities for allowing an interview of one of the perpetrators of the December 16 gangrape.

The women parliamentarians were later joined by their male colleagues from the opposition.

" We don't need your crocodile tears,"Ms. Bachchan said to the BJP MPs in the treasury Benches of the house.

Why would these Indian women object to anyone publicising the terrible things this man has to say? Would I need to be Indian woman to understand their point of view?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: it was a case people deeply connected with

Yes, and I understand that the reaction of the people of India was what prompted the film-maker to embark on the project. In the BBC piece linked she said

There was something momentous about their presence and perseverance - reminiscent to me of the crowds that had thronged Tahrir Square in Cairo - a gathering of civil society that demanded a conversation that was long overdue.

It occurred to me that, for all its appalling record of violence against women and relentless rapes, here was India leading the world by example. I couldn't recall another country, in my lifetime, standing up with such tenacity for women, for me. And I knew at once that I simply had to use whatever talents and skills I had, to amplify their cries of "enough is enough!" which were reverberating across the whole world.

so it is as much about the people themselves as it is about the rapists, or at least that is how I read her intention.

cavarka9 wrote:Also the title India's daughter seems to make people suspicious as it is similar to a book called mother India ,showing India in poor light during India's struggle for freedom against british.

Then it is perhaps an unfortunate choice of title. Is it the case then that people do not want this man's words to be allowed to 'show India in a poor light', even if suppression means that nothing will change for the women of India, or conversely that publication may lead to change for the good of all?

monkeyboy wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:I'm saddened that they will execute this guy for the rape.

I'm not. Fuck him.

I hope he ponders deeply on his impending doom up to until the very second it arrives.

He only feels sorry for himself for being in this situation. However, its all the victim's fault in his mind, if she hasn't blah blah blah, he wouldn't have.......(not repeating the repugnant shit)

The true punishment comes when he experiences some genuine empathy for his victim along with remorse. That's not going to happen by leaving him in a cell until they day he hangs.
I've worked with offenders and seen the shift from arrogant justification of their actions to the hammer blow of realisation of just what amount of harm their actions have had and the acknowledgement that they, and only they, were responsible for their actions. We've had to put some guys on suicide watch following that switch before now. It is a powerful mind flip. You never know, he might be back in the follow up to the documentary as a humble but outspoken critic of his former attitude and actually do some good in joining the battle against people who hold the beliefs he had when he raped and killed. If not, just leave him quietly locked away where he can't harm another woman again.

I don't agree with the death penalty.

r.c wrote:No, you don't have to be from India to understand the reason for the opposition. The opposition comes from the assumption that the general populace is too naive to differentiate between the commentary and criticism of the justification of the convict, and the justification itself. Just by hearing what he has to say could be damaging to people's psyche.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

r.c wrote:No, you don't have to be from India to understand the reason for the opposition. The opposition comes from the assumption that the general populace is too naive to differentiate between the commentary and criticism of the justification of the convict, and the justification itself. Just by hearing what he has to say could be damaging to people's psyche.

Seriously? Wow.

monkeyboy wrote:I've worked with offenders and seen the shift from arrogant justification of their actions to the hammer blow of realisation of just what amount of harm their actions have had and the acknowledgement that they, and only they, were responsible for their actions. We've had to put some guys on suicide watch following that switch before now. It is a powerful mind flip.

Peter Brown wrote:humm, in the Islam forum I linked an interview with a Kuwait ex Muslim female who said it was the traditional role of the woman to cover up to stop the male raping them because the men are animals and the women were not by tradition not by Qur’an. She also went on to say another reason in oral tradition they started to wear full covers was because time had passed a bit and wives were now with the men at the war fronts it was to show they were not slaves, but marked as Muslim women. Otherwise the men could rape them at anytime as the prophet allowed slave rape but not Muslim rape.

That is one excuse, another I heard today is the men from that area are just uneducated and stupid, and like the ones in the UK who groomed youngsters for sex, they did it for making money and the ease of finding targets. Not because of being Muslims.

cavarka9 wrote: 90% of India's problems are economic, laws dont work because of corruption, schools dont work because of corruption. Corruption exists because India took economic policies which proved disastrous.

Anontheist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: 90% of India's problems are economic, laws dont work because of corruption, schools dont work because of corruption. Corruption exists because India took economic policies which proved disastrous.

Corruption exists because there's a "take what I can and stuff the rest" and "laws apply to everyone else, but not to me" attitude in business in India. As well as almost non-existent oversight of the books on most deals, despite the mind-numbingly large amounts of bureaucracy.

I've done business deals in India that have required copies of documents to be faxed to 16 different government departments. I've also had state officials tell me, up front, that our contract tender was the winner, but could we please go back and increase all our cost estimates by 30%, so that new 'special charges' could be paid. Land deals we've been advising on - for a major international airport project - collapsed because some cut-price, middle aged schlubby landlord felt like he wasn't getting the same sweeteners in the deal that his mate in Kerala got from a similar deal.

Its not the poor that are corrupt in India, its the educated, the upper middle classes, the bureaucracy and the politicians at all levels - from village councils all the way through to the upper echelons of the ministries.

Its like Greece on steroids. Its the 'little yellow envelopes' attitude, writ large across 300 or 400 million people.

Corruption and liberal society aren't antithetical, sometimes they're synonymous. Greece, Italy, Portugal. Ireland, for effes sake.

The Licence Raj or Permit Raj was the elaborate system of licences, regulations and accompanying red tape that were required to set up and run businesses in India between 1947 and 1990.[1]

The Licence Raj was a result of India's decision to have a planned economy where all aspects of the economy are controlled by the state and licences are given to a select few. Up to 80 government agencies had to be satisfied before private companies could produce something and, if granted, the government would regulate production.[2]

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5badad82-3ff6 ... z3TSEyBiOz

India certainly has plenty of red tape to cut. Industries currently need to get nearly 70 clearances a year to operate. Complying with labour law requires employers to maintain – and submit to authorities – 16 separate types of worker registries.

cavarka9 wrote:This is now a big issue in this country, the govt banned the documentary, see it as damaging to tourism industry!

I'm With Stupid wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:This is now a big issue in this country, the govt banned the documentary, see it as damaging to tourism industry!

Well that's clearly bollocks. I don't know if your government know a lot about tourism, but one of the key features of tourists is that they come from outside the country. Therefore banning something in the country because it might reflect badly on tourism is kinda pointless. And I suspect they know this and tourism is just an excuse to ban something because it's unpopular (amongst the government elite, that is).

As for banning criminals airing their views, I can kinda understand that. But I think the point is that this criminal's views are not as uncommon as people think.

cavarka9 wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:this is now a big issue in this country, the govt banned the documentary, see it as damaging to tourism industry!.

Not sure how that's going to help given that foreign tourists are going to be able to view it. I would have thought it better to be shown and discussed openly, hopefully challenging the thoughts of any like minded potential rapist before he gets around to acting them out. Only by challenging the deeply misogynistic attitudes held by some whereby they can blame a young woman for daring to be out at night on her way home from a movie for her own fatal and brutal gang rape, might things improve for future generations.

all of that is fine, but liberal societies are only possible with liberal economy. I'll bet there will be more rapes in poor economies.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Not sure how that's going to help given that foreign tourists are going to be able to view it.

Delhi rape documentary-maker appeals to Narendra Modi over broadcast ban

Shortly before her statement was released, the parliamentary affairs minister, M Venkaiah Naidu, declared: “We can ban the film in India. But this is an international conspiracy to defame India. We will see how the film can be stopped abroad too.”

India’s home minister, Rajnath Singh, told parliament that the government would ensure that “under no condition should this documentary be telecast … no one should show it on electronic media.”

The government would also block the dissemination of the film on any other platform, such as a web portal or on social media, he said.

Singh assured parliament that the Indian government was already exploring ways of stopping the worldwide broadcast. A notice had been sent to BBC4, which will show the film on Sunday in Britain, he said. “We will not allow anyone to leverage such unfortunate incidents [the 2012 Delhi rape] for commercial benefits,” he added.

However, a BBC spokeswoman confirmed that India’s Daughter would be broadcast as planned. “This harrowing documentary, made with the full support and cooperation of the victim’s parents, provides a revealing insight into a horrific crime that sent shockwaves around the world and led to protests across India demanding changes in attitudes towards women,” she said.

“The film handles the issue responsibly and we are confident the programme fully complies with our editorial guidelines. The BBC will broadcast Storyville – India’s Daughter, in the UK on BBC4. The documentary has the backing of a number other public service broadcasters; however, the BBC is only responsible for transmission of the film in the UK.”

“We will not allow anyone to leverage such unfortunate incidents [the 2012 Delhi rape] for commercial benefits,”

Commercial benefits? But they want to stop its broadcast because it will 'damage tourism'?

Anontheist wrote:I've done business deals in India that have required copies of documents to be faxed to 16 different government departments. I've also had state officials tell me, up front, that our contract tender was the winner, but could we please go back and increase all our cost estimates by 30%, so that new 'special charges' could be paid. Land deals we've been advising on - for a major international airport project - collapsed because some cut-price, middle aged schlubby landlord felt like he wasn't getting the same sweeteners in the deal that his mate in Kerala got from a similar deal.

cavarka9 wrote:

Peter Brown wrote:humm, in the Islam forum I linked an interview with a Kuwait ex Muslim female who said it was the traditional role of the woman to cover up to stop the male raping them because the men are animals and the women were not by tradition not by Qur’an. She also went on to say another reason in oral tradition they started to wear full covers was because time had passed a bit and wives were now with the men at the war fronts it was to show they were not slaves, but marked as Muslim women. Otherwise the men could rape them at anytime as the prophet allowed slave rape but not Muslim rape.

That is one excuse, another I heard today is the men from that area are just uneducated and stupid, and like the ones in the UK who groomed youngsters for sex, they did it for making money and the ease of finding targets. Not because of being Muslims.

what is it with u and islam/muslims? why are you bringing it here?

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:Not sure how that's going to help given that foreign tourists are going to be able to view it.

Delhi rape documentary-maker appeals to Narendra Modi over broadcast ban

Shortly before her statement was released, the parliamentary affairs minister, M Venkaiah Naidu, declared: “We can ban the film in India. But this is an international conspiracy to defame India. We will see how the film can be stopped abroad too.”

India’s home minister, Rajnath Singh, told parliament that the government would ensure that “under no condition should this documentary be telecast … no one should show it on electronic media.”

The government would also block the dissemination of the film on any other platform, such as a web portal or on social media, he said.

Singh assured parliament that the Indian government was already exploring ways of stopping the worldwide broadcast. A notice had been sent to BBC4, which will show the film on Sunday in Britain, he said. “We will not allow anyone to leverage such unfortunate incidents [the 2012 Delhi rape] for commercial benefits,” he added.

However, a BBC spokeswoman confirmed that India’s Daughter would be broadcast as planned. “This harrowing documentary, made with the full support and cooperation of the victim’s parents, provides a revealing insight into a horrific crime that sent shockwaves around the world and led to protests across India demanding changes in attitudes towards women,” she said.

“The film handles the issue responsibly and we are confident the programme fully complies with our editorial guidelines. The BBC will broadcast Storyville – India’s Daughter, in the UK on BBC4. The documentary has the backing of a number other public service broadcasters; however, the BBC is only responsible for transmission of the film in the UK.”

“We will not allow anyone to leverage such unfortunate incidents [the 2012 Delhi rape] for commercial benefits,”

Commercial benefits? But they want to stop its broadcast because it will 'damage tourism'?

Basically the same as any organisation. The first thought is the protect the reputation of the organisation, rather than the people they have a duty of care towards. It's the same sort of thinking that allowed abuses in care homes, universities and the Catholic church to go on for years. The pathetic part of it is that this sort of reaction from government officials puts India's reputation on this issue further through the floor. If I was a woman, would I want to visit that country knowing that the government care more about the country's reputation than my safety as a tourist? I don't think so.