Freedom of expression

I came across this news item today and was terribly dissapointed with our Supreme court.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2608980.ece

Basically, Swami Agnivesh, a hindu monk criticised the Amarnath yatra and mentioned that the snow 'lingam' was a natural geographical phenomenon; For this, he has been slapped with criminal procedings for 'hurting/offending public sentiments'.
What is really offending, in my opinion, is that the Supreme court seems to agree with this outrage against freedom of expression. It warned Agnivesh to 'weigh' his words and stated that a person in public life should not hurt public sentiments.

Such utterly unelightened nauseating verbiage from the highest court in India!!

Let me clarify that I am no fan of Swami Agnivesh or of any other swami or monk or priest or of any religion for that matter. As 'Jesus' says in the animated series 'Family guy' : six of one, they are all complete crap!

Nonetheless, our court and even general public don't seem to realise a very important fact. A fact pointed out repeatedly by people like Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nazreen.
There is no freedom of speech without the right to offend.

If we cannot speak out our mind and be offensive or critical of religion or the government or of anyone for that matter, where is the freedom of expression? So long as we don't indulge in violent activities, how can the right to speech be restricted? Any one can take offense to anything, so where can one draw a line?

At the moment, as our law stands, criminal proceedings can be brought against people for hurting or offending people's sentiments - merely by speech. This law should go. It is always the religious extremists that get protected by this law and those that stand for rationality and freedom of speech that get oppressed by it. No nation that wants to move forward and develop can have such outdated equivalents of blasphemy laws in their books. There I said it - it is just another form of the blasphemy law in islamic countries or like those that were present in christian nations in the last century.

Our courts and the government(I really don't think our government gives a rat's ass about principles of democracy) would do well to take note of the landmark decision(8 to 1) of the US supreme court in the 'Albert Snyder vs the westboro Baptist Church'. Even though I am gay and I think the westboro baptist church is filled with homophobic hatemongers, still I agree with the judgement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/court-westboro-baptist-gay-funeral-pickets

What happenned in short was this : A young soldier had died in Iraq and the hateful church organised a protest at the soldier's funeral with signs saying things like "Thank god for dead soldiers","you are all going to hell", "USA = Fag nation", "Military = Fags" etc. Basically the church's stand is that because US is tolerant towards homosexuality and there are gays in the military, the soldiers deserve to die and that they are destined to hell.

The understandably shocked and distressed father of the soldier sued the church for hurting him and his family. But this is what the supreme court in the United states said in its judgement :
"Because this nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case"
Thus holding that though the speech and protest were hurtful, the constitutional right of free speech overrides that.

What an enlightened judgement!

But what happened in India which prides itself on being the largest democracy?
Tasleema Nazreen made speeches and wrote articles about oppresion of women in Islam and spoke against the burqa system. Immediately islamic clerics issued a fatwa on her head and there were many cases of vandalism of public property by violent mobs.
What did our goverment do? No action was taken against those that issued the fatwa to kill an innocent citizen, no action was taken to bring the islamic mobs to justice but Tasleema was put under house arrest and then pressured by the goverment to leave India.
What hypocracy? Is this what democracy is all about?
When will our nation ever learn?

All this, I attribute to the widespread prevelance of religion which clouds the judgement of even the best of people - even Supreme court judges. And of course politicians playing vote bank politics, thinking that they are protecting minority rights by fostering intolerant behaviour while stifling critical thinking and speech.

I am now all the more concerned about the status of the Naz foundation case for decriminalisation of homosexuality which is currently pending with the Supreme court. I just hope we don't get the same panel of judges that issued a warning to Swami Agnivesh.

I do hope that the wonderful judgement of Justice AP Shah and Justice Muralidhar of the Delhi High court is upheld. I would like to end this post with a quote from the 2009 high court judgement on decriminalising homosexuality between consenting adults:

"Thus popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid justification for restriction of the fundamental rights under Article 21.  Popular morality, as distinct from a constitutional morality derived from constitutional values, is based on shifting and subjecting notions of right and wrong. If there is any type of “morality” that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be “constitutional” morality and not public morality."
(Italics mine)

There is hope yet for our democracy if we have more of such enlightened judges.
I am keeping my fingers crossed...

Reconciliation with religion?

I recently saw a request in an internet queer group asking for resources to 'reconcile' religions views with homosexuality/queer lifestyle.

Here's what I wrote back:

I am not sure if I would be contributing in any useful way to your project but after having read a lot on various religions, I have come to the one inescapable conclusion - no religion is broad minded enough to accept gay rights;

In fact, the only religion, as far as I can tell, that acknowledges that there could be something natural in same sex preference is Jainism.

Cleary Hindu scriptures, the Bible and the Koran are homophobic. Inspite of some ambigious stories, the bulk opinion -atleast in the hindu dharma shastras is against gay sex. From the story in Bhagavatha purana where asuras had homosexual impulse to rape their father God Brahma (which is strangely mirrored in the biblical tale of Noah's son but which also adds racism to it!) to the dharmashastras where sex with a man is considered one of the 'Jati bhramshakara' sins('expulsion from ones caste'), it is futile to search for some support in religion for gay rights.

I became an atheist purely by in depth study of Hindu scriptures and later moved on to read other religious texts including those of jainism and Buddhism in their original Pali/ardhamagadhi.

I would have become an atheist even if I had not been gay - merely by reading the morally repugnant stuff that religious texts are made up of..

Truly, there is no need to 'reconcile' religious views as they are unanimous in being homophobic.

Theravada buddhist Pali canon is the exception but even there, the traditional commentators make it clear that they are against homosexuality.

As I said earlier, in Jainism, the acknowledgement(NOT accceptance) of various sexual preferences rose due to historical reasons within the comunity of monks.
It starts from the divide of Jains into Swetambara(wearing white clothes) and Digambara(Naked monks) sects.
Digambaras refused to accept Swetambaras as full monks and said moksha can be attained only by practicing nudity.
Incidentally , since both digambaras and swetambaras did not allow women(nuns) to be nude, digambaras also held that women could not attain moksha.

This being the state of affairs, the swetambara monks strove to show that women can attain moksha. This they did grudgingly onnly because they could then maintain that they(white clad monks) could also attain moksha.

In the only text accepted by both sects called 'tattvarta sutra' by Umaswati - there is a mention that irrespective of 'linga/gender' one could become a liberated being.

The Digambaras, to hold on to their doctrine, intepreted it to mean only mental gender and not physical gender. I don't want to go into the details of the arguments on both sides but suffice to say that both sects accepted this division of having both a mental and a physical gender.

Thus a dravya purusha(physical man) can be a bhava stri (mental woman) ie experience sexual attraction towards a man.
Similarly there is also drvya stri, dravya napumsaka(transgendered) and bhava purusha, bhava napumsaka(attraction to both sexes).

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft138nb0wk&chunk.id=d0e7289&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e7289&brand=ucpress

Refer link for more details.

--------

I just want to stress that most religious texts, if not all, are bigoted, narrow-minded and written by people who had no clue about scientific method.

It is counter-productive to search for support of gay rights or any sort of individual's right from religious books.
What is needed is an appeal to evidence, common sense and empathy.

The very recognition of something called individual's rights - let alone gay or womens rights - came about only in the Age of Enlightenment (late 17th and 18th century), the first full fledged expression of which was probably the french declaration of rights. (The US declaration of independence which came before had "God" although probably a deistic one, referred to in it).

------
Rgs/

Glorification of women or of women's bondage?

I recently came across a passage maquarading as something that glorifies women. It was being shared in facebook and couldnt help but comment it. Sharing both the passage and my comments here:

"A little boy asked his mother, "Why are you crying?" "Because I'm a woman," she told him. "I don't understand," he said. His Mom just hugged him and said, "And you never will." "All women cry for no reason," was all his dad could say. The little boy grew up and became a man, still wondering why women cry. Finally he put in a call to God. When God got on the phone, he asked, "God, why do women cry so easily?" God said: "When I made the woman she had to be special. I made her shoulders strong enough to carry the weight of the world, yet gentle enough to give comfort. I gave her an inner strength to endure childbirth and the rejection that many times comes from her children. I gave her a hardness that allows her to keep going when everyone else gives up, and take care of her family through sickness and fatigue without complaining. I gave her the sensitivity to love her children under any and all circumstances, even when her child has hurt her very badly. I gave her strength to carry her man through his faults and fashioned her from his rib to protect his heart. I gave her wisdom to know that a good man never hurts his woman, but sometimes tests her strengths and her resolve to stand beside him unfalteringly. And finally, I gave her a tear to shed. This is hers exclusively to use whenever it is needed." "You see my son," said God, "the beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman must be seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart - the place where Love resides." ♥♥♥..

Sadly,even women seemed to like this post. But here is the comment I sent thru my mobile phone. I couldnt wait till I had access to my laptop.

"Hi, though on d first glance this appears very nice n friendly to women, it is actually not - in my opinion. Unfortunately or otherwise, i am a hard core feminist and am constantly trying to deconstruct such statements n reading the...ir subtext.
1."when i made ....special". This is a typical patronising male chauvinistic view. Women dont hve to b special. They are equals and shud b treated as such. 

2.' Weight of d world'. There is no reason why women shud carry d weight of d world alone. The weight shud b shared equally between men n women. Also note that by 'world' only family responsibility is meant. If the author meant otherwise, there is no reason why women are singled out to bear d burden. Ofcourse, family responsibilies are also to b shared n not borne by women with 'strong shoulders'!

3. 'Inner strength ... child birth'. This stmt is wrong at so many levels. There is an underlying assumption that is characteristic of all religious minds - in this case, christian, that by ' women', what is meant is a mother. But a woman can choose not to marry, if married- not to bear children, if wanting children, she need not give birth but adopt or use a surrogate mother. This would not make them any less of a woman. The fact that women hve to bear a painful child birth process is an accident of evolution. The day will come when children could be grown externally in vestibules without women having to bear or suffer. This is what science shud strive for.

4.' Hardness ... everyone else gives up'. This stmt is positively anti female. Note that ' leveryone else' means only men because women are excluded by context. So what the sentence actually says is that- women shud not give up even if men do. So in a relatioship, it is the woman who shud keep struggling to keep the relationship running even if the man gives up. Thats why god gave women 'hardness' - whatever that means. This is betrayed by the sentence which follows' carry her man thru his faults'. What appalling sexist nonsense!

5.'frm his ribs to protect his heart'. This is a ref to biblical story that eve was creatd frm adams rib. What d sentence means is that god created the man first. The woman, only for his sake!

6. I am burning with rage when commenting on d next stmt.'wisdom...unfalteringly'. So when a 'good man' cheats or beats a woman up, he is testing her strength, right? Her unfaltering ability to put up with crap as god ordained. 

Enough said, i could go on but am typing this frm my mobile n my thumb is in pain as is my heart".

 

Culture and Gay marriage

See what our Laluji had to say on gay marriage - in our parliament!

http://in.news.yahoo.com/facebook--gay-marriage-in-lalu’s-line-of-fire.html;_ylt=Aja_40SkxRB5GxKUMu11XCTBscB_;_ylu=X3oDMTM1NnVoaTN2BHBrZwM0NjUzMzI4Zi02M2VmLTMxZDEtYmRhMC0yOGEwZDY3NDEzZTcEcG9zAzgEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDNDhjMTgyODAtYzQyOS0xMWUwLTg4ZDUtNmI5ZDdhNDFmMTFm;_ylg=X3oDMTFzNWNjNmd0BGludGwDaW4EbGFuZwNlbi1pbgRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuYXRpb25hbARwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3

I hate it when uninformed prejudiced idiots start talking about culture!
Laluji, you might stand for the so called undefined concept of "culture".
But we stand for individual rights and freedom. Any sane person can see which carries more weight.

Nonetheless, truly - in the sense meant by Lalu and those that have his view,
there is no such thing as culture.

Where does one draw the line? The fashions and social norms dating from a century back?
Two centuries? 500 years? 2500? or do we go back to the neandarthal age?
The more ancient - the better it is right? After all, old is gold!

I remember a famous debate in my house.
My sister wanted to cut her hair short and my parents wouldnt allow it.
I strongly argued in favour of my sister and managed to convince my parents.

The crux of the argument was this:
>>
Where do u draw the line regarding culture?
You think having a long single plait is indian culture and tradition(another term so often abused).
But this state of affairs is just for the past 200 years or so.
Ever looked at paintings and sculptures of earlier times?
Are they women wearing single plaits?
In fact, Ramayana is much more authoritative than any view of you or ur grandfather.
In ramayana times(based on composition - BC 200 to AD 200; But traditional accounts
would place it thousands of millenia earlier), wearing a single plait is a sign of mourning
- in the event of a wife living alone, bereft of her husband.
Sita was 'eka veni dharaa' in Lanka. So where do u draw the line? What is culture?
>>

Speaking of dress code or fashion, If u see the evidence of paintings n sculptures
from about BC 200 to present day, every couple of hundred years there is a fashion change.
At every such time there would have been people screaming about culture - those with inertia.
Those were Lalus of their day. They will not stand in the way of change. Nobody can.

Speaking of social morals, if you look at the earliest law books(dharma shastras),
the punishment for stealing was death. Over the centuries we have become more and more humane.
History speaks for itself. Our past social norms included oppression of women, 'lower' castes etc.
So where do you draw the fucking line?

Of course this angry rant of mine cant be the official line of argument for the politically correct LGBT group. But this is what I think and what I have to say on this matter!

Morality and Bullshit

Morals are man-made; To be precise, they are 'men-made' ie. made by the society. Morality in its various avatars is discernable even among animal 'societies'. A bee or ant colony has morals!

So what is the basis of morality?
Is it the narrow minded, racist, casteist, prejudiced views of our semi-civilised ancestors as enshrined in the 'sacred' texts of various religions?

Or is it, as claimed by some of the better parts in those religious texts, based on the 'Golden rule'? The Pali canon of Theravada buddhism, the Bible and the Gita contain passages mentioning the golden rule.
To quote wikipedia:

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)
2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule )

But is that all there is to it? A rule dependent on human empathy/ emotions?

I dont think so.
Let us not look towards the invisible man up above the clouds or some persons with exclusive rights of communication with him to decide on this topic. Instead, let us look at nature.

Buddha talked of four noble truths. But far more profound and more truthful - is the set of three noble truths set forth by Charles Darwin.

1. Variation
2. Natural selection(Survival of the fittest)
3. Inheritance

Variation/diversity is the most apparent of the three truths. We see bacteria and viruses mutating right under our noses. But the crucial and most inportant truth is, in my opinion, survival of the fittest.
It's a dog eat dog world. 'Survival' is the very purpose of life. We dont have to imagine any mystical other-wordly purposes that we need to fulfill!

The moral or dharma that is common to all living things is survival. That is the only observable, verifiable and objective moral there is in nature.

'Survival paramo dharmah'(Survival is the highest moral) is my version of the saying 'ahimsa paramo dharmah'(Non-injury is the highest moral).

Selfish and ruthless as it may seem, it is not quite that extreme when you think about it.
Even the golden rule, as beautiful and warm as it sounds, is really a glorified/sexed up version of the simple law of reciprocity.
...........
Individual wants to survive.
Individual has better chance of survival in a group; Hence society is formed.
Society needs to survive for the sake of the individuals;
Hence the law of reciprocity among its members :
"I won't hurt you and you don't hurt me".
..........
It is as simple as that!

That is why I began the essay by saying that society made up the morals.
The concept of morality was created based on the need to survive. So anyone breaking the law of reciprocity is a threat to the survival of the society and hence needs to be punished.
With regard to the punishment, we are becoming more and more humane as history tells us.

If man was to roam the forest alone like the lone tusker, the only moral would be 'to survive'; So when you come across another man, he is a competition to survival, a potential threat and/or a potential food item. So you kill him and if hungry, eat him...

Some(or most) of you might be horrified by the fact that I seem to condone cannibalism.
But it is a historical fact that many ancient tribes were and possible a few tribes still are cannibalistic.

After all, we arbitrarily draw a line as to what meat to eat and what not to (btw I am a vegeterian!).

But as the matter stands, men are not loners but social animals - to use the cliched phrase. So we need to confirm to the law of reciprocity. We shouldn't go about killing other humans.

Nonetheless, two things that are condoned by modern society would drive home my point:
(i) We can kill other humans in self defence. This is an indirect confirmation that survival is the highest moral there is.
(ii) We can eat other humans(already dead - not killed by us!) in dire situations like being stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash.

Excluding those extreme cases, we should follow the norms that were created for the survival of the society. But as the above two cases clearly indicate, when the individual's survival is threatened, the society's law is suspended by the society itself.

This brings me to the point I wanted to make from all this discussion. Any moral judgement or rule/law that goes beyond the question of the survival of the society or that of the individual is really 'unnatural'. The only natural law is survival - of the individual and of the society.

So when a religious law or a civil code bans or deems as punishable an act which does not put the constituents of the society in danger, it is unnatural. In fact, it is bullshit.

So I say, gay sex is not unnatural, my dear Mr.Azad, but section 377 which bans it is!

Note : A recent comment by Mr.Azad, the health minister of India, provoked this response from me.
Ref -
 http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ghulam-nabi-azad-calls-homosexuality-unnatural-and-a-disease-116761