Govt supports prosecution of Subramanian Swamy for promoting hatred between Hindus, Muslims

[rubyjackass]

It's a technicality. Blasphemy is a strong concept. Many Hindus are into cousin marriage. In Andhra for example. Unfortunate. But happens.

The practice is blasphemy according to Hinduism period. Whose Hinduism, don't ask me. Ask those who kill such couples. Just like according to some people's Islam, every muslim is supposed to kill apostates.Just like according to some member here, every Hindu is supposed to kill cow eaters, even if it means killing people.

Nobody can enforce a ban on such marriages in Andhra because there is a legal loophole in same Hindu personal law which allows exceptions for almost every thing in the law.

 

[LaBong]

More appropriately, it is against expressing hatred in a way that leads to material harm to others.

You have separate laws for that, the one we are discussing is about banning books because someone finds it offensive.

 

[rubyjackass]

I will welcome it. The importance of having a diverse gene pool should be taught in school, not kept in dusty rule books to use only in times of marriage.

Bhai you are welcoming it because you apply common sense and are willing to dump unreasonable religious rules. Let us make Hinduism progressive by using the same principle for all issues. Every religious law should be seen in modern context, as per today's needs.

You have separate laws for that, the one we are discussing is about banning books because someone finds it offensive.

Then you do not mean it when you say hate speech should not be banned. You only meant offensive speech - hate speech should be protected.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The practice is blasphemy according to Hinduism period. Whose Hinduism, don't ask me. Ask those who kill such couples. Just like according to some people's Islam, every muslim is supposed to kill apostates.Just like according to some member here, every Hindu is supposed to kill cow eaters, even if it means killing people.

Nobody can enforce a ban on such marriages in Andhra because there is a legal loophole in same Hindu personal law which allows exceptions for almost every thing in the law.

Same gotra marriages is frowned upon. Does not mean you commit blasphemy against the Dharm.

Killing a cow is tantamount to killing a human per Hindu faith. So equal penalties should be expected. I would be happy with normal murder charges.

Bhai you are welcoming it because you apply common sense and are willing to dump unreasonable religious rules. Let us make Hinduism progressive by using the same principle for all issues. Every religious law should be seen in modern context, as per today's needs.

Sure, no problem with that. Some core issues can't be compromised with for now. May later. But I am open to better ideas. We have seen plenty of reform movements in the past as well. Nothing new.

 

[LaBong]

Then you do not mean it when you say hate speech should not be banned. You only meant offensive speech - hate speech should be protected.

No i mean it when I say hate speech shoudnt be banned, since it is not possible to identify what is hate speech and what is not. if someone caused bodily harm towards others by his/her speech thats should be covered by separate law since that offense is measurable, quantifiable.

 

[rubyjackass]

Same gotra marriages is frowned upon. Does not mean you commit blasphemy against the Dharm.

I don't want to lecture you about Hinduism. But it IS against Dharm. And going against Dharm is by definition blasphemy. It is not for nothing that Hindu parents(except in south) make sure the bride and groom are unrelated for the last x(6 in circles I know) generations.

Killing a cow is tantamount to killing a human per Hindu faith. So equal penalties should be expected. I would be happy with normal murder charges.

Sure that can be part of Hindu personal law and applied for Hindus. Otherwise it cannot be incorporated into criminal law. But I suspect you already know that.

 

[ranjeet]

No i mean it when I say hate speech shoudnt be banned, since it is not possible to identify what is hate speech and what is not. if someone caused bodily harm towards others by his/her speech thats should be covered by separate law since that offense is measurable, quantifiable.

What would you call a continuous attempt to demonize Hinduism in western countries by Evangelists. Also manufacture news like Delhi Church attacks or Nun rape case, then get the media to play the news non stop for days non stop. Does it come under hate speech/narrative?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I don't want to lecture you about Hinduism. But it IS against Dharm. And going against Dharm is by definition blasphemy. It is not for nothing that Hindu parents(except in south) make sure the bride and groom are unrelated for the last x(6 in circles I know) generations.

Sure that can be part of Hindu personal law and applied for Hindus. Otherwise it cannot be incorporated into criminal law. But I suspect you already know that.

No. It is not against Hindu Dharm. It is against society. Against family. The crimes hence committed are honor crimes.
Besides, it makes sense to marry as diverse as possible.

As for the cow thing - yeah, I know it can't be. I was giving my opinion. Not even religious diktat. Btw, I know nothing about Hinduism. That would be @Srinivas I don't make a good Hindu either.

 

[Bitter Melon]

What would you call a continuous attempt to demonize Hinduism in western countries by Evangelists. Also manufacture news like Delhi Church attacks or Nun rape case, then get the media to play the news non stop for days non stop. Does it come under hate speech/narrative?

Leave alone demonizing it in Western countries, they demonize it in India too. This has enormous security implications for India going forward. As people of faith eventually will not want to live with Pagans/idol worshippers.

 

[rubyjackass]

No i mean it when I say hate speech shoudnt be banned, since it is not possible to identify what is hate speech and what is not. if someone caused bodily harm towards others by his/her speech thats should be covered by separate law since that offense is measurable, quantifiable.

It is possible to identify hate speech. If Sadhvi Pagya says we should kick SRK to Pakistan, that is hate speech. If she said, SRK should go to Pakistan if he wants, then it is not hate speech. Someone says lets kill all Hindus, that is hate speech obviously. Someone says let us call Prophet Mohammed names, not a hate speech, because it does not cause any material or bodily harm to any muslim.

Ohh I think you are taking 'hate speech'(as a literal phrase) to mean any speech with words of hatred in it. 'Hate speech' is a legal term, very well understood. Blasphemy does not qualify as hate speech. All countries ban hate speech and different countries might have different exact definitions. But India's is the loosest, if someone is hurt a ban can be expected.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

SS is cunning rat. I would really welcome some action against him to close his fat mouth

 

[LaBong]

It is possible to identify hate speech. If Sadhvi Pagya says we should kick SRK to Pakistan, that is hate speech. If she said, SRK should go to Pakistan if he wants, then it is not hate speech. Someone says lets kill all Hindus, that is hate speech obviously. Someone says let us call Prophet Mohammed names, not a hate speech, because it does not cause any material or bodily harm to any muslim.

But what Sadhvi Prachi says may not be hate speech to her followers, once again it's hate speech for you or me but as long as Sadhvi Prachi is not forcing SRK to pakistan, her drivel should not be unlawful.

Same way if someone says lets kill all hindus, it shouldn't be unlawful unless his words pose imminent and bodily danger to hindus.

Consider the case against klu klux klan in 1969 where us supreme court refused move against the racist group, since their racist speechs didnt result in lawless actions.

What would you call a continuous attempt to demonize Hinduism in western countries by Evangelists. Also manufacture news like Delhi Church attacks or Nun rape case, then get the media to play the news non stop for days non stop. Does it come under hate speech/narrative?

They are well in their ambit to demonize hinduism, it could be hate speech to you, but its not unlawful unless resulting in lawless actions like bodily harming a hindu or forcing a hindu to do somethig.

If any media is propagating false news, you can always sue them in court.

However they are not allowed to demonize hinduism in public or privately owned places, they are free to demonize without compromising other's right of not to listen.

 

[rubyjackass]

No. It is not against Hindu Dharm. It is against society. Against family. The crimes hence committed are honor crimes.
Besides, it makes sense to marry as diverse as possible.

Well believe what you want. I cannot convince you more than that. I think all educated people know that marrying in close relations is a bad practice.

But what Sadhvi Prachi says may not be hate speech to her followers, once again it's hate speech for you or me but as long as Sadhvi Prachi is not forcing SRK to pakistan, her drivel should not be unlawful.

She need not actually force SRK by action for that to be called hate speech. If she forces him by action, then other criminal laws are present.
That speech is threatening SRK directly. And that is enough to be called hate speech. Backing up by action is not necessary. Speech laws for speech. Other laws for actions. OK I agree I took a bad example - the threat is kicking to Pakistan, I should have chosen a serious threat as example. Even SRK would laugh at the thought of someone lifting him up and hauling his a&& across the border. Most Indian muslims are already used to such cliched references of hatred. I agree that should not be called hate speech.

Same way if someone says lets kill all hindus, it shouldn't be unlawful unless his words pose imminent and bodily danger to hindus.

Of course the context is important. The statements If a comedian says that as part of his act, it won't post any danger. But if an out of line Islamist politician says that to threaten Hindus, it is hate speech. And it has the potential to get his supporters to kill actually harm Hindus. Fit for ban. And judicial process is not deterministic, a judge will evaluate based on the context of the speech. If determining hate speech is a deterministic exercise, US would have software not judges.

Consider the case against klu klux klan in 1969 where us supreme court refused move against the racist group, since their racist speechs didnt result in lawless actions.

Their racist speeches are protected by free speech. But they wouldn't have gotten away if they threatened any kind of violence. Their boring stories(public ones) are always on the lines of - this is a white country.

 

[raktaka]

The law was obviously drafted for allaying concerns of Hindus.

In any uniform civil code that ban will not be present anymore.

LOL...why should the ban not be there in the Uniform civil code ? ........ that is completely illogical.

The practice is blasphemy according to Hinduism period. Whose Hinduism, don't ask me. Ask those who kill such couples. Just like according to some people's Islam, every muslim is supposed to kill apostates.Just like according to some member here, every Hindu is supposed to kill cow eaters, even if it means killing people.

Nobody can enforce a ban on such marriages in Andhra because there is a legal loophole in same Hindu personal law which allows exceptions for almost every thing in the law.

....that is blatantly dishonest.

1. Hinduism does not have blasphemy.
Blasphemy = the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

2. Same Gotra marriage is considered incest in many Hindu societies and hence the killing is the LAST resort to preventing incest in society and weakening the social gene pool.

It is rather obvious that it has nothing to do with "blasphemy". Again a dishonest and convoluted lie designed to play equal euqal.

3. Hindu is supposed to PROTECT the Cow. Preferable without killing the Killer. However killing in the DEFENCE of any other valuable life form is the last resort and is permitted. EVEN under Indian LAW.

4. Most bans in India are Social bans, not legal. Socials and cultural bans is far more effective and powerful than legal ban. Especially since our judicial system is almost non existent.

SS is cunning rat. I would really welcome some action against him to close his fat mouth

Stop displaying such INTOLERANCE for an opposing point of view and Voice.

Shame on You closet Bigot and Facist.

 

[illuminatidinesh]

It is practiced. Frowned upon. Not blasphemous. Hence my point stands.

Btw, I agree with Subbu Swami on this. Hate speech law is lame.

Perfect , U r right it is not blasphemous.
And oh that loose cannon has to go...