Of all the explanations we have heard, this must be the most bizarre defence ever. 3 Ministers (not just ordinary law makers like a member of Parliament or Legislature) who hold positions of power, authority, responsibility and trust were caught watching porn in the Karnataka Legislature.
They resigned (or were asked, impelled, forced) and were issued with a show cause notice. Their response? The most absolute indefensible of the defences ever possible.
They didn’t (officially defend) saying they were misguided, though they tried it earlier.
They didn’t say another man was the culprit, though they tried it too.
They didn’t offer mitigating circumstances, though it would be hard to understand what mitigating circumstances can force them to watch porn.
They didn’t even say they didn’t know what they were doing, though it would be difficult to believe that a man (or a woman for that matter) wouldn’t understand porn when they see it.
They didn’t go lame (pun intended) claiming they were just finger tapping, a la the Larry Craig foot tapping scandal.
They went on a completely flabbergasting track. They claimed they were watching a ‘snuff film’ and not porn. They claimed that they were watching a clip of a woman being tortured and beheaded by Taliban.
There is also a boo-boo in the Times Now telecast (as it stands as of this post) - the anchor refers to a reporter at Bangalore, while the caption says the reporter is at Chennai.
Porn or Snuff?
This city or that?
India or Afghanistan?
Shucks!
8-O
On the other hand, the law enforcement authorities say any complaint by the public to take criminal action against the porn watchers is not maintainable - because it doesn’t have the sanction of the Speaker of the house!
Goodness me!
Whatever happened to the recent Supreme Court verdict (just a couple of weeks back) - a judgement by the apex Judicial body of India - that sanction in criminal cases against public officials, including politicians, should be assumed to be automatically sanctioned, if it is neither granted nor denied within 4 months?
Shouldn’t the Police affidavit be that they are waiting for speaker’s sanction?
Isn’t this a contempt of the (Supreme) court?
Will the Supreme Court please have a look at this?
It is a different issue that I am not personally enamoured, basically against, such private suits on issues which are currently under process - it is simply jumping the gun; or even suits on issues which are intangible.
I think it should be made clear (by who else, but the Supreme Court), that issues which are of intangible nature - like actions deemed offensive against an individual, group, belief, sensitivities, religion or faith should not be encouraged at lower courts. The only exception is the ‘Offences against Scheduled Castes and Tribes’ on which this sort of action should be allowed.
Oh! Let me leave you at that.
When All Is Well, at Aai Pee Ell (IPL) -
- with Sahara and BCCI/IPL governing committee making up,
which someone remarked as
‘give-me-my-pound-of-flesh,
I-will-give-you-cash’,
while out on my after dinner smoke, -
Let all be well!
Blame the Taliban for all things undone!
My Wicked half whispers, ‘Is this why the principal national opposition party, the BJP, terms itself as “a party with a difference”?’
They resigned (or were asked, impelled, forced) and were issued with a show cause notice. Their response? The most absolute indefensible of the defences ever possible.
They didn’t (officially defend) saying they were misguided, though they tried it earlier.
They didn’t say another man was the culprit, though they tried it too.
They didn’t offer mitigating circumstances, though it would be hard to understand what mitigating circumstances can force them to watch porn.
They didn’t even say they didn’t know what they were doing, though it would be difficult to believe that a man (or a woman for that matter) wouldn’t understand porn when they see it.
They didn’t go lame (pun intended) claiming they were just finger tapping, a la the Larry Craig foot tapping scandal.
They went on a completely flabbergasting track. They claimed they were watching a ‘snuff film’ and not porn. They claimed that they were watching a clip of a woman being tortured and beheaded by Taliban.
There is also a boo-boo in the Times Now telecast (as it stands as of this post) - the anchor refers to a reporter at Bangalore, while the caption says the reporter is at Chennai.
Porn or Snuff?
This city or that?
India or Afghanistan?
Shucks!
8-O
On the other hand, the law enforcement authorities say any complaint by the public to take criminal action against the porn watchers is not maintainable - because it doesn’t have the sanction of the Speaker of the house!
Goodness me!
Whatever happened to the recent Supreme Court verdict (just a couple of weeks back) - a judgement by the apex Judicial body of India - that sanction in criminal cases against public officials, including politicians, should be assumed to be automatically sanctioned, if it is neither granted nor denied within 4 months?
Shouldn’t the Police affidavit be that they are waiting for speaker’s sanction?
Isn’t this a contempt of the (Supreme) court?
Will the Supreme Court please have a look at this?
It is a different issue that I am not personally enamoured, basically against, such private suits on issues which are currently under process - it is simply jumping the gun; or even suits on issues which are intangible.
I think it should be made clear (by who else, but the Supreme Court), that issues which are of intangible nature - like actions deemed offensive against an individual, group, belief, sensitivities, religion or faith should not be encouraged at lower courts. The only exception is the ‘Offences against Scheduled Castes and Tribes’ on which this sort of action should be allowed.
Oh! Let me leave you at that.
When All Is Well, at Aai Pee Ell (IPL) -
- with Sahara and BCCI/IPL governing committee making up,
which someone remarked as
‘give-me-my-pound-of-flesh,
I-will-give-you-cash’,
while out on my after dinner smoke, -
Let all be well!
Blame the Taliban for all things undone!
My Wicked half whispers, ‘Is this why the principal national opposition party, the BJP, terms itself as “a party with a difference”?’
No comments:
Post a Comment