Legalising feminazi terrorism

[Arrian]

Here's a blog post on "your side" of this debate:

http://harassed-husbands.blogspot.com/2005/10/44-of-

dowry-death-cases-are-false.html

Key quote:

In the High Court of Karnataka
M.F.Saldhana & M.S. rajendra Prasad
JJCrl.A. no. 589 of 2003
Decided on 4-9-2003

Important excerpts starting from page 562:

We need to sound a note of caution that the police and investigating authorities should not improperly and technically jump to the conclusion that merely because death has occurred that ipso facto a criminal offense has been committed. In as many as 44% of these cases prosecution is thoroughly unjustified. Unless there is cogent and convincing evidence and unless there is material to sustain these charges, it would be totally impermissible and completely unjustified to embark upon legal action.

Some important words in there. Let's start with "as many as 44%"

As many as means 44% would be the max.
Second, the judge is pointing out that one should only go to trial if one has concrete evidence. This is what I was talking about before. The lack of that evidence does not automatically mean the allegation is false (but may be), but regardless the woman has no case, and it will be thrown out.

Hardly "OMG, they just accuse you and you go to jail for 18 years!"

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Some choice bits, directly from the text of the law itself:

3. Verbal and emotional violence:
For example-
(i) Insults
(ii) Name-calling
(iii)Accusations on your character or conduct (I'm speechless at these two)

4. Economic Violence:
For example-
(i) Not providing you money for maintaining you or your children (Uhh... I thought she was living with the man?)
(ix) Stopping you from accessing of using any part of the house (Men, say goodbye to your rights to privacy.)
(xi) Not paying rent if you're staying in a rented accommodation

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Your laws allow for stuff like this?

Oh, and we also have laws that allow women equality, and all that. Nice insinuation of superiority there, Shrapnel.

Did you actually read what I posted?

Well I said similar, but yes, it's not rare that in domestic violence situations, the man is the one arrested and assumed the guilty party. If the woman has one little scratch on her, you're going to jail for the night at least. The difference is that in the US, you are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. At least that's the theory. As for Indian woman equality, I've read all about that asheem and it makes me want to puke. You're not much better then how the Middle East treats its women.

[Arrian]

The first two are over the top.

The next two, not as much. If a man has total control of the money, he could in effect make the woman a prisoner by restricting it.

The accessing some part of the house thing is wierd. Why the **** would you not allow your wife into part of her own house? WTF?!

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
The first two are over the top.

The next two, not as much. If a man has total control of the money, he could in effect make the woman a prisoner by restricting it.

The accessing some part of the house thing is wierd. Why the **** would you not allow your wife into part of her own house? WTF?!

-Arrian

Not her own house, but a part of yours.

[Zkribbler]

That is NOT directly from the law itself, which can be found on page 74 of this document: Link to 498a

Beyond the language of the opening post, the statute continues:

Explanation -- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physicla) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

That is NOT directly from the law itself

The bits I quoted WERE directly from the law; you can get it here.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12

At least that's the theory. As for Indian woman equality, I've read all about that asheem and it makes me want to puke. You're not much better then how the Middle East treats its women.

We are, actually. Our laws actually give women equality. It's taking time for society to catch up, though.

And retarded legislation like this one isn't helping much.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Not her own house, but a part of yours.

WTF?! That's not at all acceptable in Western culture dude.

Anyway, I want to say something. I admit the article is not even worth reading, but I feel like a victim of one of these laws. I was restrained from my own house two times for over a month because my wife got bogus domestic violence restraining orders against me. Then when we were already seperated, and I had custody of our child, she got a protective order against me stating that I kidnapped the child. Hell, I didn't even know where she lived. Each time the judge dismissed it but she go no penalty any of the times for commiting pergury. That ****s not fair, but it's what our society has done to protect women because dickheads beat them and kill them.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Not her own house, but a part of yours.

Right, right. I forgot. The man owns the house. The woman lives there, cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids but doesn't own ****.



When I said "her own house" I didn't just mean the strict sense of property ownership, as in who's name is on the deed.

I meant her home: as in the place she lives with her husband & family. That's her house too, even if the man has legal ownership of it. Why in the hell would you not allow her access to part of it? I'm honestly confused.

"That's my porn room, beeatch! You say outta there!"

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The bits I quoted WERE directly from the law; you can get it here.

I'm looking at the statute now. It's four lines long. I type three of them above. The open post has the first line. Click on the link I provided and go to page 74.

(Note: The article implies the phrase "The offence is Cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable." is part of the statute. This phrase is not.)

[Arrian]

Anyway, I want to say something. I admit the article is not even worth reading, but I feel like a victim of one of these laws. I was restrained from my own house two times for over a month because my wife got bogus domestic violence restraining orders against me. Then when we were already seperated, and I had custody of our child, she got a protective order against me stating that I kidnapped the child. Hell, I didn't even know where she lived. Each time the judge dismissed it but she go no penalty any of the times for commiting pergury. That ****s not fair, but it's what our society has done to protect women because dickheads beat them and kill them.

Agreed. Unfair. Wrong. And, unfortunately, the consequence of trying to address a serious issue. Definitely room for improvement, but neither you nor I would look at this and say "oh, well that's messed up, let's scrap the whole thing! Get back in the kitchen, wench!"

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Agreed. Unfair. Wrong. And, unfortunately, the consequence of trying to address a serious issue. Definitely room for improvement, but neither you nor I would look at this and say "oh, well that's messed up, let's scrap the whole thing! Get back in the kitchen, wench!"

-Arrian

Nor would I.

The point remains, however, that however well-intentioned the current law may be (ignoring for a moment the realist in me, who tells me that this was done purely for electoral advantage), it's still incredibly retarded in implementation.

[Arrian]

Nor would I.

You seem to have a soft spot for people who would, though.

As for the "electoral advantage" thing... dude, wake up: THAT'S THE ONLY REASON LAWS ARE MADE IN A DEMOCRACY.

It beats the alternatives...

-Arrian