This article titled 'Biology Vs Law' by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, in CNN IBN blogs, though scientifically inaccurate and incomplete in some parts, brings out in gist, some fundamental flaws in Feminism or at least the way it is being interpreted in contemporary India.
One particular paragraph of the lengthy prose that made me ROTFL was the Supreme Court's definition of sexual harassment (which I was not aware of before):
(a) physical contact and advances,
(b) demand or request for sexual favors and
(c) sexually colored remarks or any other physical/verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature
the implications of the above is that the next time you propose or ask a girl out on date, you are punishable under law!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
And ofcourse, our law has other loopholes which will balance it da ... appadi thaan polappu oduthu inga ...
@bhuvanesh: depends... there are instances where 2 wrongs make one right, but im us wondering how well this law can be used for the wrong reasons...
De i was talking abt those wrongs which can make anything right(ofcourse, u should have the necessary resources) ...
@bhuvanesh: example?
proposing to a gal doesnt necessarily make u punishable under law because:
1. u neednt make unwarranted physical contact
2. u dont demand sexual favors while proposin (it usually happens afterwards or in some cases favors are demanded w/o a proposal)
3. and u def wudnt make a negtaive remark
But the fact still remains that there are countless loopholes & archaic laws in our judiciary & they will be only looked upon only if something goes terribly wrong. The judiciary just doesnt have time to review these things cos of the humongous backlog of cases pending to be heard....
@asif: im not talking about the intentions of the guy who proposes, rather the ways in which it can be mis interpreted (which looks like child's play in this case).
"The judiciary just doesnt have time to review these things cos of the humongous backlog of cases pending to be heard...." doesn't seem to be a good excuse to deliver such an (generalised) unscientific judgement/declaration (which incidentally came at the end of a sexual harassment trial). they could have as well left it to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
Post a Comment