The Core of Economic Meltdown

How the wise ones invested your money in wedding cakes... er, pardon me ... mortgage backed securities, oil backed securities, ...

A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. Thanks, xkcd!

Read More...

Gay Ho!

It's a victory for secular democracy in India.

In a landmark judgement, the Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah of the Delhi High Court, along with Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, ruled in favor of the petitioner, Naz Foundation, and held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in its current form violated the constitutional provisions of Article 21, Article 14, and Article 15, "insofar it criminalize[d] consensual sexual acts of adults in private". The ruling brings cheers not only to the LGBT community, but also to anyone who believes that liberty and equality before law cannot be held hostage in perpetuity to irrational beliefs and values.

The justices dismissed the government's arguments that homosexual conduct must be construed as unnatural and antihetical to the social traditions, and its dubious concerns about the spreading of diseases, as contrary to scientific findings and historical facts. Most importantly, the High Court, in holding Section 377 as in violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens, upheld the primacy of constitutional morality over popular morality:

Moral indignation, howsoever strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individual's fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view...

The nature of the provision of Section 377 IPC and its purpose is to criminalise private conduct of consenting adults which causes no harm to anyone else. It has no other purpose than to criminalise conduct which fails to conform with the moral or religious views of a section of society. The discrimination severely affects the rights and interests of homosexuals and deeply impairs their dignity.

Quoting from the Constitutional Assembly Debates, the Justices wrote:

While moving the Draft Constitution in the Assembly [Constitutional Assembly Debates: Official Reports Vol.VII: November 4, 1948, page 38], Dr. Ambedkar quoted Grote, the historian of Greece, who had said: "The diffusion of constitutional morality, not merely among the majority of any community but throughout the whole, is an indispensable condition of government at once free and peaceable; since even any powerful and obstinate minority may render the working of a free institution impracticable without being strong enough to conquer the ascendancy for themselves."

After quoting Grote, Dr. Ambedkar added: "... The question is, can we presume such a diffusion of constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic."

Well, it has been more than 60 years since then. I sincerely hope that the people of India have had the time to learn what it means to be a democracy, and that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government pays heed to Dr. Ambedkar's admonition, if and when the religious fundamentalists challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, it's time to open the champagne bottle. Here's to Justices Shah and Muralidhar!

Read More...

Unnatural in India

An unnamed government source from India's Home Ministry under Mr. P. Chidambaram has dismissed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes homosexuality as against "the order of nature", as "an absurdity in today's world". I have no doubt that it is, and I am in good company: Amartya Sen, Vikram Seth, Shyam Benegal, Shubha Mudgal... A meeting of Mr. Chidambaram, the Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and the Law Minister Veerappa Moily, was expected to be held soon to discuss the law. It's a step forward from the uncompromising opposition to repeal the law by the erstwhile Home Minister, Shivraj Patil. The LGBT community in India cheered. Within hours of the reported consensus between the Home and the Law Ministries on repealing Section 377, however, Mr. Moily, took two steps back:

. "I have never said it will be repealed--the statement has been misinterpreted. As far as Section 377 of IPC is concerned I have said I have not examined it yet," said Law Minister Veerappa Moily on Monday. "There is no question of one individual minister voicing his view this way or that way," said Moily...

"The Cabinet has a mandate to have a re-look at the provision. But we are not going to rush to any conclusion. We will certainly take into account concerns of all sections, including religious groups like Christian church," Moily had said on Sunday.

What could Mr. Moily possibly expect from the religious groups? [Warning: Sexually explicit material below the fold]

---

"The Church's stand on the issue has always been clear. For us it is an unnatural act, against the divine law. We will definitely oppose it," said Joseph Dias, general secretary of the Catholic Secular Forum.

Okay, for you and your fellow Catholics [btw, isn't the name Catholic Secular Forum an oxymoron?], homosexuality may be unnatural and against "the divine law". Rest assured, no one is holding a gun to your head to commit sodomy. I don't care much for your fictitious divinity, though. What right do you have to impose your rules on me?

Unnatural, eh? Here are some fun details from Olivia Judson's Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation:

Look at bonobo, a sensual creature also known as the pygmy chimpanzee (which is odd, as it's no smaller than the regular chimpanzee). Bonobos like sex, and female bonobos like sex with each other. One lies on her back, another climbs on top, and they rub their genitalia. Among Adélie penguins, one of the smaller penguins in Antarctica, the males, like most birds, have no penis. But that doesn't stop a bit of gay jiggery-pokery. In one recorded incident two males bowed to each other as they would to a female, then one lay down on his front, raised his bill and tail as any coquettish girl penguin, and the other copulated with him, ejaculating into his genital track. They then swapped roles. Or look at dolphins. The bottle-nosed dolphin is catholic in its choice of sex partners. Males are frequently sighted copulating with turtles (they insert their penises into the soft tissues at the back of their victim's shell), with sharks, and even with eels... The Amazon River dolphin or boto, sometimes goes further, penetrating another dolphin's blowhole.

Well, need I to go on? How about macaques, baboons, razorbills, octopuses, fruit flies ... Oh come on, you've got no idea how rich and varied sexual conduct in nature is!

Joining with Mr. Diaz is the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, whose spokesperson, Vinod Bansal declared,

"It is against the culture and family system in India. It will result in spread of a number of diseases."

Mr. Bansal, which culture are you referring to? The one depicted in this sculpture from Khajuraho, perhaps? Spread of diseases? Yeah, right, if Section 377 were repealed, there is a grave danger that India will climb further above its top ranking in the incidence of Tuberculosis, accounting already for 21% of all cases worldwide. If those gay truck drivers from Delhi and Kolkata were free to do what they want with each other, won't Chlamydia in pregnant women attending secondary care in India jump from 17% to 25%? Perhaps, Mr. Bansal is afraid that India's rank — 135 out of 191 — on healthy life expectancy will slip further away from that of Guatamala, Maldives, Mongolia, and Bolivia?

Muslim leaders, as to be expected, are also against the repeal. Islam is dead against homosexuality, literally — Iran, Mauritania, Saudi-Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Nigeria (in 12 Northern provinces with Sharia law) impose death penalty for same-sex acts. Fatwa 371/B issued by India's Darul Uloom Deoband says, I quote:

Undoubtedly, sodomy (homosexuality) is haram and forbidden in Islam. Because of this sin, the nation of Hazrat Lut (Alaihis Salam) was punished by Allah in this world. There is no fixed punishment for perpetrator of this crime, but according to Imam Abu Hanifa such person should be pushed from a mountain to death. But, this punishment will be implemented by a Qazi. In our country there is neither an Islamic government nor an Islamic Qazi [tsk, tsk, how sad] ; therefore he should repent sincerely to Allah and ask for his forgiveness, and should never return to this act. [emphasis mine]

In consonance with this fatwa, Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi, deputy vice chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband, has asked the government not to repeal Section 377. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, a prominent Muslim organization, chimed in, "the repeal of the section would create 'sexual anarchy' in the society". Yup, "sexual anarchy", and not Islamic terrorism or global economic crisis, is the greatest threat facing India today!

What may be expected from other conservative sections of the society? A spokesperson for the main opposition party of India, the Bharathiya Janata Party, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, cautioned the government not to change the law in a hurry:

"We are living in India, not in an European country. These issues are very important and sensitive. A thorough discussion is needed on this issue."

Section 377 was written into Indian Law in 1860 by a European country, Victorian England, for crying out loud! Little can be said for homophobia in India before the British and the Muslim rule. Besides, why the country of residence should have any impact on the basic rights of a human being is beyond me. Aren't gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders human beings?

What right does anyone have to interfere with the private, consensual, sexual conduct of others? What concern is it of the religious groups like the Christian Church, the Hindu Matts, or the Muslim Ummah, and why should it be taken into account in repealing a law that they had favored and foisted on the people? That Chandra and Bobby or Ennis and Jack love each other deeply, and wish to share their joys and sorrows for life, does not blow up these religious edifices into smithereens, does it? Not that the government has the backbone to legalize drugs, but suppose it does, will it make any sense to consult the Mafia?

It is neither too late nor is it inconsequential for you to sign this open letter to the Government of India, Members of the Judiciary, and all Citizens to repeal Section 377. Please, sign the letter and make your voice heard above the cacophony from the religious fundamentalists. Thanks.

Update: Gay Ho!

Read More...

Woman, unveil thyself!

Unlike his pandering cohort from across the pond, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has the guts to declare a war on burka. Rejecting the waffling and the euphemisms of the apologists, he has mustered the courage to call a burka a burka. An anachronism that is nothing but a manifestation of the reprehensible and misogynistic idea in Islam that the exposure of even an inch of a woman's skin is fraught with danger. Danger to the ogling men, who will be forced to neglect their duty to bomb the hell out of the infidels and themselves. Instead of the heavenly embrace of the virgins that allah has guaranteed for them, they will be eternally damned by their frenzies of lust for the temptress. What could be worse than that, eh?

President Sarkozy, in his address to the French Parliament, declared to the applauding MPs and Senators:

"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem, it's a problem of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That's not our idea of freedom."

The applause was well deserved, but Sarkozy went on:

"We must not fight the wrong battle. In the republic, the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions."

Now, Sarkozy is obviously attempting to regain his balance on the political tight rope, as he deflects the battle away from Islam.

What are we battling against, if not the idea that woman is inferior to man, that woman must be subservient to man, that woman must not have the right to choose freely? And, where exactly are these strictures pronounced, the strictures that have eternal validity, that are the words of god, and therefore beyond challenge? If these are not in Islam, in the Koran, or the Hadiths, then why are they the law in most Islamic countries?

President Sarkozy is not quite there yet, but it must be granted that he's far more credible than President Obama, who asserted this recently in his speech in Cairo:

"The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it... I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal..."

I wish President Sarkozy had given his speech before President Obama gave his. No, the West (and, for that matter, much of the East, the North, and the South that is not under the crescent moon) does not view the woman who chooses not but feels compelled to wear the burka, the hijab, or whatever, as unequal. The idea of compulsory wear for women to protect the men from themselves, however, is quite different. That certainly is not equal — not even close — to the idea of liberty and equality.

Read More...

Top Ten Solutions for Eve Teasing

IndianExpress.com reports:

Four Kanpur women's colleges ban jeans, tight tops on campus —
... Principal of Dayanand Girls Degree College Meeta Jamal said the move would prevent "eve teasing" near the college campus. "Often girls wearing tight clothes and jeans are on target of eve teasers, therefore it is our duty to take the precautionary measures," she said.

Here are my top ten solutions for the eve teasing problem in India, guaranteed to secure me a place besides Meeta Jamal in the Densa Hall of Fame, :

10

Ban the Old Testament. The boys won't know who Eve is.

9

Make shaving, pigtails, and baggy unisex dress compulsory for everyone, so you can't tell the Eves from the Adams.

8

Statutory warning in Bollywood movies—
Watching this movie or listening to the songs causes the serious side effect of Compulsive Eve Teasing Disorder in teenage boys.

7

100% reservation for boys in all schools and colleges.

6

Ban girls from all public places — markets, train stations, airports, hospitals, you name it — where they may encounter ogling boys.

5

All girls shall be forcibly married before they reach puberty, and thereafter stay home and make rotis.

4

Cover the girls from head to toe with burqua, and give them free iPods.

3

Make breast ironing compulsory for all pubescent girls.

2

Invite the Taliban and the Ram Sena to form a coalition government in New Delhi.

1

Pack off all the boys to Australia.

---

Hat tip to Divs for the news link.

Read More...