Did Justice Verma accidentally submit radical feminazi manifesto?
Posted January 27, 2013on:
3 member Justice Verma committee wrote 644 pages long report in 18 days [last date to submit deliberations was on Jan 5 and report came out on Jan 23rd, hence 18days; skeptics can add few more days at will] after scrutinising about 80000 deliberations submitted by public!!! Unbelievable huh? Whatever it may be, lets assume that they did it, they did a great job! Let us assume there was no involvement of political hyenas waiting for the right event to push their hidden agenda. Let us not be cynical and go over the report in nondiscriminatory way. Before we peep into this monster report let me remind you the purpose for which this committee was constituted; The report itself says “This Committee was constituted by Govt of India Notification No. SO(3003)E, dated Dec 23, 2012 to look into possible amendments of the Criminal Law to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals committing sexual assault of extreme nature against women”. If your brain is not over-sensitised and biased towards women I would solicit your attention to this critical analysis.
First of all let me point out the unprecedented references to United Nations in the report. Justice Verma, please enlighten me with India’s constitutional liability, if any, towards meeting the UN agreements, rules, regulations, goals and standards. Why would a sovereign nation’s law making process ever consider the UN orders and obligations towards them? Are we subservient to Rockefeller’s United Nations? Were the committee got paid by the tax payers or by the globalists?
Interestingly enough, this committee made an astonishing finding that the main villain is “patriarchy” that impairs the dignity of women. During the 30 days period this committee had contacted several government authorities like Delhi police commissioner, chief minister, CBI, National commission for protection of Child Rights, National commission for women, various registrars of high courts across the nation, so on and so forth; but I couldn’t find any questions asking for the role of this main villain in the offenses committed in their respective jurisdictions. Since their responses are not included in the report I don’t know how did the committee reach this conclusion!
If I get the concept of patriarchy right, it is a form of social code-of-ethics and conduct practiced by some religious communities where men takes the role of protector and provider, and women live a life free of cost. A peculiar setup in which, from cradle to grave everything is provided to women. Now Justice Verma committee recommends to shift that role, not to the sovereign women, but to the government. Remember, this is a government which do not even recognise the value of time, the need to have proper sanitation, even the need of enough public latrines and don’t know how to run the ones that exists! First they make enough draconian laws to boot away men from women and then pull the plug; just the way Aadhaar scam worked, first they announced cash transfer to lure the naive and strip the entire public off of their privacy and valuable information, put them all in a database like criminals, then they say cash transfer is possible only after everyone gets bank account!!! I know, I know you are lost; but don’t worry read on, I will try my best to clear the smoke screen.
There are some excellent recommendations in this report which definitely deserve some applause. In general most of the suggested amendments are gender neutral. Recommendation to introduce separate sections for gang rape, repeated offenses and differentiating rape from other non-violent assaults are laudable. Report also lays out a clear procedure of investigating sexual assault cases. Here I’m listing only those that caught my attention and I feel inappropriate.
This committee lays out a long description about female feticide, infanticide, malnutrition, tradition and religious practices, Khap panchayaths, honor killing and all those typical radical feminazi arguments and failed to quote any references or citations to the basis of those claims. None of these are backed by any scientific studies or surveys and to my knowledge these are not gender issues. And then the report says,
“In view of the above, we come to the following conclusions and make the following recommendations:”
As far as prevention of rape is concerned, (which is obviously not the set goal of this committee) the suggestions set forth by this committee are very silly like installing street lights, provide sanitation, outlaw tinted glasses on vehicles, increase police patrol etc. There is no constructive plans laid out to overhaul the totally dysfunctional justice system.
Committee decriminalise child sex or encourages it?
Committee recommends that the age of consent be reduced to sixteen. It says, this is not to criminalise consensual sex between two individuals even if they are below eighteen years of age. This is because UN convention on child rights 11th December, 1992 said so and Government of India has acceded to that. See, now Rockefeller’s United Nation decides at what age kids in India can have sex! Unless and until we have veto power in UN we should not honor any of the madness they create. Why didn’t the committee recommend to amend marriage acts to reduce the marriageable age? Is it intended to create a community of unmarried teen parents?
When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death:
The present suggestion to amendment IPC Section 100 is gender neutral and fits quite well in a genuine crime scene. But the suggested clauses like intention of committing rape, unnatural lust, intention of kidnapping or abducting are extremely hard to prove. What is the definition of “unnatural lust”?
Reading it together with the other suggestion of recognising sex without consent inside marriage as rape and the numerous murder cases where men and women are murdered for money or extramarital affairs, this clause, if implemented, will only do more good to such murderers than to genuine rape victims.
166A. Public Servant knowingly disobeying direction of law
This suggestion recommends to punish those officers, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine, who do not record information given to him under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but it only applies to a handful of sections!!! Is it any less crime if they do so in other offenses?
More over considering the magnitude of the abuse of other women centric laws like domestic violence act, 498(A) and even the existing rape clause “sex based on marriage promise”, this clause, if implemented, will open up new greener pastures for unscrupulous women and will over-burden judiciary and tax payers.
326A.Voluntarily causing grievous hurt through use of acid etc:
This is an attempt to classify a crime based on the tools used for the assault which appears to be very naive and not well-thought. More over, it will bring 10+ years of imprisonment for a crime as minor as leaving a scratch, cut or bruise; to me it looks like an attempt to target the Muslim community as it includes genital mutilation; all under the cover of acid attack!!! Point to be noted is that “Irreversible damage” is not a precondition here. As I mentioned above, now it is gender neutral but worth keeping an eye on.
354. Sexual Assault and Punishment for sexual assault
Committee failed to define the offense in an unambiguous way leaving lots of confusion that can result in total destruction of basic human values and will lead to utter chaos as what happened in domestic violence act and IPC498(A) cases.
(a)Intentional touching of another person when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient’s consent;
What is the definition of “sexual nature” here? Is that depending on the perspective of the judge who hear the case or is that based on the perception of the ‘victim’ or something else? Should the consent be written, oral or should no-news be considered as good-news? At what point a gesture of affection become assault, is totally missed out in this recommendation.
Section 375: Rape
Here, taking out the most absurd clause “sex under the false promise of marriage” is extremely laudable. Hi-fives to Justice Verma. If passed into law, this will definitely reduce heck load of work off the shoulders of police and judiciary for sure. Even though the language of definitions are generally gender neutral and acceptable the following explanation is bit icky.
Explanation III: Consent will not be presumed in the event of an existing marital relationship between the complainant and the accused.
Explanation IV. – Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act.
Provided that, a person who does not offer actual physical resistance to the act of penetration is not by reason only of that fact, to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
It is icky not because the definition is unclear or wrong, but because it undermines the legitimacy of a relationship which is considered to be sacred by many. If a couple cannot find agreement in the act of exercising fundamental bondage, they shouldn’t be living together in the first place; neither that relationship is eligible to be called as marriage. In the case of Sexual harassment at workplace bill, the main argument for not making it gender neutral is by challenging the number of incidents of such harassment happened to men. In this particular case of marital rape, it would be easy to collect medical reports if any such violent incident ever occurred, but none got cited here. This provision only helps to simply deny consent as an afterthought and so doesn’t attract any merits. I know this is an imported piece of legislation from morally underdeveloped western countries. Until we lay out a proper investigation procedure and legislating prenuptial agreements, this piece of recommendation has to be totally discarded. No spouse should bet 7+years of their life (possibly their very life itself, if IPC100 recommendation becomes law) to run a family. What is the need to make the institution of family so ugly, dangerous and a hostile environment? If the goal is to reduce population by discouraging marriages, let me tell the committee with all due respect, it’s not to meet this purpose that we tax payers paid you.
Amendment to the proviso to section 160. Lifting the age limit of boys from 16 to 18 is greatly appreciated. The investigating officer will have to record his statement at his own residence.
Insertion of Section 198B:
Wife can accuse husband for rape and court has to take cognizance but if husband does the same courts cannot! Husband has to go the police file a complaint, and convince the police and at the mercy of the officer he may or may not get justice. Is this the constitutionally guaranteed equality before law as per Justice Verma? Embarrassing!!!
AMENDMENTS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Amendment to Section 114A
‘114A. (1) In a prosecution for rape under sub-section (2) of section 376 or for gang rape under Section 376C of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the other person alleged to have been raped and such other person states in his/her evidence before the court that she or he did not consent, the court shall presume that she or he did not consent.
This is the most notorious and shameful suggestion in the whole report. Conviction based on Presumptions and assumptions are a total disgrace to any modern justice system. This contradicts with the basic principles like “treating innocent until proven guilty”, proving an offense “beyond reasonable doubt” and also takes away the inherent right of judiciary to apply its mind!!! If implemented, it will enable any women to file rape suite after any type of intercourse; whether paid or unpaid. It opens up the pandora box for the blackmailers and retaliators totally discarding natural justice!. Shame on you Mr. Verma!
Amendment to Section 146
“it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross- examination of the victim as to his or her general moral character, or as to his or her previous sexual experience with any person.”
Hard coding moral rules into an Act is not a progressive step. I am not a proponent to put restrictions on what to ask or what not to ask. Lawyers should ask this this and this, don’t ask this and that, court should presume this this and this, assume this or that; what is going on here? Is this recommendation coming from a former Chief Justice? Absurd! It may, if otherwise earth is going to stop oscillating, fit in the Bar Council Rules but definitely not in any Act or code.
AMENDMENT TO THE ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT, 1958
This one has already gained its fair share of criticism. See what Times of India reported.
“I have almost 1,000 personnel under me, and they are spread across some five kilometres. They could go on leave, or temporary duty. How am I to ensure their sexual conduct throughout the year, 24 hours a day?” asks a Commanding Officer of and army unit.
Some obvious questions.
I hope now you got an insight about the rotten and stinky parts of this report. Do you think it is for the good of the society to have this kind of irrational laws? Do you think it is for the benefit of women in the long run or even in the short run? Do you think these are human errors? Do you think this is a step forward, as a society? Do you think it will improve our civilisation? If your answer to any one of those question is ‘No’ what would you think is the reason for this “mistake”? What are the chances that this report is highly influenced and politically inflated? What is the reason to allocate several pages bragging about constitution, gender equality and what not, but at the same time lay out a SEPARATE bill of rights for one gender? Isn’t this an attempt by a political party to play the good samaritan role; the savior of women; the champion of women empowerment and the chances of that party is so weak and feeble in the upcoming election? Do you have at least 10% hope in implementing 1% of this report? Do you think it is a political gimmick wasting tax-payer’s money? Do you think there is external influence in destabilising our social fabric? What could be the reason to include baseless unscientific unproven feminazi delusions in this report? Why is UN so important for internal law making of a sovereign nation?
New World Order operative’s plan to destroy the foundation of our nation is working out pretty well.
Morons in India are applauding it as women empowerment.
Who is the single largest sponsor of feminism? Rockefeller Foundation…
Where is UN head office sitting? On Rockefeller’s property (though donated)…
Who is running ICICI bank? The Rockefellers…
Who is running Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)? The Rockefellers…
Who wants to implant RFID chip on every human being on earth? The Rockefellers…
What is the first step towards RFID? Aadhaar/UID
Who is Rothchild’s puppet? The Rockefellers…
Who wants to introduce Aadhaar/UID in India… THE BANKS…..
Who is the the Father of RBI? Lord Rothchilds….
Who is the financial advisory of Govt of India? The Rothchilds
Read “Is boy preference a brain product of CFR” and learn more.
उत्तिष्टता जाग्रता प्राप्यवरण निभोदता