Indian Gov't Wants Worldwide Ban On Rape Documentary, Including Online
An anonymous reader writes India's far-right Hindu Nationalist government headed by Narendra Modi has banned telecasting and viewing online of a BBC documentary on the 2012 Delhi rape which shocked the nation. The documentary consists interviews of the rapist Mukesh Singh, his lawyers and the victim's parents seems to expose the male dominant nature of Indian society. Indian government is now attempting to ban the documentary worldwide. Critics of the Indian government's action has accused it of not addressing issues women face and instead trying to hide the dirty secrets of its culture from the world. Some Indian websites have also reported that the views expressed by the rapist are echoed by policemen, lawyers and politicians of the nation. So far the government's attempt to ban the video online is with mixed success.
Someone has to teach Modi what "Streisand Effect" means.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So what's the bittorrent name for the file? I've got to grab it just in case the Hindu fanatics win.
Hey India: "Sticking your head in the sand ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away!"
Deal with it.
How can a country that hosts so many of the world's call centers still have no idea how the internet works?
After all, traditional marriages are arranged by the parents, per dowry arrangements and negotiations. Parents of the bribe, I mean bride, must pay life's savings to marry off daughters. You must avoid getting stuck with feeding her and her illegitimate children for your entire life. If you can manage to marry her off, then even if her husband dies first, the custom dictates that she must throw herself on her dead husband's burning corpse as part of the ritual funeral ceremony, If he can't feed you you're better off burned alive then left over to the throngs of dudes. Many female babies seem to suffer greater mortality for some reason that defies standard statistical deviation....
Hopefully you have a "Plan B." One would think, ideally, one of your plans would be to not rape people. I mean, just throwing that out there. After, I dunno, the third or forth news story I was all like "Wow, they're really raping a lot of people in India all of a sudden. Did one of our fraternities start outsourcing or something?" And you guys do know that raping people is bad, right? I mean, based on your reaction to this movie, it does seem like you're aware of that. So maybe try not raping people for a while, see how that goes for you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Perhaps "the cooperation of every government in the world" shall take the form of the Berne Convention. If the video contains anything copyrighted by the Indian government or by a corporation friendly to the Indian government, then anyone hosting the video is liable for copyright infringement. Not all countries recognize fair use to the same extent.
Here is the link.
BBC Full Documentary- 'India's Daughter' on Nirbhaya Delhi Gang Rap | Jyoti singh | HD | Banned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxkMzBqjgw8
An issue that I never cared about suddenly became interesting. Thanks Indian government for stimulating my interest.
And thank you to the people who posted links here.
The rapist's comments in the documentary are pretty shocking - he blames the victim for the rape, for being out at 9PM rather than at home doing house chores. I suspect this perspective isn't unique to this one man and thus the government considers it an embarrassing reflection on the nation as a whole. Maybe that's a good thing.
It was illegal to do that in India a few year before it was illegal for you guys to keep slaves - you should have thought about that before you played the "backwards savages" card.
The current situation is based on current problems that can exist in places other than India (or toga parties in the USA).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The rapist's comments in the documentary are pretty shocking... I suspect this perspective isn't unique to this one man and thus the government considers it an embarrassing reflection on the nation as a whole.
I just finished watching it (after DLing in case it disappears.) I find hints of "honor" and what I've heard about the Middle East and about Islam appearing as well.
.. [that] always needs protection." ... a diamond. It is up to you how you want to keep that diamond in your hand."
a) woman should always be accompanied by members of their family when outside (in public), and
b) need to cover themselves so that strangers won't lose control of their facilities (presumably by their penis.)
Are men so sexually animistic that they can't control themselves after seeing a boob? In this case it seems like the guys were out for an opportunistic "good time" and wanted to teach her a lesson for resisting.
Maybe the idea is that teenagers might be lacking in self-control and so you need to help them along. Completely blaming women and hiding them away does not solve the problem though. But maybe that is the exact procedure to keep the male leaders (family, town, precinct, area, state) in control.
Perp:
"A decent girl won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night."
"A girl is far more responsible for a rape than a boy."
So: It's not my fault, she made me do it to her.
Lawyers:
"A woman means I immediately put the sex in his eyes."
"A female is just like a flower
"In our society, we never allow our girls to come out from the house after 6:30 or 7:30 or 8:30 in the evening with any unknown person" "If very important, she should go outside BUT she should go with a [parental guardian]"
"The women are more precious than
"If my daughter/sister engaged in pre-marital activities, and disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things, I would most certainly take this [person] to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family I would put petrol on her and set her alight."
So: if you let your women out at night unaccompanied, they get what you deserve. And it almost sounds like they're living with wild animals roaming the streets. Well, maybe they (and we) are. Self-control, anyone?
Seems like there's also a hook to "terrorism" and "conforming to society will protect you" here, but I just can't place my finger on it quite yet. "Be somewhat afraid of the general population because they might not be civilized like you are" comes to mind.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
and want safe streets for themselves and their women
Surely you see the irony to referring to women as possessions while ranting about the plight of women.
I'm of Indian descent. I used to live there, and frequently visit. I speak one of the main languages. I'm well aware of their culture.
India is missing 50,000,000 girls. No typo, that's FIFTY MILLION. If you don't believe misogyny is a fundamental part of the national fabric, why don't you tell me WTF happened to these girls?
Here's another way to look at things:
Chance of being killed in Syrian Civil War: 1 in 300
Chance of dying before five years of age if you're a girl in India: 1 in 20
No opinions, those are numbers. If you doubt them, research the latest Indian census, World Bank data on child mortality, wartime data from the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, among many many others.
Is the picture becoming clearer?
To be fair, this kind of publicity creates hugely disproportional view of a country.
I see this all the time on local news sites in Israel. Since 2012, rape case from India get a front page mention -- and absolutely no other kind of news from India! For the past 2 years the average reader, who has no business in India and knows nothing about it, is learning a single fact about a place that holds ~16% of all people -- women are getting raped there.
Will this documentary help in the long run? who can tell (not me).
that the US _wasn't_ a bunch of backwards savages. See, this is a common mistake people make. Assuming because someone takes the moral high ground that they're not willing to admit their faults. As an American let me step in here to say we're just as awful, possibly worse. The stuff we did (and continue to do) to the Middle East and South America (I hear we're back to trying to destabilize Venezuela) makes this crap look like small potatoes. And don't forget our last Vice President brought back torture as a legitimate tool for information gathering.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To be a parent you must be a "parent of someone" it is a term that requires another party. To be a woman you are not a "woman of someone" there is no other party necessary. And hence the usage of "their" is completely different, and if you didn't know that you wouldn't be able to type through the drooling over the keyboard and hence you're being deceptive on purpose. Or maybe someone made an idiotic drool proof keyboard...
Why?
How is that going to change that the under-five mortality rate is India is 1 in 20. And thus if it is 1 in 20 for girls then it must also be 1 in 20 for boys and thus there is no gender component or bias in under-five mortality which is clearly what the post was trying to imply. And no I don't count abortions as murders or put them in mortality rates - but I'm a godless moron headed for hell anyway :)
That it sucks to be a girl in most of the world (by population) is irrelevant to the original claim. Which as far as I can tell was "girl children die at exactly the same rate as boy children in India" - since that's what the cited statistic says.
If girl's do in fact die under age 5 more than boys, then surely there's a better statistic to cite rather than expecting to people to buy and watch a movie.
I also love the "hance of being killed in Syrian Civil War" comparison when numbers for under five mortality in Syria are easily available where the poster for the Indian number from for an actual useful comparison - and yes I realize you are probably not the anonymous coward who was trying to lie about the numbers they knew didn't support their implication.