IP Nuggets

In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 1995, the US Supreme Court held that a colour alone could be registered as a trademark. [1]

Earlier this year, the Italian Parliament passed a law legalizing the sharing of degraded music for non-commercial purposes thereby legitimizing a large fraction of P2P sharing although the law does not seem to have come into force as yet. [2]

Links:
[1] 33 Law and Social Inquiry 173 (2008); web.austin.utexas.edu/law_library/trademark/
[2] arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080201-whoopsitaly-inadvertently-legalizes-some-p2p-music.html

Unexpected Voices

The phone rings. A familiar voice. The last voice you expected to hear. Not the first time you’ve received a call from someone you didn’t think you’d ever hear from.
You pick up the phone. And can’t believe your ears… after all you put him through. He says hello. Your jaw drops and not a sound emanates from you. He thinks there’s a problem with the line, hangs up and calls back. You’re delirious with relief: you haven’t driven him away.
It’s another voice this time. In another lifetime. A voice you love, your feelings so sacred to you that you never publicised them — they required no external validation. The only problem was that you never told the man the voice belongs to how you felt either. You know you’ll always be grateful that he hasn’t chosen to hold that lapse in judgment against you forever despite the pain it caused him.
A third voice: instantly recognisable but which you don’t know how to react to. Once enthusiastically greeted but now painful even to be reminded of. Hearing it takes you by surprise and for all the pain it’s caused you, you have no desire to reciprocate in kind. Once again, you’re speechless albeit for a different reason.

Link: Ulises de la Cruz

I just came across this blog through an FB update from someone I (vaguely) knew years ago in school but who I’m quite sure doesn’t remember me:

Friends of Funde Cruz
http://friendsoffundecruz.blogspot.com/
“Ulises de la Cruz has for many years been supporting the development of his home village in Equador. Ulises donates 10% of his wage to his foundation ‘Funde Cruz’ towards the development of his hometown in Afro-Ecuadorean village Piquincho, in ‘Valle de Shota’ This is a day by day account given by three business students from Cass Business School, of their trials and tribulations during their 15 day fact finding trip to Ecuador.”

He’s also linked to an article from the Beeb about Ulises de la Cruz which talks about how the ‘South American footballer playing in the English Premiership is spending his high salary not on fast cars and big houses, but on rebuilding an entire community where he grew up’.
Talk about one person making a difference!

Damini

I’ve got a film called ‘Damini’ playing on the TV next to me. I read a review of the film and have absolutely no desire to watch it although I suspect I’m going to watch it anyway. The basic story seems to be:

• poor village girl named Damini marries rich urban man
• taunted by her mother-in-law, she makes friends with the maid
• the maid is raped by her brother-in-law and three others in her marital home
• Damini initially unwittingly helps to cover-up the incident
• she later fights for justice for the maid
• while doing this, her in-laws buy everyone in the system who can be bought, she herself is declared mentally unstable and the maid is killed
• she somehow escapes from a mental institution in which she has been dumped because of being supposedly mentally unstable and goes on to continue fighting for justice with the help of a lawyer who’s given up on justice
• she ultimately succeeds primarily because her husband has a change of heart and supports her

Apart from the fact that it’s a little too easy for the story to have been true for me to have any desire watch it, I can’t help but wonder if — as inappropriate as this is to say — it’d have been smarter not to fight for justice. Damini would not have had to go through all that she did go through and, even more importantly, I can’t help but suspect that if there was no such fight, the maid would not have been killed (since she seems to have been killed primarily to ensure that the rapist’s family’s ‘honour’ was not denigrated).
The film ends very neatly with the criminals getting their just deserts but that hasn’t stopped me from wondering if there are times (in real life) when it’s a good idea to cut one’s losses and leave vengeance to God?

Sisters in a Circus

I know that they said that circuses with animals violated animal rights but … am too tired to say anything coherent. Just came across a story about two Bulgarian sisters in a circus which left me stunned:
One was forced to swim in a tank with flesh eating pirhanas and the other was forced into a container where snakes were tossed at her.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080326/od_nm/circus_dc

Treating a Swollen Eyelid

1. Use a hot compress 4 - 6 times a day making sure its not hot enough to scald the eye.
2. Use tea bags / cucumber slices over the eyelid.
3. Boric acid apparently helps (although I have no idea how it helps, how to use it or where to get it).
4. Use cold compresses if there’s an allergic reaction.
5. Don’t use eye make up.
6. See a doctor — there could be an infection, sty, etc. which requires medical attention.

I have no idea if any of the advice above is valid since I picked it up off the Net.

What I do know is that yellowish / greenish concealer can help to disguise discoloured skin (depending on the colour of the discolouration — the rule is to ensure that the colour of the concealer is on the opposite side as the colour of the skin on the colour wheel so that the discolouration is neutralised).

Expected

NOT TO be anywhere around bling because it’s distasteful
NOT TO wear red, scarlet or maroon because it’s cheap
NOT TO focus on your own goals because selfishness is disgusting
NOT TO sit down without crossing your ankles because it’s tawdry
NOT TO be amoral yourself because it’s imperative that you conform to societal norms
NOT TO judge anyone else’s morals because it’s not your place to do so
NOT TO know about anything scandalous because it isn’t respectable
NOT TO complain because nothing yours is yours by right
NOT TO forget that there is much which should be questioned in society because complaisance is unthinkable
NOT TO ask questions in your own life because it’s annoying
NOT TO offer an opinion without being asked for one because it’s almost always inconsequential
NOT TO slouch because that’s excusable only if you’re a jellyfish
NOT TO fall ill because it’s inconvenient for everyone around you
NOT TO make plans because it makes you unavailable if your presence happens to be wanted
NOT TO swear because it’s unseemly
NOT TO drink because it’s undignified
NOT TO substitute good taste with a brand because that’s noveau riche
NOT TO avoid working hard because it’s unacceptable to be mediocre
NOT TO read anything which isn’t a serious academic work or at least literary fiction because frivolty is ludicrous

Anything for Clear Skin

Of all the times women have used (often lethal) products to try to ensure that they had clear skin and bright eyes:

• Aqua Toffana, a deadly poison which caused to its creator to be executed,
• arsenic,
• belladonna,
• chalk,
• lime water,
• mercury,
• sulphur,
• and, among others, white lead,

the 21st century is no better:

• Drosperidone, fourth generation progesterone, OTC?

A Walk

“Don’t hitchhike.

Don’t sit alone by the sea for more than ten minutes.

Stop thinking about watching the sun rise over a field, all by yourself.

Stop thinking about long, leafy walks that lead nowhere.

Stop wondering how the streets looks at midnight, after a drizzle.

Stop…”
I just came across these lines in an old post by Annie Zaidi [1] about street harassment euphemistically known as eve teasing for some reason I’ve never really understood.
There’s a path I love to go for walks along: it’s not out of the way but it is entirely secluded and can give you the feeling of being not in a city even if only for brief moments. Annie’s comment about not thinking of long, leafy walks that lead nowhere reminded me of it.
I love the path but I don’t feel safe walking along it by myself which means that if I am to walk along it, I need to coerce someone into coming along with me (which tends to destroy the feeling of being entirely alone).
The last time I went for a walk there, feeling the way I do, I asked to be accompanied. At the beginning of the path there were about half a dozen watchmen and all of them stared when we approached. The chap I was with seemed a bit unnerved and asked if the area was restricted.
It wasn’t.
It turns out that you can be physically safe by ensuring that you’re not alone. Or you can safeguard your reputation by not being seen heading towards secluded areas with a man. But you can’t do both (even though, in this particular case, even if one was so inclined, I don’t know what in God’s name one would do in an area such as that considering how messy, thorny, and, quite probably, snake-infested it is).
And, no, the solution isn’t to avoid secluded areas altogether because it isn’t just secluded areas which require one to be careful. How many times have you heard of women being ‘eve teased’ on a public road, on a train, in the market, on a bus…
Being safe is not solely about dressing conservatively or about avoiding the stereotypical dangerous places. In fact, as bizarre as this sounds, I’ve had more men stop on streets to ask if I want a lift, to inform me that they want to make ‘fraanship’, or to grope me when I’ve been dressed conservatively (in a sari or a salwaar kameez, my hair pulled back into a neat chignon, and a large bindi on my forehead) than when I’ve dressed in jeans and a shirt.
I’m quite certain that there is no such thing as a place which is inherently safe.

Link:
[1] http://www.anniezaidi.com/2006/03/streets-stories-strategies.html

Special Orders

by Edward Hirsch

I’ve turned on lights all over the house,
but nothing can save me from this darkness
…
Death is a zero hollowed out of my chest.
God is an absence whispering in the leaves.

Hirsch is the poet who cited the late William Matthews on the four subjects of poetry: [2]
1. I went out into the woods today, and it made me feel, you know, sort of religious.
2. We’re not getting any younger.
3. It sure is cold and lonely (a) without you, honey, or (b) with you, honey.
4. Sadness seems but the other side of the coin of happiness, and vice versa, and in any case the coin is too soon spent, and on what we know not what.

Links:

[1] http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2008/03/edward-hirschs.html (Source)
[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5331955
[3] An excerpt from Special Orders: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/display.pperl?isbn=9780307266811&view=excerpt

Communication to the Public

Note: CS (OS) 1096/2007 is listed in the Delhi High Court website as SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. MR. SAMEER KUKHREJA & ANR.. This is not the same name which is mentioned in this article : the judgments section of the Delhi High Court site seems to be down at the moment. (Addendum: Issue resolved.)

---

The case of Super Cassette Industries v. Nirulas Cornerhouse (P) Ltd. in the Delhi High Court deals with infringing the copyright of works which are broadcast via cable (without their copyright being infringed) by subsequently communicating them to the public.
The plaintiff, Super Cassette, is the copyright holder of a number of works many of which it licenses. The defendant, Nirulas, runs restaurants.

The defendant transmitted the plaintiff’s works (which it had received via cable) to its guests without a licence from the plaintiff which caused the plaintiff to allege that its copyright in the works had been infringed. The plaintiff successfully sought an interim injunction against the defendant.

The plaintiff relied on the explanation to Section 2 (ff) of Copyright Act which says that making a work available by simultaneous means of communication in hotels rooms amounts to ‘communication to the public’ and Sections 14, and 51 of the Copyright Act which define copyright and speak of the infringement of copyright.

With reference to Performing Right Society v. Hammonds Bradford Brewery Co. Ltd.,[ (1934) Ch. 121] the plaintiff contended that the provision of a cable channel to guests was analogous to making acoustic presentations to hotel guests through the wireless and that it amounted to ‘communication to the public’.

The plaintiff also cited Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. Telelink [AIR 1989 Bom 331] where it had been held that the broadcasting of content through cable channels to households etc. amounts to public performance.

The defendant first unsuccessfully tried to have the plaint rejected under Order 8 Rule 11 of the CPC and later tried to avoid distinguishing between the cable operator (legally) transmitting signals to it, and its subsequently transmitting those same signals to its guests.

The High Court of Delhi held that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s copyright since Parliament intended ‘to exclude the operation of such categories of [commercial] establishments from the benefit of what are obviously deemed not infringements. Such provisions should receive a restricted interpretation, having regard to the nature of the expressions used. Thus, the Court will not extend the law beyond its meaning to take care of any perceived broader legislative purpose.’

In addition to this, as held in Hubbard v Vosper, [1972 (1) All ER 1072] ‘the court must consider the question of proportions, in the case of a copyright infringement action. Therefore, for instance, the placing of a common television in a motel reception, accessible to all but without keeping a television set, in each hotel room, or placing such a set in a grocery shop for the recreation of the owner, or a wayside restaurant, may not fall within the mischief of the definition of infringement. Proportion in this context, would necessarily imply the nature of the activity of the establishment and the integral connection the infringement complained of has with it’.

Source: Copyright Infringement In Playing Television Channel by Manisha Singh Nair www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58634 and the Delhi High Court website

Legacy

All your secrets. Everything you didn’t share with me. Everything you didn’t want anyone to know. Written out in your own hand. Page after page, all of them belong to me now.
Or is there still much that I know naught of?

The Memory of a Friend

I just came across this letter [1] which a friend seems to have written to a magazine years ago:

“May I correct a small linguistic error in the extremely interesting article, appearing in our May issue, contributed by Sarvashri Ghorpade, Verghese and Mallik ?At the top of page 3 occur words which show the authors to have relied on the basic rule of Latin that “nouns ending in –a are feminine.” Actually, there are exceptions to this rule” eg: ‘nauta’ (or ‘navita’) meaning a sailor, ‘poeta’ meaning a (male or female) poet, and ‘agricola’ meaning a farmer (always in Roman days, a male). ‘Monticola’ is evidently analogous with ‘agricola’ and simply means ‘a chap who lives on a mountain’, NOT a ‘mountain maid’. There is no form ‘agricolus’ or ‘monticolus’.Whether the authors of the Latin language devised these exceptions for the fun of tripping up future generations of schoolboys (as they have often done) I cannot say; but I am sure they would have felt proud to have snared such birds as Ghorpade sandurensis and his two companions.
Thomas Gay”

It sounds just like him.
I also came across the memoirs [2] of John Percival Waterfield (who in 1966 became the Head of Chancery at the High Commission in Delhi) which speak of him in less than flattering terms:

I also came across the memoirs [2] of John Percival Waterfield (who in 1966 became the Head of Chancery at the High Commission in Delhi) which speak of him in less than flattering terms:

Tom, who is still alive as I write, in India, aged 92, was the son of Edward Hope Waterfield, referred to above, known as Odo, and my grandfather William’s second surviving son.
We never saw Tom, who lived somewhere near Bombay, when we were in India from 1966-69. He had deserted his English wife, Barbara, and children, in Cambridge in order to settle near Bombay, living in Indian style, after his retirement from the Indian Civil Service on Partition or soon after. I just remember once seeing him going for a swim in the sea at Dawlish, when I was a boy, and I was staying also at the Clint, his mother’s house. In India I did not feel I had anything sufficiently in common with him to seek him out, and it would not have been easy as it was a long way and we were very fully occupied at the High Commission in Delhi, where I was Head of Chancery or ‘chief of staff’ to John Freeman. … Mrs Pandit, a great Indian lady and distinguished politician, Pandit Nehru’s sister, spoke to us in Delhi most warmly of Tom. I had know Mrs Pandit when she came to Moscow in 1948 as India’s first Ambassador and, as her people knew little or no Russian, and had no experience of entertaining in Moscow, I remember that I helped in, and in fact organized, her first big diplomatic party. Her then First Secretary, to whom I did not warm, was one T N Kaul whom I found again as the ‘Secretary’ or top official of the Department of External Affairs in Delhi in 1966. Though surprisingly affable to me then, I still did not warm to him, and his attitude to British interests was, if not hostile, certainly equivocal. Despite my unenthusiastic views of Tom Waterfield, I have been much impressed and touched by some verses he wrote about his father (Odo) after the latter’s early death which my cousin Ruth Bell, Tom’s younger sister, found and sent to me (or Mary) comparatively recently. I think they are well worth reproducing here if I can find them, which I have not yet done. We have always had close relations if on my part with good-natured laughter at her foibles with Ruth, whose husband Ian Bell was in the Foreign Service at much the same time as myself, having started in the Consular Service.

After his death, I came across several accounts of him that were not entirely pleasant but somehow they didn’t make an iota of difference to me. I knew him when he was an old man, perhaps by then, he’d mellowed considerably although I can’t be sure. What I do know is that I cared about and respected the gentleman I knew to be.

Sources:
[1] Newsletter For Birdwatchers July 1974 Volume 14 (7):10 http://www.indiabirds.com/PDFFiles/PDF/nandi.pdf
[2] http://www.tamburlane.co.uk/resources/JPW_MEMS.PDF

Libel in Fiction

The most famous libel in fiction case is that of Princess Irina Youssoupoff v. MGM [1934] 50 TLR 581 (CA) in which the Princess successfully claimed that she had been defamed in the 1932 movie ‘Rasputin and the Empress’.
The film showed a Princess in it called Natasha having been seduced. The Princess in the film was, however, clearly ‘identifiable’ as Princess Irina Youssoupoff who had in fact been raped and not seduced. One of the defences MGM used was that the Princess had indeed been shown to have been raped and therefore could not be blamed which in turn meant that she had not been defamed. (While this does demonstrate the attitudes towards women which prevailed at the time, that’s something I’ll leave for another day.) Slesser LJ held that the test should not be whether the plaintiff had been exposed to ridicule, hatred and contempt but if — expanding the Parmiter v Coupland definition – the defamation had caused the plaintiff to be shunned and avoided. He thought that the film was defamatory whether it suggested rape or seduction and said:

“I, for myself, cannot see that from the plaintiff’s point of view it matters in the least whether this libel suggests that she has been seduced or ravished. The question whether she is or is not the more or the less moral seems to me immaterial in considering this question whether she has been defamed, and for this reason, that, as has been frequently pointed out in libel, not only is the matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by reason of some moral discredit on her part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that without any moral discredit on her part. It is for that reason that persons who have been alleged to have been insane, or to be suffering from certain disease, and other cases where no direct moral responsibility could be placed upon them, have been held to be entitled to bring an action to protect their reputation and their honour. One may, I think, take judicial notice of the fact that a lady of whom it has been said that she has been ravished, albeit against her will, has suffered in social reputation and in opportunities of receiving respectable consideration from the world. …. When this woman is defamed in her sexual purity I do not think that the precise manner in which she has been despoiled of her innocence and virginity is a matter which a jury can properly be asked to consider.”

The WSJ Law Blog [1] speaking of another case on the issue which has just been filed says:“To make out a libel-in-fiction claim — a somewhat counterintuitive theory in which a plaintiff claims that something that is fictional is not factually accurate — Batra [the plaintiff] must demonstrate that the identities of the real and fictional characters are “so complete that the defamatory material” becomes a “plausible aspect” of the plaintiff’s real life.”
Links:
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/20/libel-in-fiction-claim-rarely-successful-survives-summary-judgment/?mod=WSJBlog
[2] http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/364/

Men Buying Women Drinks

“If at first you don’t succeed, buy her another drink,” or so I’m told the saying goes.
Just wondering:
If you’re a woman who happens to have a particularly high tolerance for alcohol, is it acceptable to allow a man to ply you with alcohol and to then enjoy watching him attempt to conceal disappointment as he empties his wallet while you remain completely unfazed?
Is it self deprecatory? You know he sees you as nothing but a sex object and you’ve decided in some weird way that you’re going to (literally) make him pay for it by allowing him to treat you as just that.
Is it incredibly arrogant to do so? Who are you kidding: you know that you think the guy is scum for not being able to see anything in you beyond the superficial.
Is it self destructive? Honestly, can you retain your self respect if you stoop low enough to allow your own conduct to be dictated by motives as reproachable as those of the other person involved?

Guest Post: Real Nightmares

This post was written by Aban Mukherji in 2006. It speaks of a domestic violence incident which involved an acid attack and describes the author’s reaction to it.
How can one deal with experiences that cross the borders of language?
Yesterday my friend Vijaya, an experienced medical social worker at the J—- Hospital, baldly described the trauma of a patient. The ’sweet-looking young girl’ was brought from Pune to the J—- Hospital in Mumbai in a Sumo, crouched on her hands and knees on the floor of the vehicle for four hours. “She couldn’t sit,” said Vijaya, matter of factly, “because her buttocks were on fire.” I felt a band of steel grip my forehead, even before Vijaya started narrating the sequence of events, which brought this girl-wife across the threshold of the hospital. “A few weeks ago, her husband, who periodically tortured her, threw acid on her private parts, then inserted a bottle of Vicks VapoRub into her vagina before having sex with her. You should have seen her condition two weeks ago. It was horrible!” and Vijaya’s face puckered in a ghastly grimace. “Her pelvic region and buttocks are covered with huge sores and boils. But today she seems a little better. She will pull through”.
“Her pain was so great that she barely remembered crawling out of the house on her hands and knees. Her neighbours refused to come to her aid. How she reached her sister’s home is anybody’s guess. The police refused to register an FIR and S—- Hospital closed their doors on her.
In desperation she was brought all the way from Pune to J—- Hospital – her private parts, a mass of burnt flesh.” “But her face is so pretty and untouched,” she concluded. “And nothing has been done to arrest the husband. That psychopath is still at large! Dr. D—-, the head of the Gynaecological Dept is reluctant to allow reporters to interview the girl though the —- correspondent has managed to see her in Ward 32 of the hospital!”
After Vijaya left, my mother and I watched part of Schindler’s List. How could one put into words what the victims of brutality on such a vast scale had suffered? Even personal suffering, on a very modest scale, seems to freeze one into silence. Perhaps Vijaya’s tale, and Schindler’s List together proved too strong a dose for me and the horror brought on the old, familiar, nightmare which used to haunt me a few years ago, when I had come face to face with a woman whose face was a ghastly mesh of scars, eyeballs bulging out of their sockets, a mouth without lips with protruding teeth, cheeks, neck and shoulders a mass of raw, burnt flesh—the victim of an acid attack. She was standing on the overbridge spanning Queen’s Road. As I hurried past her, our eyes interlocked. I could not fathom their expression as they bored into mine. Was it pain, despair, detachment or utter numbness? I stumbled down the steps, feeling giddy and nauseous.
That night I dreamt that acid had been thrown on my face. I could not recognize myself. I knew I was me, but who was I? ” I know who I am.” I went on proclaiming to myself, hysterically. But I could not identify myself with that ghastly image and if I could not accept that image as myself, then, I was not ‘I’. In my dream, I distinctly remember covering myself with a sheet from head to foot. If I could not see myself and no one could see me, then, perhaps, I could be me. I awoke feeling hot and feverish, grateful to see my face unscarred.
Last night, I again dreamt of an acid attack. This time I was given a choice—your face or your vagina. I shielded my face with both arms, screaming, begging, pleading to spare my face. If my face went “I” would be snuffed out. I woke up with the shrill ring of the alarm before I could clearly articulate my choice. I lay quietly in the dark, knowing I would protect my face at all cost because I would not be able to bear the rejection reflected in the eyes of others. What could be covered and hidden could be denied but the denial of oneself by others would be unbearable.
Published with the author’s permission.

Personal Safety for Survivors of Rape

Excerpts from a post by Marcella Chester at abyss2hope:

“[S]ome rape survivors unfortunately become repeat rape victims with different perpetrators. …. This is more than random bad luck. …. The trauma of rape can leave victims disoriented and defenseless.

…. My safety is a higher priority than some man’s hurt feelings. Any man who demands that I put his feelings above my safety is only reinforcing my reasons to distrust him. ….

Reliable allies don’t undermine a survivor’s hyper vigilance or ask to be exempted from those viewed with less trust than before a rape. ….

Because of the trauma rape victims have experienced and the muddiness that can come from that trauma many rape victims may question their perceptions. Their rapists have a clear motivation for trying to distort reality and they have the benefit of not being traumatized. ….

[A]fter my first rape … [s]everal men told me flat out that they wouldn’t touch me even if was consenting as long as I was jail bait. Some men didn’t have this level of ethical behavior and took my passivity which came with ineffective coping mechanisms as permission to use my body. …. Also I had learned that rape didn’t hurt as much if I didn’t try to fight it.

During my teenage years there was only one guy who required enthusiastic consent and verification with a clear opportunity for me to safely change my mind. Now I won’t settle for anyone less respectful or less ethical. ….

It is the vulnerability due to trauma which brings out so many predators. …. Because the rape survivor may still be lost in the trauma which follows rape, alcohol and overt violence may not be needed.

Quietly raping a sober survivor who barely knows which way is up is real violence."

Read the whole post: abyss2hope.blogspot.com/2008/03/advice-for-rape-survivors-personal.html (It’s worth it: these excerpts constitute only about 1/8th of the original.)

Surviving rape is difficult. Surviving it a second time around can be devastating not just because of the rape in itself but because it can make the victim wonder, on one hand, if there is something inherently wrong with her to cause her to have been raped, if she provoked the attack in some way, if she was to blame.
And on the other hand, the fact that the second rape may not have been as violent as the first because of her being relatively passive possibly due to being too disoriented or too frightened to fight back could, in a culture which treats only violent rape as rape, quite easily cause her to begin to question whether she’s making a mountain out of a molehill, whether she has been raped at all.

IP Shells

1. compfight.com allows you to search through Flickr for pictures with a CC licence.
2. The Scots call plaintiffs ‘Pursuers’ and defendants ‘Defenders’. Interim injunctions are ‘Interim indictments’ and Scottish decisions on passing off are more fun to read than their English counterparts. (Through IPKat)
3. “Long before DRM-cracking and Creative Commons, thinkers like Gutenberg, Kant and Locke started the freedom of information debate. A new site archives their really old ideas,” says Matt Ransford writing about a new website called ‘Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)‘ which is ‘a digital archive of primary sources on copyright from the invention of the printing press (c. 1450) to the Berne Convention (1886) and beyond’.
4. “Israel has informed the US government that it won’t enforce Digital Rights Management (DRM), nor will she enforce Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to nanny content providers, to ensure that copyright material isn’t posted,” says Michael Factor.

Plain Legal Writing

“Labelling something respectful (or lacking doubt) doesn’t make it so - and almost invariably betrays the opposite,” says Peter Wainman. I couldn’t agree more. If you want to be respectful, don’t begin by saying, ‘with all due respect’ and then proceed to annihilate the person your invective is directed at. And if you want your writing to be doubt-free, write it so that it is; there is no reason to add a two-page long sentence to remove doubts (especially if the doubts are only imaginary).
Also, if there’s one thing which really annoys me every time I read a legal document it’s that I invariably have to make my way through numerous archaic and, possibly, technical phrases which either mean very little or which have simple alternatives in contemporary English.
Kevin of Prosaic Shades of Gray says:

“That lay people ought to be given the opportunity to become better informed on said statutes and precedential opinions is an undeniable entitlement that said time-wasting, English language butchering, hide-and-go-seeking-with-the-legal-issues assholes ought to have respected in the past, and ought to respect in the present and the future. The respondee, hitherto described as KZ, does not appreciate having to spend twenty minutes reading a single page. Said respondee cannot believe that there has been a handful of judges and lawmakers in certain jurisdictions that have written clumsy opinions and statutes employing the hereinbefore described ponderous prose well into the 1950s. But respondee has over two years left of law school, so he may well eventually discover other opinions and statutes written in the manner so described that date even later than the previously mentioned date above.”

The Plain English Campaign speaks of the problem in plain English at plainenglish.co.uk/drafting.htm.
Also, the National Adult Literacy Agency, Ireland provides ‘A Plain English Guide to Legal Terms‘ which explains 1400 legal words and phrases as a free pdf document at nala.ie/publications/listing/20051101163023.html while the Scottish Government provides a booklet on plain language and legislation at scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/02/17093804/7.

Colin Read

This picture was uploaded on to Flickr August 27, 2007 by IreneKaoru and published under a CC Licence.
Related reading : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/24/ukcrime.gender

About Judging Women …and Rambling On

This post began as a response to Nita’s comments…
Thank you for your comments.
I’ve never understood why women are sometimes so nasty towards each other either. In fact, in my own life, many of the cruelest things I’ve heard said about women are by other women in situations where the men I interact with quite simply wouldn’t say anything simply to avoid being rude / inappropriate –- many of my male acquaintances, for example, do not use language which is ‘coarse’ in front of me and certainly wouldn’t dream of using words like bitch / slut etc. within my hearing (although there is no doubt in my mind that they do use them when I’m out of earshot).
I too doubt that men are as judgmental about other men although I think that that may have to do with men being allowed more leeway in general. So even if most men allow other men the ordinary liberties which all men are allowed without making any special exceptions, what it amounts to is men being able to ‘get away with’ more, so to speak.
It seems to me that most men very clearly divide women into categories; two categories to be specific: one of sluts, whores, etc. and the other of sisters, mothers, etc.; one category which they fail to treat with even the most basic courtesy and the other which they respect (or claim to respect).
One of the explanations I’ve come across to explain why women are so harsh on each other is because they know that it is extremely easy to go from being treated with respect to not being treated with respect — all it could take is something like having one partner too many — and it is this knowledge that not only makes them realize that their own position is precarious but also encourages them to do whatever it takes to maintain it and denigrate those who fail to do so. After all, minus financial independence, in practical terms, the difference could quite easily determine whether or a woman has a roof over her head.
As far as feminism goes, I dislike having the term ‘feminist’ with all the negative connotations associated with it being applied to me because I don’t see myself believing in anything other than that which the legal and social systems in most parts of the world profess to believe: that people — whether they be men or women — should be treated equally, non-abusively and with respect.
I don’t know if feminism has got a bad name simply because some feminists tend to be, well, rabid, or if speaking badly of both feminism and feminists is simply how many men have chosen to respond to women who assert themselves.
Personally, I’ve got a lot of really nasty mail from people who simply don’t like what I think because they believe that women should necessarily stay at home, cook, clean and have children. Also, one thing which once got me a little worried is seeing some of these people coordinate with each other online, discuss what they’ve each been saying to people they disapprove of, create formats in which to send mail to such people and encourage each other to mail them. Seeing that happen was the first time I realised what it must be like to be a child and have pedophiles coordinate with each other in reference to one — I’m not equating myself with a child in that position in any way or saying that any of men who’ve mailed me are criminal, I’m only saying that they can be very well-organised and that their organisation can be overwhelming (not to mention intimidating).

Related reading:

[1] Judging a Magazine by its Cover: How Women are Defined : http://mediacrit.wetpaint.com/page/Judging+a+Magazine+by+its+Cover:+How+Women+are+Defined?t=anon[2] What Women Lawyers Really Think of Each Other : http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/what_women_lawyers_really_think_of_each_other/

Slut Alert !?

I have no idea why I’m posting this other than because my jaw quite literally dropped when I read this comment by someone who used a woman’s name (in response to part of another comment which was taken out of context) about a lady in which she (?) said:

“…I mean, I’m like, this is a scandal, like. She’s a total slut. I mean like, she opened her crotch for FIVE DIFFERENT men!!! Hello!! Slut alert people!!! It’s so cool that well meaning people like you and your friend are informing everyone about the true colors of this cow. What a slut! Anyways, I’m off to sip on my latte. See you laters…”

Of all the smug women I’ve come across, I’m quite sure that this one takes the cake.
There are, of course, a number of theories which explain why women are so harsh on each other and most of them have to do with the oppressed becoming oppressors. Somehow, I’m not certain that Freire or anyone else can possibly explain (much less excuse) statements such as this from women who appear to belong to the educated upper-class, sip on latte (as opposed to drinking coffee as lesser mortals do) and like, well, talk like teenagers (although, presumably, they’re not).
As I’ve said earlier, I’ve never completely understood why women are so judgmental towards each other.
I remember once watching a war movie with an acquaintance in which a young woman who initially could not take care of her baby because she was in shock later managed to do so only by going into some sort of emotional paralysis.
The lady who was watching the film with me first condemned her for not taking care of the child and later on, for being too ‘matter-of-fact’ and showing no reaction to the carnage all around her. Both ways, she was deemed to be callous and consequently, worthless.
Her reactions left me stunned and it wasn’t just because they were so harsh; I think it was primarily because no matter what the young woman in the film did, she somehow wound up being in the wrong.
Moving away from reel life into real life, it seems sad to me that we seem to belong to a society where where women are often left accountable for things they have no reason to apologize for even to people who are not normally unkind and who have no intention of being hurtful or being cruel.
Link: http://www.thevoiceinmyhead.com/2008/03/14/so-whos-to-blame-for-what-happened-to-scarlett-keeling/#comment-34040

Why Does She Stay?

The Navhind Times [1] reported that a man named Motiar was sentenced to just eight months in jail for attempting to murder his wife, Tumpa Bibi, ostensibly because she pleaded that he be let off and the court believed that there existed the possibility of their living a happy life together. He had set her on fire and left her with 36% burns just 28 days into their marriage according to the paper.
Personally, I think that every time a woman decides to stay with an abusive man, it’s an example of hope triumphing over experience (though not in the sense Dr. Johnson meant it). In one of the books in the Princess series, Jean Sasson and her anonymous collaborator had said something to the effect of: Once a dog’s let you see its tail crooked, don’t expect it to straighten it out because it won’t. I couldn’t agree more.
In an article by Evan Stark called ‘The Entrapment Enigma‘ [2] in the OUP USA blog, the author said:

“The psychiatric establishment in the 1970s believed women brought abuse on themselves because they were “masculine,” “frigid,” “overemotional” with “weakened ties to reality,” or had “inappropriate sexual expression.” But by the late 1980s, the “myth of masochism” and other transparent accounts that blamed the “wife-beater’s wife” for her abuse had been widely discredited, in no small part because of the work of feminist mental health professionals . Empirical work by psychologists and social workers had demonstrated that battered women had a better sense of reality than their assailants and, compared to nonbattered women, were actually more “social,” more “sympathetic,” less “masculine” though not necessarily more feminine, exhibited greater ego strength, and employed a greater range of strategies to change their situation than nonbattered women in distressed relationships.”

The question which has remained, however, is why battered woman stay in an abusive relationships. In her book ‘Trauma and Recovery’, Judith Lewis Herman wrote, “Prolonged, repeated trauma, by contrast, occurs only in circumstances of captivity. When the victim is free to escape, she will not be abused a second time; repeated trauma occurs only when the victim is a prisoner, unable to flee, and under the control of the perpetrator.”
Being unable to flee, to use the author’s words, I suspect, is a result of four factors:
1. Practical Difficulties
such as being financially dependant on the abuser and having nowhere to live
2. Social Conditioning
such as believing that a woman’s value as an individual is derived from her ability to ‘keep’ a man which is reinforced by living in a societies where women will be looked down on for supposedly failing to do so
3. Personal Beliefs such as those where a woman is unable to believe that she is worthy of being treated with either respect or kindness as a result of having had her self-esteem torn to shreds by being abused
4. Institutional Responses
such as finding it difficult to convince police to file charges against the perpetrator, not having access to shelters, knowing that courts are unlikely to convict the perpetrator.
Knowing that women may have reasons (which seem entirely sensible) for staying in abusive situations though doesn’t stop me from feeling ill every time I hear about a woman who has actually done so.

Links:
[1] http://www.navhindtimes.com/articles.php?Story_ID=031755
[2] http://blog.oup.com/2007/06/violence/

Recognition to Transsexuals

I just came across a piece in today’s Times of India which says that the Government of Tamil Nadu’s Civil Supplies Department has decided to allow transsexuals to identify themselves using the letter ‘T‘ while applying for ration cards. I couldn’t find a link to the article on their website although I did find an article which deals with the response to the government’s action. [1]
While looking for the link, I discovered that in 2004, the Madras High Court had directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to inform it ‘about the action being taken on a circular from the Election Commission about issuance of identity cards to ‘aravanis’ (eunuchs)’. [2]
I don’t know much about about the rights (or lack thereof) of sexual minorities but I was nonetheless very surprised to see this news come out of Tamil Nadu since I’ve always thought of it as a particularly conservative state. However, when I thought about it, I realised that that opinion is based on what little I’ve seen of people from the state, and every single person I know is from just one caste.
(The reason I know their caste is because, amazingly enough, they’ve all told me their caste within days of my first meeting them. They’re all educated and they’re all phenomenally proud of their caste. So much for social integration!)

Links:

[1] timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Response_to_TN_govt_scheme_overwhelming/articleshow/2870041.cms[2] timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/540464.cms

Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams

The transcript of a talk by a professor at Carnegie Mellon, Randy Pausch, who had, at the time, been told that he had only a few months to live (due to suffering from pancreatic cancer).He speaks about what he’s learnt and what he’s come to believe during his life in the talk.
A must read: Randy Pausch . Last Lecture from cmu.edu

Sex Positive Feminism

I just came across the term Sex Positive Feminism in reference to feminists who say that they are ok with porn and am wondering what in God’s name it’s supposed to mean. That feminists who aren’t ‘sex positive‘ are have something against sex? That being a feminist automatically implies that you’re ’sex negative’ so you have to specifically say that you’re not?
I dislike porn and everything associated with it — the degradation of women, the objectification, the coercion, etc. — and I’m not sure how it’s possible to be enthusiastic about women’s rights but not be anti-porn.

Youth

Rolling down a hill over green grass. Sitting by the canal, our feet almost touching the water. Swinging on banyan trees. Climbing mango trees. Making houses with walls of hay. Playing house. Stroking Black Beauty.
Lego. Jewellery. High heels. Long gowns. Make up. Manicures. Jigsaw puzzles. Plaster of Paris models. Paint. Embroidery. Music.

• Laughter …because there could have been nothing else.
• Fearlessness …because the thought that anything could go wrong was non-existent.
• Hope …because disappointment was unknown.
• Receptiveness …beause everything was new.
• Spiritedness …because rectitude had not made its presence felt.
• Comfort …because being judged was an alien concept.
• Confidence …because self-esteem was intact.
• Provocativeness …because vulnerability had never been experienced.
• Generosity …because nothing else had ever been contemplated.

Remember what you saw then. Don’t look at what the years have now left you to see.

Grief

Late at night, I sometimes think of you when the day is done and I know that I should sleep. Dreams then come to my rescue and remind me of what it was like to be with you.
The morning after, the memories refuse to fade and I wish that I had not dreamt of you. That I had not remembered.
Because I’m left to face the present. Alone.
There are so many things I wanted to tell you. That I didn’t. And the sad thing is that I don’t know why I didn’t say them. I’ve learnt, too late, that there is no inappropriate time to tell someone that you care for them. That there is no reason to feel ashamed for doing so. That nothing is as sacred as love.

Lying

An Italian court, the Court of Cassation which is the highest appeal court in the country, primarily comprising elderly male judges said that it is acceptable for women to lie about having committed adultery to the police in some cases since ‘the fact of having an affair is a circumstance that could cause damage to her honour in the minds of her family and friends’.This is apparently the same court which said (in 1999) that women wearing tight jeans could not be raped because such jeans cannot be removed without their consent although that ruling was later rescinded. At the time, the court had 410 male judges and 10 female judges. [5]

Links:
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/3/08/witaly208.xml
[2] http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx?id=723004
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7284134.stm
[4] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3503999.ece
[5] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E0D7133AF935A25751C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=

Crime Against Women

Incidentally, I’ve revived the NotJustStatistics blog which I ran till 2006. I’m not entirely certain why since it seems like an exercise in fultility but here it is anyway:

Four Dimensional Vertigo

at http://4dvertigo.wordpress.com/

For those of you who’ve never seen the blog, it primarily contains links to articles which deal with crime against women in India although it focusses on cases which involve Sections 498 A and 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. I try to include the name and the age of the woman involved in each case.I don’t update it very frequently but if you come across a story you’d like to see included, please mail it to me. And if, for some reason, the blog annoys you, please do not mail me. Just to be clear, I don’t want to hear from anyone who belongs to a group that calls itself ‘Saving Indian Family / Society / Husbands / Marriages / Culture’ , ‘Injured Husbands’ , ‘NRI Victims’ or anything else along those lines.While I do realise that the Section i.e. 498 A contains no provision to ensure that women don’t lie, I don’t see that in itself as a reason to do away with the law entirely.

Standing Woman with Three Pink

I was a bit puzzled whe I first saw the title. It turns out that it’s the name of a painting by Frederick Stuart Church (1842 - 1924).He was an American artist who did not visit Europe till he was quite old and apparently thought that American art had little to learn from anyone else.Rather a different take from the music world which tried to create American Classical Music when they found they had none worth speaking of by importing a Czech composer for a while.

Meeting God

Quoting David Bernstein from the Volokh Conspiracy:

[M]y great-grandmother …. used to say, in her native Yiddish, “If I ever get to meet God, I’ll grab him by the neck and tear his beard out one hair at a time.”

Link: volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_02-2008_03_08.shtml#1205032972

IP in the Design of a Dress

I just came across a reference to this case in two media reports [1], [2]. I couldn’t find the actual judgment although I have to admit that I didn’t spend too much time searching for it. The report in the SMH says:“The case has ended with a victory - and an award of $17,500 damages - for Melbourne fashion label Review over the Sydney company behind fashion labels Charlie Brown and Lili.Justice Christopher Jessup found that the Lili dress sold in Sydney had been copied from the Review dress.”
Links:
[1] http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/what-the-frock-a-designers-costly-dressing-down/2008/03/08/1204780131643.html
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/news/life–style-home/the-fashion-swindle/2008/03/08/1204780127303.

Memory

I’d written (and published) this ages ago:

The Girl in Hyacinth Blue. There were those who called her ‘Morning Shine’. She sits by a window with sunlight gently sweeping over her. Her serenity as the world passes by her seems overwhelming. Can anyone ever do that in real life? Blood seeping on to the floor; thicker than water, it does not spread out, only to merge again to form grotesque but interesting patterns as it spills over. Distorted reflections make their appearance in water like that. Hoping to be able to decipher a meaning which, in your heart, you know doesn’t even exist in the strange aberrations strewn on the dark black granite around you, you stare at them for what seems like an aeon and thank God for them. You do not want to see reality: it is too bleak. Hallucinations and lies are your respite from pain. Anything seems easier than the truth, and almost everything is.The patterns look like modern art if you stretch your imagination far enough except for the fact that you’re certain that they’ve been randomly created by a lunatic. You can almost hear his raucous laughs echoing in the background.The laughter doesn’t stop and you begin to realize that it isn’t your imagination playing tricks at all. You have to go back and face them: after all, they personify what your life has become. ‘The Girl in Hyacinth Blue’ never was anything more than a novel. There still is blood mixed with water on the bathroom floor as you begin to make your way towards the door.

Also, here’s one of my favourite pieces on relationships: http://www.authorzone.com/view_stories.php?storyid=

Women’s Day

Today is the International Women’s Day, or so I’m told. Personally, I don’t really see the point of days like this. I don’t see the point of organising lectures which involve smug pseudo-activists promoting themselves. I don’t really know what marches are expected to achieve. And, like Debs, neither am I sure how doing things like making postcards helps much.
This, however, is an idea I love:
“Victims at risk of serious domestic violence are being given alarm pendants that summon police and can record conversations or attacks.”
[Victims can activate the alarm which automatically alerts the monitoring service which in turn informs police comms (communications centre) of the situation. Once the alarm is activated, all sound is recorded by the monitoring service thereby providing potential evidence.]
At least this has the potential difference to make a tangible difference in a woman’s life.
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4430221a10.html

High Heels

I adore high heels. Yes, I know that they’re bad for your legs and that they do nothing good for your back. And I did read the news of a study [1] recently about how they could help keep pelvic floor muscles in shape along with the feminist response to it: who cares if high heels help keep precisely those muscles which men are most interested in in shape at the cost of harming other parts of one’s body? (Incidentally, the study in question was conducted by a woman: Dr Maria Cerruto.)
But despite the fact that I love high heels, the story of a race in Amsterdam with competitors wearing stilettos [2] left me nonplussed. And made me think that Dutch roads must be incredibly well maintained; God knows, I wouldn’t dream of walking on an Indian road in stilettos much less running on one unless I actually wanted to break an ankle (or two).
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7225828.stm
[2] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_fe_st/odd_stiletto_run

Doctors Assuming Marriage

Kerryn Goldsworthy has a post on her blog entitled ‘Don’t call me Mrs‘. It’s an issue which annoys the life out of me. Her post is primarily about telemarketers etc. getting it wrong but what really bothers me is not so much telemarketers who make assumptions but doctors and nurses who do so.
For example, walk in to for a gynaecological exam. and find that you’re automatically addressed as Mrs. and if you happen to correct whoever’s talking to you, you’ll find that you simply won’t get the tests you need done because it quite simply doesn’t occur to the idiots that one does not need to be married to be in an intimate relationship. And if you do happen to say that you are despite not being married, God help you if you don’t have very thick skin.
I hadn’t realised how annoying it could be till my former doctor in England sent me a letter (followed up by another one six months later) asking me to get some tests done just so that I would have some base figures to check against ones in the future if need be. I quite simply didn’t manage to get the tests done though because every doctor I went to came up with some variation of ‘but we generally don’t do any tests for unmarried girls’. (I still look like a school-child.)
I don’t know if the unwillingness had something to do with virginity or if it was quite simply downright stupidity. Either way, it left me fuming. At one point, I thought of claiming that I was married but, by then, I was so angry that I don’t think I would have been able to pull it off.
Telemarketers, however, have not been too much of a problem for me: almost all such calls are from banks and not one of them has any desire to touch a lawyer, would-be-lawyer or anyone else who is even remotely associated with the legal system with a bargepole.
Links:
[1] http://pavlovblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/dont-call-me-mrs.html

Work Wear

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal law blog discussed whether associates [at law firms] are too freewheeling with fashion [1] following the publication of this article. [2]
I'm not sure why the WSJ has turned it into an issue at all: surely, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to know that, as unfair as it may be, you will, to some extent, be judged by your clothes or to realise that how you use that knowledge to your advantage (if at all you want to) is entirely up to you.
Links:
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/01/31/are-associates-too-freewheeling-with-fashion/
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120175142140831193.html

Opera Singer Dies

Giuseppe Di Stefano, who was once Maria Callas’ partner and who was the artist Luciano Pavarotti modelled himself after, died yesterday at the age of 86.
Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/nyregion/04distefano.html?ref=music
[2] http://music.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,2261836,00.html

New Business Models

Copyright, as it’s manifested itself in today’s world isn’t working too well. Some companies have been aggressively protecting their intellectual property primarily by suing infringers left, right and centre. So far, for the most part, they’ve failed miserably when it comes to preventing infringement — or piracy as they often call it.
Some companies seem to have realised that traditional business models need to be changed by allowing greater access to their intellectual property. I don’t know of companies which have simply given up all claim to their copyright but there are companies which seem to be exploring ways to reduce infringement which don’t involve dragging infringers to court.
In India, Moser Baer seems to have begun doing this by offering inexpensive VCDs and DVDs of films.
Recently, Random House offered an entire book as a pdf download — Beautiful Children by Charles Bock — without charge for a limited time hoping to generate interest in the book and hoping that those who read the book online would want to own a traditional copy of it.
And now, The Guardian reports:
“Penguin is planning to offer audiobooks that are free of digital copyright protection technology, which will allow buyers to play them on any digital device, dismissing fears that they could become the latest target for online pirates.”
None of these companies are giving up their copyright and moving towards more placing more material in the public domain. However, they do seem to be realising that their current business models are not working too well and that they are fighting a losing battle against infringement.

Link: What is Fair Use?

Title 17 of the USC speaks of fair use as follows:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights:Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factorsto be considered shall include —(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or isfor nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. [4]

Quoting entirely from a blog I just came across:
http://whatisfairuse.blogspot.com/

“In connection with Peter Friedman’s Legal Analysis & Writing Course at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, the students are writing cross-motions for summary judgment in a fictional lawsuit brought by ASCAP and the owners of the copyright to “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be).”
The Plaintiffs (represented by half of my students) allege infringement of their copyright in Que Sera, Sera by the KLF, the creators of a recording entitled “K Cera Cera.”
K Cera Cera (mp3) purports to be a recording of the Red Army Choir singing an amalgam of Que Sera, Sera and John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s Happy Xmas (the War is Over). The Defendants also include Arista Records, the U.S. distributor of K Cera Cera, and Arista’s corporate parent, Sony BMG. The second half of my students, of course, represents the Defendants.”

Hinduism and Homosexuality

I just came across a post [1] by a lady imagining what her life might have been like had she been gay. She also speaks of a friend whom she calls Stella saying:

“Stella, at least, had to have really believed that was who she was meant to be.She still believes in God, the last I heard. She just has a lot of questions. It’s just too bad that there aren’t very many churches where they’d let her in long enough to ask them.”

It made me wonder what Hinduism says about homosexuality –- I’ve never heard anything at all being quoted against it from any Hindu scripture. However, a quick search reveals:

• There is a lone verse in the Manusmriti that reads: “A twice-born man [from an upper caste] who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.” [2]
• The Arthashastra too apparently imposes a minor fine on a man who has ayoni [non-vaginal] sex (4.13.236). [3]
• The medical text, Sushruta Samhita mentions two different types of homsexual men: kumbhika and asekya.
• And the Naradsmriti apparently says that a homosexual man is unfit for marriage to a woman. [4] Well, obviously!
• Although the Kama Sutra states that homosexual sex is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts. [5]

In addition to this, Hindu religious art and mythology have several depictions of and references to homosexuality right from in the temples of Khajuraho to the tale of Bhagiratha Maharaja, an Indian king born of two women.
That being said, most Hindus I know are deeply homophobic; it’s not a subject I can claim to have any knowledge worth speaking of on but I suspect that that’s one of the effects having had the British make homosexuality a criminal offence during the Raj and never having had the law changed (even though the Brits changed a similar law in their own country in 1967 [6]).
The law in question, Section 377 of the IPC says:Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
After all, Hinduism in itself doesn’t seem to deeply disapprove of homosexuality: the religion may not be particularly enthusiastic about it but it doesn’t unequivocally prohibit it either. And this is not the only instance where British laws have left a legacy in India of misgivings such as these in what are essentially personal matters …think of the restitution of conjugal rights, a concept alien to India which was introduced by the British and which has caused much hardship over the years.
Links:

[1] http://shushnow.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/what-if-i-were-gay/
[2] http://www.slate.com/id/2102443/
[3] http://www.galva108.org/hinduism.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Hinduism
[5] http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/hinduism.htm
[6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=187403

Hinduism and Homosexuality

I just came across a post [1] by a lady imagining what her life might have been like had she been gay. She also speaks of a friend whom she calls Stella saying:

“Stella, at least, had to have really believed that was who she was meant to be.She still believes in God, the last I heard. She just has a lot of questions. It’s just too bad that there aren’t very many churches where they’d let her in long enough to ask them.”

It made me wonder what Hinduism says about homosexuality –- I’ve never heard anything at all being quoted against it from any Hindu scripture. However, a quick search reveals:

• There is a lone verse in the Manusmriti that reads: “A twice-born man [from an upper caste] who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.” [2]
• The Arthashastra too apparently imposes a minor fine on a man who has ayoni [non-vaginal] sex (4.13.236). [3]
• The medical text, Sushruta Samhita mentions two different types of homsexual men: kumbhika and asekya.
• And the Naradsmriti apparently says that a homosexual man is unfit for marriage to a woman. [4] Well, obviously!
• Although the Kama Sutra states that homosexual sex is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts. [5]

In addition to this, Hindu religious art and mythology have several depictions of and references to homosexuality right from in the temples of Khajuraho to the tale of Bhagiratha Maharaja, an Indian king born of two women.
That being said, most Hindus I know are deeply homophobic; it’s not a subject I can claim to have any knowledge worth speaking of on but I suspect that that’s one of the effects having had the British make homosexuality a criminal offence during the Raj and never having had the law changed (even though the Brits changed a similar law in their own country in 1967 [6]).
The law in question, Section 377 of the IPC says:Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
After all, Hinduism in itself doesn’t seem to deeply disapprove of homosexuality: the religion may not be particularly enthusiastic about it but it doesn’t unequivocally prohibit it either. And this is not the only instance where British laws have left a legacy in India of misgivings such as these in what are essentially personal matters …think of the restitution of conjugal rights, a concept alien to India which was introduced by the British and which has caused much hardship over the years.
Links:

[1] http://shushnow.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/what-if-i-were-gay/
[2] http://www.slate.com/id/2102443/
[3] http://www.galva108.org/hinduism.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Hinduism
[5] http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/hinduism.htm
[6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=187403

The News

Reading the RBI Act. The news playing in the background. Not really paying attention to it but this is what I’ve heard of in the last 40 minutes or so:

Young British girl who supposedly drowned was apparently raped and murdered — her mother claims that the police are trying to cover up the crime

30 year old woman shackled for seven years by her parents supposedly because of being mentally ill

Man married 6 women in 3 years to torture them for dowry with the aid of his parents
Woman killed due to domestic violence

Ugh!

Italian Obscenity Law

“Italy’s highest appeals court has ruled that it is a criminal offence for men to touch their groins in public,” says ABC News.
I’m not thrilled about the existence of obscenity laws as I’ve said before. Nonetheless, this is one law I wouldn’t have minded seeing come into existence in India…

Links:
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/29/2176516.htm
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/italy.internationalcrime
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/world/europe/28briefs-genital.html?em&ex=1204347600&en=04df7558a8fcd316&ei=5087%0A
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/28/wcrotch128.xml