ANNALS OF JURIS-IMPRUDENCE (or “WHADDA’FUDGE, YOUR dis-HONOR!!”).

RAPE – ANOTHER 4-LETTER WORD?

I just came across this classic ball-buster; an old article “A SAGA OF DETERMINATION” by B. Murlidhar Reddy of FRONTLINE (Volume 22 – Issue 15, Jul 16 – 29, 2005), which should have been more appropriately entitled “A SAGA OF DESECRATION”. See Link http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2215/stories/20050729001605500.htm

Ponying up on the issue, once upon a time, or so the story goes … a hapless victim approached the Paki Bench with a complaint that she had been raped. The learned judge, blessed with many years of Confucian wisdom and many more years of checkered experience in expeditiously disposing such matters , ruled “Rape impossible because woman with skirt up can run faster than man with pants down”! (Who’s to argue with a judge, eh?). In a related case involving a 90-yr old lady, His ‘Honor’ remarked, “Punish him? Lady, you should go THANK HIM!”

With the farcical histrionics indigenous to the prosecutorial circus trying Rape cases and the obvious futility in carrying out rape convictions in Pakistan, is there any wisdom to the ol’ Confucian adage, “If rape inevitable, lie back and enjoy it”?

So much for Rape “Jokes”, which is no joke at all! I had occasion to interview some unfortunate male victims who were routinely raped in prison. Amazing thing is these were some of the more muscular, well built “manly” specimens one wouldn’t even dream of engaging in eye contact let alone buggery – for fear of waking up and apologizing! They were subdued in some dark recess by sheer numbers – and a persuasive blade sizing up the jugular.

A most common admission is a pitiful, “Violated …Very humiliating …. When they seize a man’s pride, respect, his manhood in this loathsome manner, you have nothing left. Nothing! And everyone knows you’re easy game … you got nowhere to run to!” (Hey! Easy with talking in the Second Person, Mister!).

What really doesn’t make sense is why do a great many raped men consider their experience to be more traumatizing, severe and defeating than their arm-chair assessment of women in similar circumstances? Is this notion reflective of society as a whole? Is it more fathomable when women rather than men are raped? “Fathomable”? Hell! We even joke about it! We glorify the act in movies. We pass it on as a “masculine attribute” making a distinction between romance and defilement confusing, yet “fathomable”!

… Until it happens to us or to someone we love and care for – as we help pick up the shattered pieces of their world, their being, and our confusion about Fate …

Enough with my rant!

The story below should not influence the objective reader to form a biased opinion of Islamic Jurisprudence or contemporary Lex Fori. Law is supposed to be fair; and, ideally, so are those entrusted with enforcement powers! It certainly would be so if the corrupting influence of politics, nepotism; private, Lilliputian interests, power play, and carnal gratification are kept out of deliberations. But this is not a perfect world, is it? So how would our courts fare on the scales of Justice?

Anyway, here’s old news from FRONTLINE. “Shame! Shame!”

 

A SAGA OF DETERMINATION by B. Muralidhar Reddy (with sleazy commentary by Yours Truly)

JUNE 22, 2002: Mukhtar Mai (30) is gang-raped allegedly on the orders of the Meerwala village council in Punjab province as a punishment after her 12-year-old brother Shakoor was reportedly seen in the company of a woman belonging to the influential Mastoi clan. The police arrest Shakoor on charges of adultery.

(Mukhtar Mai’s family claim that the charge against Shakoor was fabricated after men from the Mastoi clan sodomised him and her family threatened to report the matter to the police. Eventually, three men are tried for sodomy and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment each. They are still in jail.)

The village council suggests that Shakoor marry the woman he was seen with and Mai, a divorcee, be married to a Mastoi man. The Mastois reportedly reject the deal, insisting that zina (adultery) must be settled with zina. Mukhtar Mai is called to the council to apologize for her brother’s conduct. She appears and apologizes but is dragged to a nearby hut and gang-raped allegedly by four men. (I vividly recall the original news had indicated she was raped by “members” of the Council – no pun intended! C.C.). The Mastois inform the police that the dispute has been settled (apology accepted over and over … the ‘old fashioned’ way?! C.C.) and Shakoor is released.

June 28: During his weekly Friday sermon, the village imam (prayer leader) declares that a great sin has been committed (because he was excluded from the “Dispute Resolution” Council? C.C.) and asks the villagers to report the matter to the police. The imam (sour loser! C.C.) then narrates the incident to a reporter from a nearby town who publishes the story in the local press. The international media immediately picks it up and the Punjab government asks the police to take immediate action.

June 30: A case is registered with the police against 14 men. All are arrested and charged under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance. Read together, the provisions of the three laws allow the courts to extend the crime of rape to all those who were present on the occasion and, by an act of commission or omission, abetted the crime.

Four of the 14 accused are charged with raping Mukhtar Mai while the rest are booked for abetment. Their trial begins in an anti-terrorism court. The medical examination of Mai and chemical analysis of her clothes reveal at least two semen stains (WOW! For how long does Mai store her soiled linen before deciding on laundering? C.C.).

August 31: The trial court announces the verdict at a special midnight session, sentencing six men to death (the ultimate punishment for not inviting the trial judge to preside over the “Dispute Resolution” ritual. C.C.). Four of them are sentenced for rape while two are convicted for being part of the panchayat that decreed the rape. The remaining eight are released and freed subsequently (Hmmm … Do I hear money talking? C.C.).

September 2: The state and Mukhtar Mai file separate appeals in the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court against the acquittal of the eight men. Mai says she is otherwise satisfied with the verdict.

September 3: Mukhtar Mai busies herself in setting up two schools in her village with the compensation money awarded to her. Her courage and efforts are acknowledged worldwide and generous donations are made for her school.

March 3, 2005: The Multan Bench reverses the trial court’s judgment on the basis of “insufficient evidence” and “faulty investigations”. The court acquits five of the six men while the death sentence of the sixth is commuted to life imprisonment. The court orders the release of the five acquitted. The acquittals trigger protests within and outside Pakistan, and civil and human rights groups seek the Pakistan government’s intervention (and Mukhtar Mai is ordered to return her ‘compensation’ money??)..

March 4-7: Mukhtar Mai writes to the government saying she fears for her life if those acquitted are released. Rights groups hold rallies in various Pakistani cities protesting against the acquittals.

March 8: Pakistan’s highest Islamic court, the Sharia court, suspends the Lahore High Court’s acquittal of the five men. The court rules that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals in cases tried under Islamic laws. The Sharia court decides to hear the case itself.

March 14: The Supreme Court – Pakistan’s highest judicial forum – intervenes to set aside the ruling by the Sharia court. It says it will hear the final appeal in the case. It rules that the High Court verdict will stand till such time that the appeal in the Supreme Court is decided. It orders the release of the five acquitted.

March 15: Four of the five acquitted in Mukhtar Mai’s case are released on the orders of the Supreme Court. The fifth is detained on other, unrelated charges but is released two days later (on ‘Compassionate Grounds’? C.C.).

March 17: Mukhtar Mai appeals to President Pervez Musharraf to order the re-arrest of the four men who were released, saying she fears for her life.

March 18: The five men are re-arrested along with eight others who had been found not guilty at the original trial in 2002. All of them are detained on an order from the government of the Punjab province under the maintenance of public order ordinance, a law that allows the authorities to detain anyone for a period of 90 days on the grounds that the person is a threat to public order (or ‘PUBIC’ order?! C.C.).

March 26: Mukhtar Mai files an appeal in the Supreme Court against its acquittal of the five men sentenced to death.

June 11: Mukhtar Mai says she is being prevented from travelling abroad by the government. Officials say the security measures are in place for her own safety and that she can travel abroad once the courts have dealt with her case. It is reported that she has applied for an American visa after being invited by a United States-based women’s rights non-governmental organisation to visit the country.

June 13: The 90-day detention period comes to an end but all the 14 men remain in jail as no one comes forward to furnish bail bonds for them.

June 14: The police take Mukhtar Mai, first to Lahore and then to Islamabad, for a meeting with the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Women’s Development, Nilofer Bakhtiar.

Officials confirm that her name has been included in the Exit Control List – an official list of people banned from travelling abroad. The travel ban on Mukhtar Mai is condemned, locally and internationally. Critics say the move is to stop her case generating bad publicity for Pakistan abroad (as compared to ‘good’ publicity at home? C.C.).

June 15: Mukhtar Mai spends two hours at the U.S. consulate and withdraws her application for a visa. Her passport is taken from her as she emerges from the U.S. embassy. The same day, the government announces that her name has been removed from the Exit Control List (WOW! How generous of the Paki government! C.C.). Mukhtar Mai says the removal is meaningless as her passport has been taken away and she cannot travel anyway.

June 18: The Supreme Court says it will start hearing Mukhtar Mai’s appeal against the acquittals on June 27.

June 27: The Supreme Court orders the re-arrest of the released.

I haven’t heard of any further developments or how the poor woman is faring and whether the light she saw at the end of the tunnel was actually a freight train coming her way! C.C.

But on the other side of the coin is THE FEMINAZI. These are the people who give a bad name to the otherwise respectable -and correct- women’s rights movement.

Please spend a moment to check out their philosophy: Courtesy http://htomc.dns2go.com/text/FEMINAZI.TXT

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” [Ti-Grace Atkinson, "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)]
——-
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.
Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice,
precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” [Simone de Beauvoir, author of _The Second Sex_, the book credited with launching the mainstream of the modern feminist movement, Saturday Review June 14, 1975]
——-
“Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate
fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric
times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone ax.”
[Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5]
——-
“[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”. [Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 6)]
——-
“A good part – and definitely the most fun part – of being a feminist is about frightening men”. [Julie Burchill]
——-
“Most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human
self they may have when they ‘marry’ and raise children.”
[Phyllis Chesler, "Women and Madness"]
——-

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are,” [Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983]
——-
“If divorce has increased by one thousand percent, don’t blame the women’s movement. Blame the obsolete sex roles on which our marriages were based.” [Betty Friedan, speech, New York City, January 20, 1974]
——-
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” [Sheila Jeffrys]
——-
“We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have  participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds.”  [Gerda Lerner, historian, in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 55]
——-
“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” [Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129]
——-
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” [Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor]
——-
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” [Robin Morgan]
——-
“Women’s Liberation . in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege… Sexism is NOT the fault of women — kill your fathers, not your mothers” [Robin Morgan, Editor of Ms. Magazine]
——-
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. ” [Robin Morgan, "Sisterhood Is Powerful," (ed), 1970, p. 537]
——-
“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” [National NOW Times, Jan.1988]
——-
“Our culture is depicting sex as rape so that men and women will become interested in it.” [Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 138]

Read My Lips

“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist
institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are
kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of
semen…[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means
of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny… ”  [Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color, ed. Cherrie Moraga (Women of Color Press,1983), pp.128-137.]
——-
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience.” [Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52].
——-
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” [Sheila Cronan]
——-
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of
the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process
that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”
[Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001]

“The fact is that the process of killing – both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination,” [Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 22]
——-
“One of the reasons that women are kept in a state of economic degradation- because that’s what it is for most women- is because that is the best way to keep women sexually available.” [Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 145]
——-
“Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.” [Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995]
——-
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” [Andrea Dworkin]
——-
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” [Andrea Dworkin, "Ice And Fire"]
——-
“Only when manhood is dead – and it will perish when ravaged femininity
no longer sustains it – only then will we know what it is to be free.” [Andrea Dworkin. "The Root Cause," speech, 26 Sept. 1975, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (published in Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).]
——-

I’d just LOVE to get my hands on those testostermoronic bastards responsible for this criminal misdirection of estrogenic passion! Such a waste of hot talent; I could cry …! (C. Collins)

More at  http://htomc.dns2go.com/text/FEMINAZI.TXT

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005/2007 … – Evil no longer lurking in the shadows!

WARNING: ADULT THEME – SOME ADULT CONTENT (Viewer IN-discretion Advised).

Henpecked husbands require Madam’s prior consent …

A major step backward for gender equality; A giant leap forward for Male Enslavement:     “Oh! Oh! Grab your ankles, guys! Here comes Dominatrix! Pray it doesn’t hurt!”

MAKING AMENDS FOR “MALE DOMINATION” AND “FEMALE SERVITUDE”?  

The issues the ‘law’ sets out to abate are cultural fallouts of the medieval if not prehistoric era. Almost all civilized societies regard domestic violence toward women a serious and expensive impediment to progress; in fact, quite rightfully, a punishable crime.

The problem I see with this ‘law’ is in the manner in which it is written and the choice of non-standard locution that betrays gender biased intent. Women are not the exclusive victims of domestic abuse/violence. The crime is nondiscriminating and applicable across the board to all cohabitants (combatants?) regardless of gender and age. But with more and even more laws popping up that twist the interpretation of “Domestic Abuse”, “Domestic Violence”, “Aggrieved Victim”, “degrading” treatment, etc., etc., ad infinitum and commandeer its applicability as well as enforcement mandates almost exclusively to benefit women, therein is created a favorable climate for rampant abuse, extortion, corruption and imbalanced, carte blanc power to suppress voices in protest.

So, IS THIS ‘LAW’ LEGAL? Please read on …

I was recently approached by a lawyer acquaintance soliciting my input on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005; ideas on how to put some ‘bite’ in the Law (as if its claws, fangs, muscle and determination is coming a bit short of expectations). Below is a brief text of my response. Plz let me know if  I’m way off the mark …

NECESSARY (CYA) WEASEL DISCLAIMER:

My thoughts hereunder should not be interpreted as advice of any sort; it is merely an opinion (and everyone has one of those!). The intent is to put it out to affected victims in the community and provoke some serious deliberations on this important legislation which, I believe, dilutes constitutional guarantees of Privacy, impacts radically upon one’s views about matrimony, and contaminates the integrity of the ‘traditional’ family unit – and, yet again, puts on exhibit the unique wisdom of our chosen legislators.

VASELINE COATED SPINOSE SUPPOSITORY: “Ouch”!

It seems that previous legislation of similar color, which were discretely tucked away in secret crevices of laws of equity (more notably the lopsided provisions of 498a IPC), have now shredded their outer dermis of purported sanctimoniousness, fair play, balance and mushroomed way out of proportion into a distinctly partial, menacing, gender-biased, reptilian Goliath slithering ruthlessly toward a sinister agenda; The agenda being far from achieving equality before the law, but discriminatory, gender-privileged treatment as a “lawful” right (sanctioned contrary to the spirit of law).

REVENGE BY PROXY: “How to be a self-serving control freak and mess up your home life in a few easy steps just like we did”!!  by Pritti Predator & Assoc.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that the role-model flag bearers of this ‘law’ generally come from a background of failed, acrimonious marriages with an axe to grind, bequeathing their married kinfolk with strategic ‘Tips & Tricks’ and the ‘tools’ (whips and chains!) to create domestic harmony! Wouldn’t you say the intrinsic elements giving form to this proposal is facially flawed and a lot less reliable than the treatise, “The Joys of Sex” if written by a virgin?

This ‘law’ reflects an authorship of embittered rejects from the institution of marriage taking yet another retaliatory shot thru’ yet another redundant ‘law’.  Although the purported justification/social necessity, etc., influencing enactment certainly appear honorable and benign, the wording betrays deeper surreptitious motives and partisanship. Under this sly façade is concealed, not just the TRUE motives for gender one-upmanship, but far reaching social consequences that as yet have not been responsibly assessed or explored in terms of adverseness or collective benefit.

A cursory, unbiased reading of this “Law” (See Link:  http://mahilaayog.maharashtra.gov.in/new/pdf/domestic_voilence_act_05.pdf ,

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/01spec.htm) , will convince anyone that it offers the woman a ‘free ride’: laxity, even exemption from her domestic/marital responsibilities, and blanket immunity from any manner of consequential remonstration whatsoever! Concurrently, it empowers her with near absolute entitlement to crack the whip at her husband and all other serfs in her newly seized domain; even have them ‘exiled’ (evicted) on any pretext and for any perceived objection, which the police and courts are enjoined to penalize long before a finding of guilt! (Let’s make room for another soiled item in the laundry list of ‘non-bailable offences’, and bid adieu to the few scattered remnants of the fundamental maxim of justice: ‘A person is innocent until proven otherwise’!).

IGNORANCE BREEDS BLISSFUL VICTIMS?!

Adolph Hitler once opined, “What good fortune for governments that the people do not think …. It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them ….” This observation is certainly applicable here:

Our ‘chauvinistic’ men folk, have customarily been but ‘pussy-whopped pushovers’, demonstrating a proclivity toward chivalry! But, in seeing to the protection, comfort, and security of our women (as one might accord to a domesticated pet?), have also been accused of stifling women’s potential for intellectual growth, productivity, recognition, etc., etc., and securing their shackles to the divinely decreed role of the supportive housewife. But as we move on forward with time, and align ourselves to what’s in vogue and ‘politically correct’, we cannot help but voice agreement with the hue and cry of Feminists throughout history; that Providence’s choice on the designated role for women is intrinsically discriminatory and oppressive, and should be amended thru’ majority vote (after all, there are billions of us and only ONE of Him! Right? RIGHT!!).

“OF HUMAN BONDAGE”!

Why shouldn’t women be encouraged to venture out as well, and bust their derriere working for a living? The concept of the ‘I.T. era Wife’ has long since mutated from being ‘barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen’ to the Madam that ‘wears the pants’ in the family. Women ‘wearing the pants’ is just fine with most households; the problem emanates from the difficulty of her being able to relieve herself while standing masculine and erect without making a mess of things. Sexist statement? Not really; because it generates some understanding, acceptance, if not debate on the validity of traditional leanings on gender based social roles.

And, now, if the sacrifice in working for a living is too burdensome, why shouldn’t women exercise latitude to freeload off others in the extended family without so much as raising any defiant eyebrows, or usurp her husband’s residential property, as an exclusive, automatic bequeathal supplemental to matrimony? Pretty damn slick, Slick!

Doesn’t that appear to be the perfect scenario for a happy parasite? Not really! Most parasites are gluttonous; they want more, and even more until the host is drained of the last drop of livelihood and dignity. And then they move on to greener pastures: another unwary schmuck caught with his pants down!

This ‘law’ nurtures a tempting climate weakening any leanings the woman may have had on nobility, family honor, dignity, self-respect, etc., since it alters the very definition of those values and linked expectations. The PWDV Act 2005/2007 …, masquerading as a reconciliatory move toward domestic harmony, actually represents a strong-arm mechanism for predatory females to exact instant reprisal for their long years of perceived ‘servitude’ to ‘male domination’. Far from being progressive and socially productive, it possesses all the elements catalytic to empowerment of one gender over the other allowing plenty room for abuse in a nation where corruption is colloquially synonymous with justice.

ROOM FOR ARGUMENT:

I’ve always maintained there should be some room given for argument in close relationships. Arguments, within reason, are healthy for relationships. Through them, the other person is appraised of a different, alternate opinion and just how strongly one feels about it. Arguments are powerful means of communication, and a showing of one’s commitment to the mission at hand. Thru’ arguments and debate one recognizes the other’s private stance on a particular issue, learns to express themselves, and, in so doing, generates acclaim, self worth, and a rewarding feeling of participation and accomplishment.

But when arguments are let loose, un-tethered and unresponsive to reason; when, ‘communication’ is but a slanderous exchange of venom that lessens one’s worth and image, when healthy arguments are replaced by acts of intimidation, coercion, physical persuasion, cliquishness, bullying especially at a partner to whom a moral and ethical commitment was made assuring protection, security, care, we see the very same means which solidifies relationships has now assumed a frightening appearance.

But even more frightening is the constant presence of the government’s compliance mechanism in our private and intimate lives; of living perpetually under the gun of a privileged, extrajudicial ‘agent’ of the government anointed with broad powers but with whimsical tendencies and a shaky trigger finger.

With a staggering illiteracy rate, it’s no surprise such laws are routinely scrubbed into our cultural fabric with little or no attention given to consequences. To be fair, one can’t really blame our legislators; they merely represent the level of intellect of the voting public. But, absent clearly defined standards in the ‘law’, what does our learned Judiciary have to go on by to avoid verdicts flawed by laxity and whimsical, personal prejudices that go against the grain of the Constitution they’ve sworn to protect?

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato. How very true!

WEAPON OF MASS EMASCULATION – TERRORISM:

The PWDV Act 2005/2007 … is realistically a functional prototype of forthcoming progressively more sophisticated and discriminatory Weapons of Mass Emasculation disguised as law and should be recognized as such. It has almost unbridled potential for fueling misunderstandings, creating unrealistic demands, poisoning relationships, and widening the gender gap at whim! This is but one anticipated forerunner of yet others to come flaunting manicured claws, incisive fangs, and legal muscle to trample the spirit, dignity, livelihood of the majority group of tax payers (who happen to be men), and summarily stifle their indignant yelps because, now, any showing of protest is ridiculously easy to criminalize.

“Hats Off” (and “Pants Down!”) to a well planned conspiracy!  

Please don’t read me wrong (Better yet, please don’t read me right!): I happen to be a card-carrying feminist to the core (VISA card) trapped in this ugly man’s body, just dying to break free from the shackles of testosterone! LMAO. Nevertheless, it is well recognized in the civilized world that such ‘Women Empowerment’ movements are vehicles of oppression piloted toward exacting perverted revenge on an entire group of individuals for error(s) attributed to some unfortunate bastard who may have ruffled the feathers, in the way distant past, of a (possibly deserving) misanthropic thespian flaunting designer crutches of victimization but set on a mission of castigation (castration?!). Why not just resort to accepted forms of political protest, e.g., bra/corset burning, for crying out loud -  PRETTY PLEASE WITH A (popped) CHERRY ON TOP – instead of giving Feminism a bad name? Just curious ….

One must agree that such extraordinary, gender biased governmental ‘controls’ are undoubtedly sanctioned acts of consanguine Terrorism: an unconstitutional intrusion into one’s private nuptial chamber holding disastrous consequences. It is excessive to say the least, and detracts from the spirit of togetherness, marital unity, and reciprocity in trust. It infuses instead the overbearing presence of intimidation and allows easy ingress to extortion, blackmail, and the distinctive pong of opportunism – not to mention it being a serious impediment to intimacy and ‘conjugal gratification’! Look at it this way: How in heck can you perform with Big Brother choreographing and critiquing your every darn move, eh? Know’wum’Sayin’? Mercy, Dudettes!!

This “Law” is deliberately overbroad, ambiguous, and vacillates to a wide range of non-standard colloquialism giving rise to inferences that are just as expansive, unfocused, and individualized; from the sublime to the ridiculous! For instance, what EXACTLY  is ‘sexually degrading’ to an ‘aggrieved’ female cohabitant? Fellatio? (There’s already a law against that! It is viewed as “sex against the order of nature” per 377 IPC). Canine-Inspired Coition on ‘all fours’? (‘Law’ forthcoming, with a punitive enhancement for barking!). Unreciprocated Genital manipulation? (Perhaps using gloves would be sufficiently impersonal not to render the act intimate or criminal!). Leaving the woman frustrated and in want? (Try the time-tested, “Oops!” or “Damn!” or “Sorry, Honey! I’ll try harder next time!”).

What sort of evidence would prompt a conviction: X-Rated DVD’s or the exclusive statement of the ‘aggrieved prosecutrex’ (in a similar vein as rape trials are often adjudicated) since ‘it is well established that a woman of honor will not subject herself to suffer embarrassment and public humiliation by admitting to nuptial horrors in court”? YEA RIGHT!!

TAINTED PROFITS – TRAVESTY:

The PWDV Act 2005/2007 … has created yet another source for tainted profits by further sanctifying the entrepreneurship of extortion and blackmail. The corruption we’re finding commonplace and painful enough to deal with outside our residence, in government, ‘Justice’ Systems, etc., has now established a ‘lawful’ standing in our family relationships, our homes, and in our very bedroom!

So, what more crippling surprises are in store for the disillusioned male?

The PDV Act 2005/2007 … is a travesty in gaudy gift-wrapping. There are already a multitude of laws covering almost all concerns the PDVA purports to address. But one must recognize the salient feature of this particularly irresponsible sham is that it is parasitic: it has annexed selected rights and protections previously accorder to all, and made them more applicable and exclusive to ‘aggrieved’ women, and their children who have not as yet developed the capacity of mature, independent reasoning.

Here’s some food for thought: Why limit these ‘protections’ exclusively to heterosexual cohabitants? Does the law consider homosexuals, lesbians, and other sections of productive society who’re inclined toward ‘alternate’ preferences as second class citizens, thus, unworthy of equal protection under the law as it has already decreed for men?

Oops! I almost forgot: existing statutes DO consider the practise of homosexuality/sodomy as being ‘against the order of nature’; thus, a punishable crime! I’m not too sure about lesbianism. It’s probably exempt from censure since it involves women trying to do a man’s job – and possibly being better at it! So go figure!

The PWDV Act 2005/2007 … is a vague “law”: it stinks of arbitraryness: THEREFORE, IT IS NO LAW! IT HAS NO LEGAL WORTH, IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AND SHOULD BE SUMMARILY STRUCKEN DOWN.

Also check out Links: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/article_list_detail.asp?article_id=585   and “Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases”. Link: http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/citations-from-judgments-to-win-dv-act-cases/ 

(And now I’ll proceed to tackle the pre-defined masculine chores around the house, starting with the dirty dishes; then cooking, sweeping, mending clothes, laundry, etc., and pray the ol’ lady don’t get to read what I wrote!!). “Coming, Dear …. and, YES! You’ve lost quite a bit of weight since the last time you asked me, two hours ago!”

POST SCRIPT:

I make no attempt to be politically correct or tone down my message diluting its potency, ‘in good taste’, thru’ fashionable euphemisms. If the price of ‘in-the-face’ blunt opinion is an appearance of proletarian vulgarity, so be it!  As long as my opinion carries with it elements of reasonableness and some persuasive “Oomph”!

I invite you to make an unbiased, independent, informed opinion.

I recall this passage by someone I admire: “We are all of us entitled to enjoy our lives in peace and plenty. There is no reason why we can’t all of us enjoy a bountiful life without conflict or want. Too often, however, our prosperity and joy are stolen from us by the effects of law. Too often law is neither fair nor sane. Too often law is a handmaid to those who have placed themselves as rulers over us, proclaiming by legislation and court decision what’s best for us, for our families, and for our friends. Too often law is corrupt. Too often law seeks the favors of a special few and, in the process, becomes a whore or coddles the favor of the majority and becomes a fool. Too often law is little more than the decision of a mob. Too often law is a tool by which elitists seek to re-make civilization according to their private view of what’s best for all. And too often we, the people, do nothing to resist or redirect these forces that seek to steal from us our heritage of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Professor Graves.

In this context, it would be prudent to take a second look at PWDVA and decide whether this ‘law’, and similar laws, are legal!