May 12, 2015

There has recently been a lot of brouhaha about a Delhi Head Traffic Constable, Satish Chandra, who was caught on video throwing a brick at a woman. The video went viral on the net! He was summarily arrested and dismissed from service. That is swift justice indeed – politically biased justice that circumvents the cop’s right to have a say in the matter.

There’s a lot more to the story than what meets the eye:

What we see and hear in the news is solely the woman’s (purported victim) version of the incident. No one bothered to interview the (purported) assailant – which is intrinsically unfair and contrary to the fundamental maxim of justice, the preponderance of innocence. Surely there must be something here that has escaped our cognizance and led to flawed reasoning? If not, shouldn’t we feel duty bound to search deeper for such evidence – even invent it – to create ‘reasonable doubt’? Hmmm …!Cheap Shot

Well, boys and girls, and those interested in creative BS Forensics, this site’s administrator, who has an unshakeable reputation for championing the cause of the underdog (in this case, the maligned Delhi cop), took it upon himself to consult self-styled videography specialists, legal beagles and reputable jailhouse lawyers, regular patrons of the local liquor compounds, and other suspended policemen facing serious criminal charges. Here’s what their turbo-charged minds on 90%-proof came up with:

Firstly, the video was obviously edited. There are different footage’s broadcasted purportedly from the same camera. Moreover, there’s no audio, so we are at a loss as to why; which renders the very substance of the verbal interchange (if any) open to prima facie suspicion.

From the written media we learn that the woman (putative victim) was riding ‘triple’ (violating traffic safety laws) with her THREE minor daughters (who, the video shows, were not wearing helmets). She admits to being in a hurry and jumping the Red Light.

Hysterical Traffic Law ViolatorThe cop dutifully intercepts and confronts her. He demands to see her license and vehicle registration. She attempts to drive off. The cop makes a move to grab the key and disable the vehicle. She becomes loud, argumentative, and loses her grip on her bike. Before the cop could write out a challan, there’s a quick transformation into Psycho Woman. She turns abusive, out of control, assaultive and, while no one’s noticing, throws a brick at the cop, missing him but damaging government property (i.e., his bike). Her intent, of course, was to skip paying the fine; this, she did admirably, through an appropriate dose of timely hysteria: insulting and attempting to cause grave injury to an unarmed public servant on duty.

All this dramatics just to avoid a legitimate traffic challan! Some thespian …

Well … you say, as you slam down another large one, it could have been ahellofalot worse for the cop: instead of resorting to simple hysteria, name calling, and using a blunt weapon on lawful authority, the woman could have pulled out the all-powerful Female Trump Card and accused the cop of sexually inappropriate behavior!

But, mercifully, such is not the case here since the culprit’s self-admitted guilt (to the traffic infraction) had a way of instinctively fogging her mind into overlooking the availability of this most effective weapon in a misandrist’s arsenal.

Granted, its use here would have been overkill but, nevertheless, a powerful, politically recognized strategy designed to generate public sympathy and support, so one’s attention is diverted elsewhere but from the reason she was intercepted in the first place; thus, absolving herself from criminal culpability. So now, a criminal becomes a victim. Chalk one up for a (guilty) Woman’s Rights Movement.

Anyway, amidst the commotion, the cop notices a black dog menacingly approaching the subject woman from behind. Watch this video from 3.47 onward. The cop’s protective instincts come into play: he grabs a brick to throw at the dog and defend the frenzied woman. The woman charges toward the cop and attempts to block his throwing arm.

In the absence of audio, we can only speculate on two possible explanations for her rushing toward the cop:
• Either the woman misinterprets his gesture as a rightful imminent retaliation against her,
• or she is a closet dog lover and was attempting to protect the dog from the cop’s brick.
Either way, she was deliberately in the ‘line of fire’. The cop throws the brick, misses the dog, and hits the woman.

Hey! An accident is an accident! So what’s the big freaking deal, eh? But, on the other hand, if he did hit the dog, the animal rights activists would pop into the picture. Either way, the cop would have been screwed!

Fear The PussyIt will be interesting to see whether the woman will be prosecuted as well for disrespecting a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty and initiating upon him a potentially lethal attack with a weapon. After all, doesn’t the Constitution guarantee equal treatment before the law? Or are guilt-ridden hysterical women above the law?

There are a few important lessons to be learned here:

• Obey traffic laws; Don’t jump the Red Light. Do not attempt to evade an officer of the law when you’ve been ordered to stop. (Unless you happen to be a hysterical woman armed with a brick).
• Be thankful the cop was letting her off allegedly with a meager Rs. 200/- bribe instead of charging the full Rs. 1000/- for this infraction, plus other citations for riding ‘triple’, attempting to disobey a lawful order, riding without a drivers license/registration, etc.
• Accept responsibility for your mistake. Don’t show disrespect to authority in public: it fuels anarchy. Do not attack police (never with weapons)!
• The cop merely bruised her hand/butt (accidentally, of course!); and, because she happens to be a woman, this created a shit-load of adverse publicity. If half as much publicity was generated exposing fake encounter killings, there’d be a lot more respect and credibility toward the media. But the problem is, extra-judicial summary executions are hardly, if ever, videographed by passers by!

Pussy Thrashes Cock

Pussy Thrashes Cock

Food for thought: If the rider happened to be a man, his ass would have been in the slammer; proof enough that Pussy Power is alive and well – and getting stronger day-by-day.

On a related note, one has learned to accept police brutality as a necessity that goes along with the territory. Let’s face it: how does one expect the police to do their job without bribery inspired by brutality, eh? The two fit together like a condom over a pee-pee. Right? RIGHT!

So, what do you think?

Copyright 2015. Carlisle Collins. havepenwillwrite. All Rights Reserved.



May 3, 2015

 The Black Robe


Here’s some food for thought:

Are Remanding Judges and courts morally and legally responsible for the safety and well being of persons in Judicial Custody? Are they under any obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of persons held in their Custody? Should they be held accountable for lapses committed by others acting under their direction? Is there such a thing as ‘Judicial Conscience’?Summary Execution

There are several incidents of police ‘encounter’ killings occurring as part and parcel of routine Indian police work (just google it if you wish to verify); case(s) in point: the recent custodial murders at Nizamabad, Miryalguda, Ranga Reddy, and Sangareddy …Sporadic reports of crowd control gone haywire and the stifling of dissent through use of deadly force by the police. Incidents of police baton-charging and firing indiscriminately into political protesters (including those who were fleeing). ‘’Enhanced Interrogation’’ practiced routinely in police stations (i.e., torture, mutilation, and sometimes death) … Racial profiling, arbitrary Cordon and Search operations zeroing in on minority communities, illegal detentions, vendetta killing of under-trial prisoners, ‘‘encounter killings’’, i.e., extra-judicial execution of those labeled as ‘’hard-core criminals, gangsters, dacoits, extortionists, and those Others placed in the ‘’miscellaneous category’’ of soon-to-be deceased’.

What’s surprising is, many of these ‘encounters’ involve the killing of Under- Trial suspects who are in judicial custody, i.e., purportedly under Five Murdered Suspectsprotection of the remanding judge while awaiting the grant of bail.

What’s even more surprising is, there’s hardly any suo moto inquiry from the honorable court who assumed responsibility for the safety and well-being of the person(s) held in their charge; consequently, no accountability for use of deadly force against Under-Trials by the police – unless, of course, the incident has gained some notoriety or (short lived) publicity. Even then, such is the workings of our criminal (in-)justice machinery, the incident defaults to justifiable homicide or, more commonly, fades off into oblivion along with the puppet ‘Inquiry’ Committee appointed to oversee such matters related to police death squads.

‘Any public outcry …,’ you inquire anxiously? What damn ‘outcry’ can one expect from a programmed, borderline intellectually dysfunctional citizenry  that glorifies government-appointed extra judicial executioners who publicly flaunt a celebrity image as ‘Encounter Specialists’?! And celebrities THEY ARE, what with their extravagant lifestyles and investigative dossiers with the Anti Corruption Bureau!


PSYCHO COPS: Celebrity_Murderers

One of the allegations is that encounter specialists, under private contract, helped organized crime by eliminating members of a rival gang for a hefty price. The rival gangster would first be detained, and then summarily dispatched on one pretext or another under color of the Law. At least two prominent attempts at prosecution for ‘alleged’ corruption, assets disproportionate to their known source of income, extra judicial executions, racketeering, etc., were flushed down the commode by the Director General’s office who found no incriminating evidence against the Accused. In a related case, the Supreme Court pronounced acquittal. One wonders just how far up does the Chain of Corruption (or Ignorance, or apathy) reach …..?

Do you remember the abduction and vendetta killing of extortionist Sohrabuddin Sheikh on November 26, 2005 by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS)? He was later fraudulently labeled a member of the militant Lashkar-e-Taiba. Shortly thereafter, they murdered his wife Kauserbi and an uninvolved traveling companion torching and disposing of them so as to purge evidence.

Several senior police officers from different states, including Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, as well as high placed politicians are suspected to be involved in the murders. As the investigation unfolded, we are told that D.G. Vanzara of ATS was paid to kill Sohrabuddin Sheikh by Rajasthan’s influential marble lobby! Vanzara was himself moonlighting, running a successful extortion racket staffed by Rajkumar Pandiyan, KM Vaghela, GL Singhal and other policemen. Sources in victimized families indicate that Vanzara and his associates would release from custody, criminals accused of serious crimes, including murder, when the right price was paid to Vanzara’s syndicate.

Among other notional arrests of select fall guys in the ATS, the CBI arrested the then Home Minister of Gujarat State, Mr. Amit Shah, for ordering theorganized-crime triple murders. Apparently, CBI’s ‘conclusive’ evidence didn’t hold up to much in court. Mr. Shah, who happens to be the closest aide of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and head of ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was forthrightly cleared of all charges by the courts.

If ‘’time heals all wounds’’, serious incidents of gross Human Rights violations become a fleeting memory replaced by ’’more interesting’’ human interest stories in the media or Bollywood’s serials/naach-gaana on TV. There is little or no perseverant follow up to hold officials accountable. Citizen apathy facilitates the making of a Police State. We’re pretty damn close to it right now with the random, warrantless searches/seizures/arrests going on merrily before the eyes of our intellectually paraplegic citizenry. Do we see a light at the end of the tunnel or is it a freight train heading in our direction? ‘Investigations’ have a way of fizzling out by the powers that be.

Two other incidents of law-enforcement gone berserk come to my mind:

Early April morning, Telangana police shot dead five Muslim youths, accused in terror cases (but were to be acquitted), while they were under judicial protection and being shifted from Warangal Prison to Hyderabad Criminal court in a running vehicle. As expected, Police resorted to the usual justification, that they fired in Staged Killing‘self-defense’ responding to a prisoner attempting to snatch a rifle; so, they shot them all! But thee was no sign of revolt and not a single cop had been injured. There was no evidence of a struggle in the transport vehicle, no forensic disposition relative to the line/angle of fire, distance of the purported confrontation, etc., and photographs released by police themselves show the deceased prisoners to be handcuffed to their seats; securely confined!

The public has not as yet woken up to the fact that these photographs are a façade, an insult to our intelligence, and, in fact, incriminate the police! Judging from the images, the handcuffs would allow perhaps a 3” reach with the armrest blocking any free movement sufficient to wrest the rifle away. Besides, if the deceased prisoner was in full control of the firearm and presenting a clear and present danger to the escort personnel (as the photograph is supposed to suggests), it would have instead been pointed toward the aisle to his right.

You may recall a similar incident occurring in December 2008, where a bunch of scum bags accused of spraying acid on girls who rebuked their advances, were being transported under judicial protection from Hyderabad Court to Warangal Prison. They were all shot dead by escorting police personnel under very suspicious circumstances.

According to Police, those cowardly villains, under heavy armed escort, made a courageous break for freedom, barefoot, from a running vehicle but were conveniently cornered in a desolate forested area (away from eyewitnesses and the sound of gunfire). One of the ‘escapees’ conjured up a handgun; so, all three were summarily dispatched by well placed shots to their vitals (guilty be association?).

In line with the theme of a Encounter MurdersB-Class Telugu TV detective serial, a photograph showed a deceased suspect curiously still holding the handgun; his dead companions were unarmed. But in most all real life shootouts, the impact of the slug on a suspect’s body jerks the weapon loose long before he hits the ground! Hmmm… There are several loose ends in both scenarios that reek of murder: like, for instance, no formal inquiry by police brass – and not a whimper of indignation from the judiciary.

What we’re witnessing is rampant, untethered lawlessness in government. We’re witnessing a polarization between the common man and his chosen representatives who are supposed to be accountable to him. But how are they to be accountable when we do not hold them accountable?

Can You Do It This Way?

Can You Do It This Way?

Obviously, our police need training on how to create a halfway credible crime scene after the fact. But perhaps, this is not really necessary in view of our brown-nosing media, a gullible public whose interest and attention span is easily manipulated, and a seemingly cooperative judiciary.

‘’When injustice becomes Law, resistance becomes duty’’. Thomas Jefferson. Question authority! It is still our Right!

Copyright 2015. Carlisle Collins. havepenwillwrite. All Rights Reserved.


A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE? The Police’s indiscriminate ‘’CORDON AND SEARCH’’ Operations.

April 30, 2015 TELANGANA (HYDERABAD, India) STATE POLICE’S LATEST BRAINCHILD: Cordon and Search Exercises – essentially a military option,being directed toward civilians.

THE CONSTITUTION:  Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION:  The Constitution of India does not specifically grant any right to privacy per se. However, it is only recently that such a right has been culled by the Supreme Court from Article 21 and several other provisions of the Constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Supreme Court has asserted that in order to treat a right as a Fundamental Right, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated in the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. Political, social, and economic changes in the country entail the recognition of new Rights. The law, in its eternal youth, evolves (or should evolve) to meet the changing demands of society.

The Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 SCC (6) 632) directly linked the Right to Privacy to Article 21 of the Constitution and laid down: “The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.” Da Police

NEED FOR ”A STUDY” TO LEGISLATE A PRIVACY BILL: Recognizing the common occurrences of privacy violations by the police – and subsequent burden placed upon appellate courts to analyze and dispose of challenges therefrom, the Planning Commission of India constituted the “Shah Committee” to identify privacy issues and prepare a report to facilitate authoring of a privacy bill for India.

Among other related concerns, the Committee reinstated the fact that the individuals would have the option of making a complaint directly before the courts, which will act as a route of redress (so what else is new?). The complaints may relate to a data breach or violation or physical privacy. The Shah Committee submitted its report to the Planning Commission of India on October 16, 2012 . Nothing really earth shattering came of it. Perhaps another Committee is in the offing…

Ignorance Has Its Own Reward

Ignorance Has Its Own Reward

BACK TO SQUARE ONE: One notices the Right to Privacy is not absolute. Courts may issue warrants if they have documented reasonable belief that restriction of this Right would

• Prevent incitement to the commission of any offense; or

• Prevent public disorder or the detection of crime; or

• Protect rights and freedoms of others; or

• would be in the interest of friendly relations with foreign states, or

• When public interest outweighs private interest of the individual.This would depend on the ‘facts and circumstances of each case’ (which means, in the absence of any reasonable guidelines, it is left to the arbitrary discretion of the learned magistrate)!

In Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr., (1978) (SC 7-Judge Bench), the Apex Court ruled `Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 covers a variety of rights & some have status of Fundamental Rights and are given additional protection under Article 19. They mandated a ‘Triple Test’ for any law interfering with personal liberty: (i) It must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must withstand test of Article 14.

The law and procedure authorizing interference with personal liberty and right of privacy must also be right, just, and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. (‘Amen’ to that). Nevertheless, an analytical mind could interpret these ”safeguard” provisions as textbook fiction because, as you will notice below, their practical value is less than zilch once the damage has already been done. I have taken the liberty of illustrating, relative to the ongoing Neighborhood Cordon And Search Operations, these notional constitutional considerations are notional at best and would, in fact, impede achievement of ‘’Gleichschaltung’’, conventional fascist police work.

Recognizing the blatant and excessive government intrusion in one’s private life (what’s more private than one’s bedroom?), the Delhi High Court (in Naz Foundation Case 2009) made a landmark ruling. Although the case pertained to consensual homosexuality, the court recognized that the Right to Privacy held to protect a “private space in which man may become and remain himself”…. ‘’Individuals need a place of sanctuary where they can be free from societal control – where individuals can drop the mask, desist for a while from projecting on the world the image they want to be accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect the values of their peers rather than the realities of their natures.’’

ANDHRA COURT’S OPINION: Despite a plethora of rulings that recognize and establish the sanctity of one’s private ‘space’, the Andhra High Court Canon of Lawyeringrecently made a tangential disposition: A Public Interest Litigation filed in the High Court by T. Dhangopal Rao prayed for an injunction against the police’s Cordon and Search Operations on constitutional grounds; that this arbitrary police exercise is against Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d)(e)(g), 21 and 22 of the Constitution (and, I might add, certain mandates in the Criminal Code pertaining to restricting/seizing a person’s liberty, property, and right to be left alone). The Hon. High Court directed him to complain to the Police Commissioner instead of deliberating on grounds for relief. This perplexing directive is just as ridiculous as the case of the chicken being directed to complain to the fox that’s guarding the hen house – a sobering realization of the leanings of our impartial tribunal!

EXECUTIVE BRANCH PRECLUDED FROM MAKING/INTERPRETING LAWS: The police personnel involved in the ‘’Cordon and Search’’ Operation are acting under the direct orders of the Police Commissioner. It is settled law that Department Circulars imposing conditions on the public do not have the mandate of rule or law as they are merely executive, in-house instructions. Imposing conditions that adversely affect guaranteed rights can be made only through legislation. Police are not empowered to make legislation. In the absence of such legislation mere Circulars cannot be acted upon, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. As such, the Police Commissioner is not empowered to breach Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and circumvent procedures mandated by statute and numerous Appellate Court rulings.

There are parallel considerations with the illegalities of Vijayawada’s ‘’Operation Night Domination’’ (I wonder which Telugu film script writer came up with that title!). There too, Police proposed new regulations making it mandatory for one to be in possession of ID cards at night while they merrily conducted random searches with impunity which lead to many arrests. The Hon. State High Court then ruled that the public at large should not be seen as suspects thereby negating the restrictions ordered by the Police Commissioner as invalid; a far cry from their recent ruling.

POLICE’S PREVIOUS EXPLANATION: In his interview with IndiaToday on October 2, 2013, Deputy Commissioner of Police V Siva Kumar stated, “Though we don’t have specific inputs on stay of terror suspects in these areas but this operation will help in maintaining a close watch on such elements also“. In other words, Police have (had) no specific leads that would legitimize intrusion into a private home. They were/are on a ‘fishing expedition’ hoping to catch someone – anyone even remotely suspected of being associated with a possible crime anywhere.

POLICE’S CURRENT EXPLANATION: However, now, with more than two years’ experience in ‘’Cordon and Search’’ Operations under the belt, and reciprocal, accumulated expertise in parrying media queries on legality of such arbitrary searches/seizures/arrests while confining freedom of movement of entire neighborhoods at unreasonable hours of night, police response seems to have evolved to reflect a semblance of legitimacy; not necessarily, credibility: CV Anand, IPS On April 19, 2015, charismatic, straight faced Cyberabad Police Commissioner C.V. Anand and other Police brass stated to Deccan Chronicle that all searches are carried out ‘’as per law’’. One wonders, WHOSE law; an existing statute or an in-house circular from top brass? “An ACP or a Station House Officer has to get a warrant before conducting the search. The search memos are drafted and reasons are mentioned before obtaining the warrant”. Certainly sounds legit – Who’s to argue with an armed man, eh? But whether these words hold any water is a relevant, core issue on hand!

DAAL-MEIN-KALA” STATEMENT: Realistically, if the charismatic, straight faced Cyberabad Police Commissioner C.V. Anand is to be believed, how many months would an Asst. Commissioner/SHO be devoting toward compiling (inventing?) a pseudo-credible search proceedings FOR EACH HOUSE IN HIS AREA, and what specific ‘credible’ reasons would he document to satiate the magistrate into justifying blanket warrants TO CORDON OFF ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS, authorize police intrusion during hours of darkness, and conduct a witch hunt for ‘’anything illegal-objectionable’’ in anybody’s home! Is this Stalin’s Russia we’re living in (or turning into)??

Certainly, a Magistrate of the required Class is empowered to issue Warrants. Ordinarily, searches conducted by police officers or any investigating officer will be valid only if a formal accusation has been leveled against the subject person or if he/she did not respond to summons, (e.g., subpoena to produce documents and things). But Warrants have to be specific. They should specify the person, location, objects to be searched, and, often, the time for search. The wording cannot be vague. The police cannot be directed to search and seize any property which the police believe to be “objectionable articles” required for the purpose of investigation. This would indicate that neither the Magistrate nor the police knew what they were searching for! A plain reading of such ‘Warrants’ would show that the search is more of a `fishing expedition’ or a `roving search’. It would disclose no specific reasons or circumstances for the issuance of the Warrant and would, therefore, be clearly illegal.

POLICE ‘JUSTIFICATION’ SHROUDED IN MYSTERY: We are unsure as to which section of the Criminal Code (henceforth, the CrPC) these Cordon and Search Warrants get their authority from, or the substance of the Warrant, nor WHO issued them (viz., to determine competency of the judge or whether he ‘applied his judicial mind’ before authorizing this widespread intrusion in the private lives of entire communities and neighborhoods). There is no information as to whether any resident-victim of the Cordon and Search Operation was shown the substance of the Warrant as is required under CrPC Section 75 – or whether there even exists a Warrant at all in the first place!

IdiotThese police excesses continue unabated because, as yet, no one has come forward to question them, eye to eye. Even the local courts seem to go along with the mockery while the passive public  drowns in ignorance or wallows in apathy toward possible extra-judicial methods of policing.

What of those who paid for out freedom with their blood? What of the Framers of the Constitution who came up with the magna carta, due process, and the Rule of Law? One thing’s for certain: They don’t have a Swiss bank account! But that’s not the reason they’re rolling in the grave: there is little indication of anyone holding on to the Torch they paid dearly for. Where’s our independent Judiciary, the’ last bastion of Justice’, at a time we need them – to examine, on a case by specific case basis,  the constitutional validity of these arbitrary intrusions into private lives and homes.? Have they relinquished their suo moto powers to uphold the Constitution they swore to protect? Or, are these signs of a crumbling world’s largest Democracy metamorphosing into the world’s largest Police State?

Evidence; more appropriately, lack of evidence, certainly places serious doubt on the charismatic, straight-faced Cyberabad Police Commissioner C.V. Anand’s public declaration that all searches are carried out ‘’as per law’’. It would be administratively impossible to generate Search Memos requesting Search/Arrest Warrants for each house in the neighborhood. What is the criterion set for designating entire neighborhoods as a ‘Criminal Area’? Does a Cordon and Search Operation in a ‘Criminal Area’ inoculate it from criminal elements and render it worthy of the label, ‘De-Criminalized Area! This area is free of crime’!?

Police Commissioner CV Anand Has TALENT

If Warrants are, in fact, lawfully obtained, i.e., based upon good-faith, credible information, they would relate to a select few homes/individuals. But, one sees these organized assaults on entire neighborhoods by a horde of 200-plus policemen involves court-anointed muscle-flexing, house-to-house intrusion during hours of darkness, the questioning of awoken residents including school-going children, the inspection of private-personal-letters-documents-paperwork-photographs, heirlooms and jewelry, etc. : a fishing expedition for anything suspicious; and the physical stifling of indignant complainants thru’ utilization of typical strong arm tactics our police is notorious for.

FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC OF PRIVACY: There is no doubt that everyone has something to hide from the public eye. It might be something petty, embarrassing, or even something serious. Police are already lawfully empowered with immense resources to do their job within the existing framework of the law. With the statutory division of the three Branches of Government, it is immoral, unethical, and illegal for courts to vicariously assume an Executive role as Police puppets no matter how purportedly benign the judicial ‘rubber stamp’ may appear. Or worse, don the ‘legislature hat’ and interpret laws in such a manner that a new perspective of the established law takes precedence. And who’s to argue with a judge’s point of view that could land your patriotic ass into the slammer for ‘Contempt’? They are experts at logic and arguing a case either way, and wield an industrial size boner to back their play. Ouch! Mercy!

So, as we, the intellectually paraplegic citizenry, embark on an academic (mis-) adventure to speculate on which Section(s) of the Criminal Code could possibly authorize such drastic police intrusions in the private lives and homes that comprise large neighborhoods – absent a National Emergency – we stumble upon Section 144 CrPC.

CrPC §144 – THE GRANDADDY OF ALL WARRANTS: In a nutshell, CrPC Section 144 confers plenary powers upon the magistrate to issue an immediate, absolute order BUT exclusively in urgent cases of nuisance or anticipated danger when, in his subjective opinion, there is sufficient ground for proceeding immediately to accomplish a speedy remedy. If there is neither an urgency calling for the application of a speedy remedy nor apprehension of imminent danger to human life, health or safety, etc., the magistrate cannot issue such an ex-parte order under this section.  Unless the emergency is sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave, the exercise of power conferred by CrPC Section 144 could be struck down as frivolous – or so we are made to understand.

The magistrate must assess the situation to his satisfaction (i.e., ‘apply his mind’) and issue the order in writing setting forth specific material facts of the case and in the manner provided by CrPC Section 134 and sub-sections of CrPC 144. Certain stringent conditions have been imposed by the appellate courts on a magistrate exercising this absolute power. Not only would the magistrate’s specific written reasoning for taking cognizance be open for Appellate scrutiny, but also the specificity of his directions and conformance to well settled guidelines, i.e., whether the order has been issued mechanically and without any consideration of the guidelines stressed by higher courts meant to protect us from abuse of such powers. This power can only be exercised in cases of imminent emergency; therefore, it purportedly  regulates the magisterial function and, IF APPLIED PROPERLY, is not unconstitutional.Brace_Yourself

LETTER OF THE LAW vs. SPIRIT OF THE LAW vs. IMPRACTICAL APPLICABILITY: The Supreme Court enumerated five points which would justify the constitutional validity of Section 144. These ‘’prerequisites’’ serve more as catalysts to judicial reasoning, for lack of a more appropriate analogy; sort of like ‘’A Magisterial Guide To Due Process Of Law – Check List For The Intellectually Challenged’’.  The provisions therein are, no doubt, benign and intended to anoint some semblance of due deliberation on government actions that affect one’s privacy rights. However, one notices, the only action ‘’hardened into law’’ is magisterial whim/discretion!They are as follows:

1) Although the Magistrate has power under this Section to pass ex-parte orders, generally, however, the procedure that is followed is to serve a notice to the person against whom the order is being passed. Only in cases of extreme critical situations, the Magistrate may resort to passing an ex-parte order. [NOTE: But this ‘service of notice’ requirement would defeat the very purpose for the Police’s fishing ‘net’ (a practical synonym for ‘Cordon and Search’) where the tactical advantage is surprise].

2) Additionally, the persons aggrieved by the order have a right to challenge the order on grounds they find appropriate. This goes to supports the view that the power granted under this Section is not arbitrary. (NOTE: Nevertheless, the likelihood of the ‘aggrieved person’ challenging this order beforehand is almost Zilch since the enthusiastic raiding party of 200-plus, beefed-up goon squad will have already conducted the raid and our ‘aggrieved’ hero would, most likely, already have his ass in custody).

3) To substantiate the above, an opportunity for hearing and to show cause is also provided to the person challenging the order of the Magistrate. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are also purportedly reflected in this Section. [NOTE: An opportunity for hearing and to show cause should present itself BEFORE the Warrant is executed, i.e., IF a Warrant truly existed in the first place! When a trial judge enters an order that “departs from the essential requirements of law” appellate review is, and should be, available by immediate petition for a writ of certiorari instead of allowing the error to stand and forcing the aggrieved party to seek appellate remedy only after entry of final judgment; in our case, issuance and execution of an all-inclusive Warrant. For example, issuance of a writ is proper to reverse a trial judge order overruling objections to a request for the production of documents, since issuance of such an order allows irreparable injury that cannot be cured on appeal at the conclusion of a case. Nevertheless, there’s some showing here of ‘checks and balances’ that might arouse a fleeting nod of approval from Constitution pundits in their ivory towers of academia. (NOTE: In practice, however, our disenchanted hero will have no voice in the matter. He will have acquired other more pressing concerns while prancing about in jail, like protecting his virgin derriere from overzealous, predatory cellmates)].

4) The fact that the aggrieved party has the right to challenge the propriety of the order, cloaks the magistrate’s decision with responsible deliberation based on rationale. (REALITY CHECK: How common is it for a judge to over-rule a brother judge’s capacity and raison d’être while ‘applying his mind’)?

5) Finally the High Court’s power of revision under CrPC Section 435 read with Section 439, also pacifies any (righteous!!) trepidation that the order under Section 144 is non-appealable. The High Court can either quash the order or ask the Magistrate for the material facts, thus ensuring accountability. (NOTE: Unless the Magistrate is a total schmuck, the HC will never find their brother-judge’s reasoning to be utterly without merit).Democracy

REPETITIVE WARRANT SEARCHES = ABUSE OF POWER: It is settled law that any restriction which is opposed to the fundamental principles of liberty and justice cannot be considered reasonable. One of the tests to determine ‘reasonableness’ is to see whether the aggrieved party has a right to representation against the restrictions imposed or proposed to be imposed. ‘No person can be deprived of his liberty without being afforded an opportunity to be heard in defense and that opportunity must be adequate, fair, and reasonable’ (NOTE: There’s no mention of ‘timely’). Further, the courts have to see whether the restrictions are in excess of the requirement or whether they are imposed in an arbitrary manner. (NOTE: True! True! But this is Law in text books! The legislative intent of this mandate is clearly to afford an opportunity to contest the adverse proposal BEFORE it takes the form of an Order. These concessions are precautionary and imbedded as a protection from arbitrary, tyrannical rulings before such rulings are actually made. But, in real life situations occurring before us, their practical worth seems to be less than zilch. What’s the point in critiquing a purportedly dubious ex-parte court order when the damage has already been done)?

More importantly, the Hon. Supreme Court continues, an order under Section 144 cannot be of a permanent or a semi-permanent nature, or ongoing as a matter of course: “The Parliament never intended the life on an order under Section 144 of the Code to remain in force beyond two months when made by a Magistrate. The scheme of that Section DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REPETITIVE ORDERS and, in case the situation so warrants, steps have to be taken under other provisions of the law when individual disputes are raised. If repetitive orders are made it would clearly amount to abuse of the power conferred by section 144 of the Code.” Acharya Jagdisharanand Avadhut v Police Commissioner [Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1) 447 – Bench: Misra Rangnath, Bhagwati, P.N., Sen, Amarendra Nath (J) – Citation: 1984 Air 512 1984 Scr (1) 447, 1983 Scc (4) 522 1983 Scale (2)565 – Citator Info: Ho 1987 Sc 748 (23), Rf 1992 Sc 377 (10)].

Surely there’s no other way of assessing these ongoing Cordon and Search Operations as but routine and repetitive?

Worlds Largest DemocracyI am told that there have been cases where orders issued under CrPC §144 were struck down on appeal when such orders were not warranted by the circumstances, or the orders so issued did not specifically mention the area on which the restriction are to be imposed, or there had been a deviation from guidelines mentioned under Section 134 as also in various sub-Sections of CrPC 144. However, I am yet to find a good, solid citation to support this hypothesis …

One must keep in mind that power to impose restrictions on personal liberties of individuals pursuant to CrPC §144, whether in a specific locality or in a town itself, pertains to situations that have the POTENTIAL to cause unrest or danger to peace and tranquility in such areas due to certain disputes. As such, the intent is to diffuse or control anticipatory crimes of emergent nature. Now, if you’ve been following the nocturnal adventures of our Police, you will notice a laundry list of ‘’accomplishments’’ (call it ‘’pat on their back’’ or ‘’blowing their own trumpet’’) resulting from their Cordon and Search Operations (Google it): seized vehicles (stolen, or unregistered, or unpaid traffic challans), some ‘’suspected’’ stolen mobile phones, some bail-jumpers or Rowdy-Sheeters apprehended, some suspects with suspected links to suspected terror groups nabbed, a modest amount of ‘’unaccounted for’’ money discovered, child labor or sex worker ‘’rescued’’ (who commonly revert back to the same line of work), and, if all else fails, there’s always a couple of knives in the kitchen that could be brought under the purview of the Arms Act, etc., etc.

Now, if these are in fact bonofide crimes, THEY HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED; there is nothing ANTICIPATORY in their nature and not relevant to the prerequisites envisioned by CrPC §144; therefore, they are a blatant abuse of process.

ALSO CONSIDER THIS: If you cheated on your Taxes, you’re a criminal. If you parked your vehicle in a ‘No Parking’ Zone, you’re a criminal. If you jumped a Red Light, you’re a criminal. If you ever flirted with a nonreciprocating member of the opposite sex, you’re a criminal. If you lied to get a job, you’re a criminal. If you failed to pay traffic challans (fines), you’re a criminal. If you ever bribed a government official (a required practice here), you’re a criminal. A ‘Criminal’ is no different from the rest… except that he got caught! What is critical here is, was he caught lawfully, or through an illegal or improper search?

We all have potential to become crooks. We all have potential to commit crimes. Does this mean we should all be under surveillance or under constant government control to offset that hypothetical possibility (– knowing fully well that some of our most celebrated crooks are in government)?

But, going by buzz words from police brass (e.g., ‘terrorism’, ‘fugitives from justice’, ‘money laundering activities’, ‘stolen vehicles’, ‘murder suspects’, etc.), that, by their linguistic connotation, effuse a sinister, panicky, clear and present danger-type scenario, a hasty judiciary is influenced to allow extreme measures to augment routine police work. And a tolerant, gullible, intellectually paraplegic citizenry is left with little option but to grab its ankles and get a real-time perspective on what is REALLY happening to their patriotic derriere under color of law.

Stupic_CopARE THESE DESPERATE TIMES CALLING FOR DESPERATE MEASURES?? If such excessive measures are routinely employed by police to ‘deter crimes’ or ‘bring criminals to justice’, or pursue ‘possible’ terror suspects, it does not take a genius to figure out that the best method for crooks to escape detection is to simply move into a neighborhood that already had its share of pong from the police’s Cordon and Search presence. So, is there any logic to, or genuine necessity for these flamboyant, extreme, Cordon and Search operations in day-to-day/night-to-night routine police work absent a seriously imminent national emergency?

Bear in mind that the premise here is that a Warrant per CrPC §144 does in fact exist – it is merely a premise. If it does not exist, or if the Warrant is facially flawed (i.e., issued without due deliberation), then every arrest, detention, intrusion, etc., under the Cordon and Search Operation is a criminal act perpetrated by the Police.

One may perhaps condone flawed laws enacted by our chosen legislature (who merely represent the modest IQ of the voting public), but, our Judiciary, being the last bastion of equity and justice should seriously deliberate upon such usually unnecessary extreme violations of Privacy and Human Rights they swore to protect. Who is to determine whether there exists an improper exercise of judicial functions the cumulativeNGO-Lunatics For A Better World effect of which would be to lower the dignity of the Judiciary and further undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice? Who is to determine whether these ‘Cordon and Search’ operations represent racial profiling at work and are are geared toward minority communities? Even worse, there seems a real possibility some elements of the judiciary may be unwittingly facilitating our transformation into a totalitarian Police State.

I leave you with this thought from Justice William O. Douglas, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air—however slight—lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.”

Copyright 2015. Carlisle Collins. havepenwillwrite. All Rights Reserved.


July 12, 2009



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

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 mattersHide Seek , 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”?

Nun nun

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!).

Every rape is a crime committed upon each one of us individually!

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 off 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 were still in jail at the time of publication of the original article).

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.

Mulla Spankin’ His Beulah

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 (PHEW!! 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 traveling 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

“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 Swinger
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]
And Furthermore——-
“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

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

© Carlisle Collins. GOOD COP – BAD COP. 2009 – 2013. All Rights Reserved.

Evolution Gay_(r)Evolution

The Rajesh Talwar Trajic Comedy

July 12, 2008

“A reputation once broken may possibly be repaired, but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was.” – Joseph Hall

The English jurist William Blackstone opined, “Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” In international legal circles, this represents the classic legal axiom of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that prevails in criminal law. But, as is painfully evident, this fundamental precept stands somewhat modified for Desi practice by the Police entrepreneurship and myopic jurisprudents within the Indian Criminal “Justice” System:

It is better that ten innocent people hang,

Rather than one guilty person escape justice!

Yes, indeed! Where else but in our own beloved Mother India does the Maxim of (in)Justice hold more true: “A person is guilty until proven innocent“? Read on …

In yet another disgraceful showing of typical Indian police (guess)work, a murder is solved by playing “musical chairs” with alleged “suspects”: Another good name goes to (the?) dogs; another slimy soap opera surfaces.

14 year old Aarushi (Dr. Rajesh Talwar’s daughter) was found murdered in her flat on May 16 with her throat slit. The Noida police named the domestic help Hemraj as the prime accused. “Why”, you ask? Well, why the hell not? This deduction was certainly in line with the ol’ time-tested theme of detective mysteries, “The butler did it!” It was sound enough reason for the expert dicks (i.e., detectives) at the Noida Police Department to go by.

And everything was going just fine, according to plan … Skippity-Skip- Hoppity-Hop! … Yet another murder solved thru’ exemplary ‘Text-book Style’ police work! Bravo!

And a day later, the “murderer’s” corpse was discovered on the terrace! It seems the police search teams delegated to track down Hemraj, commenced their search from “Periphery toward Core” (or “ass-backwards”, in layman terms) instead of the other way around deviating from standard investigation protocol. It was later learned from CBI investigators that delay in handing over the case to the CBI, Noida Police’s “shoddy investigations”, the disturbed, destroyed, and unpreserved crime scene has proved detrimental!

But not to be worried about such minor set-backs, the Nodia Police switch to PLAN “B”! They jump on the grieving father. “Why”, you ask? Well, why the hell not! The Police maintain a well-stocked library of spicy stories reserved for just such occasions. Also, there’s creative journalistic talent at the Station: their report writers, renowned for sleaze, have been known to moonlight as script writers for B-rated Tamil smut movies. But regardless, the learned judge would, in any case, rubber-stamp the Police’s request for Dr. Talwar’s confinement, denial of Bail, and, with continuing prejudicial media coverage, bring about a quick conviction!

So the Police’s story goes something like this: Dr. Talwar, a noted dental surgeon, was involved in an extra-professional joint venture with a female colleague honing his skills on some non-dental cavity-filling on the sly. 14 year old Aarushi got a first-hand look at how the good doctor (her dad) got his patient to get over her fear of the needle. So Dad convinced his precious little daughter into protecting his trade secret by slitting her tender throat.

“OK. So far, so good”, you observe in agreement. “But why kill Hemraj?” Well, why the hell not! I can think of a dozen good reasons at the snap of the finger. How about the good ol’ ill-fated “Love Triangle”? Always works! Or maybe Doctor Saheb was unhappy at the way Hemjaj shined his shoes. That would be a real good reason to bump off the naukaraani, in my books. “Besides, we’re the police. We can write whatever we damn well please because we have the media and most judges in our pocket.”

“And if, by some rare fluke of (rotten) luck, we are proved wrong. So damn what? We are only human! You mean to say that you have never lied? Oh come on, Yar ….. bass-kar!”

At the time of this writing, we learn that CBI petitioned the court for Dr. Talwar’s release citing an absence of incriminating evidence against him. Dr. Talwar, on posting Rs. 50,000 bail, has apparently been “partially” acquitted after a 51 day-ordeal in jail. This certainly reinforces faith in our Criminal “Justice” System and speaks volumes about our pledge to accord due process and Human Rights protection!

See Link below for current details of Dr. Talwar’s saga. The CBI story of little Arushi’s premature demise is a lot more interesting (and credible) than Noida Police’s literary rendition of Desi porn:

© Carlisle Collins. GOOD COP – BAD COP. 2009 – 2013. All Rights Reserved.

An Open Letter To S.S.P. Yadav, IPS – Director General and Inspector General of Police

April 27, 2008

OPEN LETTER TO Shayam Sunder Prasad Yadav, IPS

Director General and Inspector General of Police,Government of Andhra Pradesh State,Hyderabad

Dear DGP Shayam Sunder Saheb:

On behalf of the publication “Good Cop – Bad Cop” operating as a Blog under auspices of, please accept our hearty congratulations on your recent appointment. It is an obvious show of faith in you that the CM preferred you over your two older colleagues.

We have been following your career over the years silently observing your influence on the State Anti-Corruption Bureau as Director – a Herculean undertaking! Your work nevertheless reflects vision and a promise of efficacy provided others following in your wake prove competent and dedicated to carry on this most honorable mission.

Corruption is the antithesis of everything Law Enforcement stands for. Yet it is no secret that Corruption and the Indian Police are synonymous. Other visionaries preceding you had like-minded ideals, to integrate the element of integrity and sound practices in the Indian police mission. But they stood vulnerable to buckling up under political pressure. You are just one single person spearheading the challenge of dealing with a corrupt establishment. But rest assured, within this cesspool of decadence there are other like minded people with old-fashioned values silently laboring at reviving that shine and shoveling the stubbornly adhering contamination toward its rightful destination: the commode! Even dishonest cops fear honest cops.

There’s an old Arab proverb: “An army of sheep led by one lion would defeat an army of lions led by one sheep”. Of course it’s meant to be inspirational but doesn’t make any practical sense because only an army of brain-fried sheep would follow behind a lion (maybe!), and for a hundred salivating lions to be following one fluffy sheep into battle wouldn’t even be worth the meager morsel ahead.

Nevertheless, I think you get my drift!

There are leaders and there are Leaders … Then again, there are Leaders with BALLS! We are depending on you to be the latter. You have three solid years ahead of you to make a difference, and we are rooting for you!

Our Mission is very similar: “ … high quality and transparent policing that satisfies the aspirations of the people and the society at large in creating and maintaining a State in which there is peace, co-existence and order, so as to provide a conducive environment for sustained prosperity ….”, even though our methods toward realizing our common objective may have some differences: you thru’ established protocol and personnel policies (which hasn’t worked well enough so far), and we, that run the Blog, thru’ constructive criticism and good journalism (which isn’t enough!).

We realize you’ve just barely taken over a giant organization and inherited your predecessor’s giant headaches. But count your blessings, Sir. Because the community’s headaches at the ‘mercy’ of your Police is a far cry from yours. We would like you to see us as the “pulse of the community”. We at the Blog are duty bound to convey public sentiments relative to the organization you accepted responsibility for, and we expect you to take a very personal interest in those elements within the Ranks set to tarnish your uniform.

Please feel free to comment or indicate any area of dissent. “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. One humble request, if you please: Just make sure it is truthful, made in good faith, and relevant. We shall be happy to make appropriate changes if warranted and/or include your verbatim response.

Again: Congratulations, Good Luck, and God Bless …


Your supporters at,


Maxims of (in-)Justice

April 16, 2008

OF LIES – LIARS – and the indian police disSERVICE

It is to the discredit of every honorable Criminal Justice professional that, thanks to the uniform desecrating vermin on the Force, a confession made to a police officer is not admissible in court!

This precept, at least on paper, is accurately reflective of widespread public opinion synthesized thru’ one’s general interaction with the law, formal attestations from experts and research scholars, and with people who administer and enforce laws; that they are corrupt liars and cannot be trusted! Unfortunately, this view, for the most part factual, is unfairly demoralizing to the devoted few who’ve striven to maintain an unsullied respect and pride in their Uniform (often despite overwhelming political and peer pressure, and sly, coercive sanctions).

O.K., so confession made to a cop is not admissible in court, [Now check out this play on words:] BUT ” if a statement is given by an accused to a police officer while in custody and that statement reveals the discovery of any material fact and in consequence of that statement if that material fact is discovered, that statement is admissible to the extent of such discovery. it can be used in evidence of the thing recovered as a result of the confession made to a police officer by the accused.” [ Section 27 of the Evidence Act.] Thus if a weapon used in a number of cases is recovered by the police (or, more commonly, planted by them) as a result of a “confession” made by an accused person, the recovery is a relevant piece of evidence. [ State of U. P. V Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125.]

In other words, evidence recovered pursuant to a suppressed, rejected testimony that, by law, has no legal worth in the first place, is acceptable!

The Constitution mandates no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or treatment … sounds good so far? (That’s ‘cos it’s meant to!). So how do the Indian Police succeed in surmounting overwhelming odds and statutory restrictions, circumvent the Accused’s constitutional right against self incrimination using no coercion or forceful methods … and bring forth cognizable, damning evidence in a surprisingly short period of time? Amazing? Houdini would have been put to shame! Exemplary police work? More appropriately, “example setting” work. Exceptional forensic/medico-legal investigative skills? Perhaps in exceptional cases, only IF you could get a Desi Street Cop to correctly pronounce that phrase (then forthrightly explain it)!

Fact of the matter is, most crimes are accepted for prosecution NOT on the legal merits of the evidence obtained but on the merits of the evidence FABRICATED and creative procedures employed to dress up an acceptable spit shine. A boilerplate “Voluntary Confessional Statement” is drawn up from an appropriate Template at the Police Station. The Accused Person doesn’t even need to be present (usually, he’s already in the Slammer, or “Judicial Custody”, if politely put). Two “Impartial” Citizen-Witnesses (on the Police’s regular “under-the-table” employ) formally attest that the Statement was made voluntarily by the Accused who led the Police to affect recovery of the incriminating (planted) evidence, thereby making the Confession legally admissible in court: A convenient “Open and Shut Case”! “Incredulous”, you say? Hell, No. This is typical!

Excuse me for a moment while I puke!

Judges are not dumb. They know what went on behind the scenes; it is almost obvious to all! Not in as many words, the Honorable Bench seems to convey, “Don’t insult my intelligence with a prosaic, run-of-the-mill lie that even a fourth-grader would have a hard time believing! Make it a GOOD LIE, even a half-way credible lie … something with MEAT … something to sink my teeth into or fall back upon when I make a slanted decision on shaky grounds”.

And, perchance, IF some young, impressionable, starry-eyed lawyer backs the cop and his hired witnesses into a corner exposing them as liars, there is hardly even a whimper for corrupting a judicial proceeding. Whereas all overseas jurisdictions see prosecutorial perjury as tantamount to publicly dick-sapping the judge, our learned magistrates seem to have developed shameless toleration, nay, IMMUNITY to such insults flung routinely toward the bench; most have likely forgotten what Justice stands for and why the term “Your HONOR” is (was?) exclusively reserved for judges. It is thanks to the Worthy Few in Black Robes that the rest scavenge for privileges and flaunt in their shade.

Since the provisions of the Evidence Act, for good reasons, clearly maligns the police, viz. THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED UPON to truthfully present testimony, where’s the logic then in attributing legal worth to evidence recovered pursuant to an unconstitutional, self-incriminating, “Voluntary Confessional Statement” unilaterally authored by the Police which, per the Evidence Code, has a prima facie worth commensurate with fiction anyway, as it was more than likely concocted, or Ex-Pârté, or made under duress, or in a language totally alien to the Accused illiterate. Or “all the above”! What became of the fundamental Maxim of Justice, “The fruit of a poisonous tree is poisonous”? Or, has it become by Judicial decree, “partially poisonous” (as in being “partially pregnant”).


There are those who argue that nowhere else is the adage “Justice is Blind” more true than in our own beloved Bharat. Justice may appear selectively blind when discriminating and perspicacious, but it certainly is not deaf! It has been known to lend a practiced ear to the “Ka-Chung” in your pockets and the melodious shuffling of currency in your bank account. See Transparency International Policy Position # 4 / 2007 and Link:

To quote, “Judicial salaries that are too low to attract qualified legal personnel or retain them, and that do not enable judges and court staff to support their families in a secure environment, ….. judges are more susceptible to corruption. They may accept bribes when offered and, when left unchecked, may be more likely to extort bribes from vulnerable court users to supplement their incomes”.

To crooked judges reading that opinion (proffered by a responsible source!), it could serve as reliable justification to continue to “supplement their income” through bribes, (since, what the heck! It’s common knowledge, anyway)! In our country where avarice and greed take precedence even over the Deity, it is really immaterial that the income of the overwhelming masses who approach the bench seeking justice, is far below the official salary (excluding benefits) of the menacing Tribunal telepathically (tele-pathetically?) burning a hole in your pockets. Couple that with the assessment of a respected Chief Justice on the possibility of 20 per cent of the judiciary being corrupt, thanks to an absence of an effective disciplinary mechanism, we reach a disheartening conclusion. [See Link:].

I have witnessed many proceedings during which acts of travesty stood validated and legalized by informal judicial decree, witnessed to by a horde of impotent lawyers dumbstruck as though paralyzed by the proverbial judicial phallus stuck up their derriere. What ensues is a blatant, intellectually degrading, rhetorical “sleight-of-hands” by the Tryer of Fact regardless of whether he/she is empowered by law to do so; public mockery that’s tangential to reason, logic, rationale, fair play; all one expects from a learned person of Honor, particularly the Judge. Evidence can never originate from a fictional source that does not exist! Except in India …and only when the Judge says so!

But let’s “think outside the Box” for a moment: were it not this way, our Criminal Justice System would be just another lackluster service-oriented government Department instead of what it is in reality today: The most lucrative, government-supported monopoly promising guaranteed returns and perpetual profits.

In a court system such as ours, where trial by jury has been substituted by Trial by Judge, no one dares challenge His Divine Honor’s “Supreme”, “Apodictic” ruling – and the matter becomes yet another whimsically created legal precedent…. Unless one has the resources and tenacity to proceed on to the risky appellate level. Nevertheless, a sizable majority of court patrons would rather not be tried by a jury of their peers. It’s just a “numbers thing” and commonsense economics. Rather than endeavor bribing twelve people on the Stand, wouldn’t you prefer dealing with just one? [By the way, did’ja ever wonder if they actually have to strip for the judge to observe it’s a “Hung Jury”? Just a thought …]

Prudence usually dissuades one from pursuing the Mandamus route and having to reappear before a thoroughly pissed-off judge. Consequently, as a charitable display of some notional sensitivity toward the underdog, certain time-honored principles of Indian jurisprudence have been discretely omitted from the bestselling collection of nursery rhymes for aspiring little toddler jurists, “MAXIMS OF JUSTICE AND OTHER BEDTIME FABLES”, like f’rinstance, Don’t piss-off the Judge. Piss on the Defendant”, “Give ‘em a fair trial; then hang ’em“, “How to maintain a discrete, profitable understanding with the commission agents: The Cops”, “Dissension is our business, and business is good”……….

© Copyright 2010 – Carlisle Collins – All Rights Reserved