1. Three public utterances that caught my attention recently:
(1) Soon after Justice Thomas's comments, CM Chandy said " he forgets the way he came by" suggesting that the Justice reached his position due to help rendered by the CM or the Congress Party. If it is Congress that makes judges, it is to be further scrutinized and weighed against the prevalent norms.
(2) Minister Joseph exclaimed that everyone knows he was the junior of so and so (a Marxist lawyer) and that he was a govt. advocate while the Communists were in power, suggesting his comments against the congress regime were due to his allegiance to the left ideology. If Marxists have a Judge, then the public has a right to know how many judges each party has and their ratio in high court benches.
Finally both the ministers need to know their utterances amount to contempt of court, esp. in the context of the CM's public statement that
(3) government cases should not be sent to Justice Thomas's bench alleging he is partial. If one has objection to anything said by a judge in his official capacity, he should know that he has to approach the competent court to get those remarks expunged and not to respond in public forums or through media. Will welcome further comments on this. Thanks.
******************************************************************************************************************************
2. On heart transplant after transporting heart from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam by air:
__________________________________________________________________________
A great deed, but not too huge a feat... This underlines the need for all our hospitals having helipads on top of their buildings (if possible, right over their operation theatres and with efficient elevators) and a few suitable air-crafts (owned privately or by the state), besides alert medical professionals trained to handle emergency situations.. . This will not only help ailing patients (organ/ donor/ donee/ super- specialty) but also people involved in major accidents and dire situations (road/ fire/ fights/ psychiatric/ domestic violence etc.) from where they can be air-lifted and rushed to hospitals with well- equipped trauma units. Thanks.
#############################################################################
3. Porno
##############################################################################
His statements, (1) "The ban is definitely a step towards protecting the country’s women and children. Watching porn itself puts the country’s security in danger, encourages violent acts, unacceptable behaviour in society, exploitation of children and lowers the dignity of women" is not factual; (2) “To say Indian women watch porn is an insult to their dignity” is nonsensical and (3) “My fight has been against obscenity. I feel watching porn fuels violence against women. It propels men to commit sex crimes. I saw no women come forward and speak up against pornography, so I did it,” is not directly related to the feeling of the people at large. Why should the Chief Justice say, "“Adults have a fundamental right to watch pornography within the privacy of their own homes” if his speculations are anywhere near truth? My view is that pornography is not to be copied but it is to be thought upon and improved, though I don't view pornography due to other reasons. I consider the Government order banning porn sites a definite threat to individual freedom. Thanks.
(1) Soon after Justice Thomas's comments, CM Chandy said " he forgets the way he came by" suggesting that the Justice reached his position due to help rendered by the CM or the Congress Party. If it is Congress that makes judges, it is to be further scrutinized and weighed against the prevalent norms.
(2) Minister Joseph exclaimed that everyone knows he was the junior of so and so (a Marxist lawyer) and that he was a govt. advocate while the Communists were in power, suggesting his comments against the congress regime were due to his allegiance to the left ideology. If Marxists have a Judge, then the public has a right to know how many judges each party has and their ratio in high court benches.
Finally both the ministers need to know their utterances amount to contempt of court, esp. in the context of the CM's public statement that
(3) government cases should not be sent to Justice Thomas's bench alleging he is partial. If one has objection to anything said by a judge in his official capacity, he should know that he has to approach the competent court to get those remarks expunged and not to respond in public forums or through media. Will welcome further comments on this. Thanks.
******************************************************************************************************************************
2. On heart transplant after transporting heart from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam by air:
__________________________________________________________________________
A great deed, but not too huge a feat... This underlines the need for all our hospitals having helipads on top of their buildings (if possible, right over their operation theatres and with efficient elevators) and a few suitable air-crafts (owned privately or by the state), besides alert medical professionals trained to handle emergency situations.. . This will not only help ailing patients (organ/ donor/ donee/ super- specialty) but also people involved in major accidents and dire situations (road/ fire/ fights/ psychiatric/ domestic violence etc.) from where they can be air-lifted and rushed to hospitals with well- equipped trauma units. Thanks.
#############################################################################
3. Porno
##############################################################################
His statements, (1) "The ban is definitely a step towards protecting the country’s women and children. Watching porn itself puts the country’s security in danger, encourages violent acts, unacceptable behaviour in society, exploitation of children and lowers the dignity of women" is not factual; (2) “To say Indian women watch porn is an insult to their dignity” is nonsensical and (3) “My fight has been against obscenity. I feel watching porn fuels violence against women. It propels men to commit sex crimes. I saw no women come forward and speak up against pornography, so I did it,” is not directly related to the feeling of the people at large. Why should the Chief Justice say, "“Adults have a fundamental right to watch pornography within the privacy of their own homes” if his speculations are anywhere near truth? My view is that pornography is not to be copied but it is to be thought upon and improved, though I don't view pornography due to other reasons. I consider the Government order banning porn sites a definite threat to individual freedom. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment