Charlie Hebdo, laïcité and Italy

Charlie Hebdo loves being in the news. After shooting to international prominence in January 2015 following a terrorist attack on its office in Paris, which killed 12 of its staff members, people around the world came to know more about the magazine. Initial reaction to the atrocity was one of horror, followed by solidarity -which led to je suis <insert persecuted entity here> becoming something of a meme- and yet another round of debates over the limits to free speech and expression. People also started reflecting over whether or not minorities and their cultural claims being disproportionately targeted for criticism made them victims to cultural bullying in unfamiliar lands. Nevertheless, Charlie Hebdo, by and large, captured media attention in all parts of the world. What was a small throughput French magazine read by probably a few thousand people in Paris became an internationally recognized satire magazine known for its irreverent satire and dark humor. When they made a comeback not long after the tragic episode, they were praised the world over for their bravery. This now means that Charlie Hebdo‘s readership has conceivably taken an upward curve in parts of the world where French is spoken and understood, apart from having its works being translated into different languages. Continue reading “Charlie Hebdo, laïcité and Italy”

Advertisements

The “juvenile” and the culture of misogyny

865670-nada-al-ahdals
What chance do I have in this world?

A rapist-murderer who was one of a gang of 6 to have brutalized Jyoti Singh  -a 23 year old, ambitious paramedical student who made the mistake of going out of her home on the evening of December 16, 2012, with her boyfriend in India’s rape capital– in a horrific manner, was released after a “sentence” of 3 years of imprisonment, afforded to him by India’s Juvenile Justice Act yesterday. The reason? He was a few months short of completing his 18th birthday. The others, who were judged to be capable of taking responsibility for their crimes, were sentenced to death. So, in pampering a violent and dangerous “juvenile”, who at seventeen years and six months old was apparently as good at differentiating rape from larceny as he was at telling shit from Shinola, the Indian judiciary has overcompensated for sending the-poor-thing’s comrades to the gallows. If ever there was an instance of complete travesty of justice in a highly publicized case, this was one. There are already voices out there calling for a more considerate treatment of the issue at hand. So let’s hear what this one has to say:

We must take cognisance of the fact that the environment the children are growing up in now is vastly different from a decade ago. We are living in a ‘super sexualised world’ and the access that a common person has to the amount of depraved information available has grown multifold. It is the adversely sexual aspects of popular culture that are problematic.

If by “access” the author means “access to the Internet”, then by the same logic, one also has access to information on gender sensitivity and human rights on the Internet. Besides, correlation does not become causation. And there is no evidence that the “juvenile” (whose identity, by the way, is protected by Indian law on the excuse of being a juvenile) was influenced by “the adversely sexual aspects of popular culture” in being led to participating in the crime. One might argue that he felt encouraged to take part in the crime because he had adult friends doing it, but that does not in any way absolve him of any guilt or responsibility. The first thing that people need to understand is that brains do not commit heinous crimes. And that is the first step in reformation of any criminal, juvenile or not. The author admits as much:

Any punishment has to have a reparative effect, one that prevents an individual from repeating the crime — this cannot and should not come at the cost of fear, but should stem from a place of understanding in the individual, who takes cognisance of why what he/she had done was wrong, and, therefore, must not do again. If it is not reparative, it is vengeful and the purpose of the law is not to be vengeful.

Continue reading “The “juvenile” and the culture of misogyny”