[Reader-list] A certificate from Lawrence the critical legal theorist

[ARNAB CHATTERJEE]

Dear Lawrence,
               This is a great certificate from
someone who I sincerely revere for his erudition of
law and jurisprudence; I hope you are aware of this
appreciation ( and its not a private endorsement, ha),
so am giving it for circulation too but Lawrence my
postings are not going through on the Reader's list
even as this one I'll CCit, but wd not go through. My
friend Mitra is trying but failing. So sadly this
article might just remain in private collections
only...alas!

love and regards
arnab



--- Lawrence Liang <lawrence at altlawforum.org> wrote:

> Arnab
> 
> 
> Fantastic article, circulated it to my colleagues
> and I had a good time
> defending it with my feminist colleagues whose
> position on character witness
> this shakes up a bit
> 
> 
> Lawrence
> 
> 2008/5/25 ARNAB CHATTERJEE
> <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in>:
> 
> > Dear Alternative law thinkers,
> >               With Arushi Talwar and her
> > mate--servant's murder ( her illicit affair expert
> > father being the alleged culprit) as well as one
> > Grover's bloodied corpse in Mumbai besides which
> Maria
> > and her keen killer boyfriend ( Mathew) are
> reported
> > to have copulated twice, the question of sexual
> > morality and death thinking  has again sprung up.
> And
> > I think this is the time again to visit and pull
> in
> > the uncomfortable question of morality vis a vis
> > legality. I had sent this question and a bit
> unedited
> > draft of the paper below to some  in the wake of 
> the
> > event of the sad  rape and murder of Scarlet
> > Keeling,when the old debate about our moral
> character,
> > ambitious and risky life style had again cropped
> > up.I'm sending this now to the two of you.
> >
> > The majority view, as you know, argues that these
> > questions are irrelevant to the questions of
> > justice.And in 2002 an amendment reckoned with
> this
> > view.
> >    Long back in the year 2003 I had drafted a
> shorter
> > version of this article criticizing this amendment
> and
> > which was published in Bengali in 2003 and in
> English
> > in 2004.I'll never forget the nightmare I had had
> > while
> > publishing this argument. But again while this
> debate
> > reappears in 2008, I'm surprised to find many of
> my
> > friends,political parties ( a few representatives
> to
> > whom I've talked to), even some lawyers are
> willing to
> > buy this argument and a campaign for nullifying
> the
> > 2002amendment which sought to exclude all
> inquiries
> > into the moral character of the persons involved,
> may
> > as well begin.But not before you document your
> > important views.
> > Friend,Please answer two questions, 1) Do you
> agree
> > with me( please go through the document below)
> that an
> > inquiry into moral questions, including the moral
> > character of the complainant and the defendant is
> > absolutely relevant in matters of (sexual)
> violence
> > including murder as a variation on the above
> theme?
> > 2) If you do not, please tell me why not?
> >
> > --------------
> >
> >  'Law stands between politics and morality' –
> Jurgen
> > Habermas , Law and Morality, The Tanner Lectures
> on
> > Human values , Harvard university, Oct1,2, 1986
> >
> >
> > CHARACTER (ISING) RAPE, CONTEMPLATING AMENDMENT
> >
> > What was noticeable in the  episode in which Anil
> > Biswas ( now deceased general secretary of the
> > CPI(M), West Bengal ) was shouted at and condemned
> by
> > nearly
> > everybody -  when he had reported ( in 2003) that
> > there were
> > questions in the locality about the  'lifestyle'
> of an
> > alleged rape victim,  was the immense confidence
> with
> > which  the argument of  Biswas was put down. This
> > false  confidence derived from the Indian Evidence
> (
> > Amendment) Bill, 2002 becoming Indian Evidence
> > Amendment Act, 2003. The act  sought to amend the
> > Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and provided for
> deletion
> > of clause 4 of section 155 by specifically
> providing
> > in Section 146  that in a prosecution for rape or
> > attempt to commit rape, it will not be permissible
> to
> > 'put questions in the cross examination of the
> > complainant as to her general immoral character'.
> In
> > Section 155(4) this could have been used 
> previously
> > to impeach the credit of  the complainant as a
> > witness. Before that there was the 177th report of
> the
> > Law Commission of India and the National
> Commission
> > for Women who had unanimously recommended the
> deletion
> > of Section 155(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The
> > recommendations were pushed forward keeping in
> view
> > instances -  where people have been acquitted 
> because
> > of the immoral character of the complainant or the
> > latter were  harassed in cross examination.
> >              But this amendment was in a sense
> > redundant if we want to closely read   two other
> > Sections [151,152] of the  Indian Evidence Act (
> > I.E.A).  Section 151 states, 'The Court may forbid
> any
> > question or inquiries which it regards as indecent
> or
> > scandalous although such questions or inquiries
> may
> > have some bearing on the questions before the
> Court
> > unless they relate to fact in issue or to matters
> > necessary to be known in order to determine
> whether or
> > not the facts in issue 
'; Section 152 states, '
> The
> > Court shall forbid any question which appears to
> it to
> > be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though
> > proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly
> > offensive in form'. The question is, despite this
> > immunity and the power of the trial judge to
> > intervene, the courts must have failed in their
> duties
> > to protect a rape complainant from being
> scandalized
> > while being questioned; through this amendment the
> > Indian legislature vis a- vis the Supreme Court
> > acknowledges this failure perhaps. No explanation
> has
> > been forwarded on this count from any quarters. In
> the
> > Rajya Sabha itself this question was raised by
> Shri S.
> > Shumugasundaram but he ended up having had to
> welcome
> > the Bill—such is the compulsion to be politically
> > correct.
> > This is a technical and nearly a fatal objection
> to
> > the amendment - from within the I.E.A. But the
> > amendment arguers and makers  have had
> > other serious sociological reasons too—which are
> > abundant in the media; abundant and cheap because
> any
> > critical argument against – is avoided or
> suppressed.
> > The reasons forwarded by  the protagonists are1)
> > immoral
> > character has nothing to do with the fact that one
> is
> > violated or has perpetrated violence; 2)
> immorality
> > should be left alone so that we are able to
> respect a
> > persons' privacy; 3) morality of character is an
> > ethico-moral issue, not a legal one;
> >           We shall address each of them.
> >
> > 1.READING CHARACTER IN THE I.E.A
> >
> > We must first try to prove that the question of
> one's
> > character is vital for a case of rape or sexual
> > assault. Now-everybody knows  that a
> > poetess—Madhumita Shukla was murdered in U.P (
> around
> > 2002-03) and
> > a lot has been written on it, the minister had had
> to
> > resign and all that. But  her preeminently 
> dangerous
> > lifestyle—a
> > disposition to sleep with the politicians and
> > criminals of Gorakhpur—does it have nothing to do
> with
> > her own
> > death?  To hobnob with  Amarmani Tripathi—the
> infamous
> > minister who has had  nearly 38 cases against him
> for
> > murder, land grab  to rape—his moral character 
> has
> > nothing to do with Madhumita's death? It would be
> > scandalous to consider the  woman's death separate
> > from the kind of lifestyle she was used to; the
> kind
> > of action norms she had set for herself – the kind
> of
> > 'character' that she was.  Would it have been
> > irrelevant if her or the ministers' character  had
> > featured in the trial considering she was raped-
> not
> > murdered? Not at all. And provided the woman had
> led a
> > sane life in accordance with acceptable moral
> > standards but still she was raped, then the
> character
> > of the alleged rapist would have featured in a
> vicious
> > way. This is missing in the I.E.A. Infact what was
> > actually wrong is the gender bias in the Section [
> > 155(4) ] where the immoral character of the
> > complainant could be invoked by the defence lawyer
> to
> > impeach  only the complainants' witness; the
> witness
> > is understandably a woman here. The moment we make
> it
> > gender neutral we assume the bias is corrected.
> But
> > instead of giving it a corrective, the amendment
> > makers have done away with the whole thing.
> (Character
> > here   signify serial and  stable dispositions of
> an
> > individual over time, i.e our actions and
> behaviorial
> > dispositions
> > by which we come to be known as reliable or a
> cheater,
> >  romantic or
> > someone always with sexual intent etc.) And this
> > weighing of dispositions of individuals is what
> makes
> > everyday life going; you know  a guy to be 'good',
> you
> > decide to  go to a date and return being raped (
> for
> > this read the ever growing literature on date
> rape);
> > you know somebody is of questionable 'morals'- so
> > decide not to go on a date or go at a time, at a
> place
> > where his morals will not get the go. Likewise,
> for
> > every person we just cannot afford to start from
> zero;
> > therefore when it is suggested that in a rape or
> in a
> > case of  sexual assault or simply violence which
> has
> > sexual side brackets;
> > any question of character is uncalled for—the
> obvious
> > thing that comes to mind is,
> > are we products of our past actions? Do  our pasts
> > have a lot to do with our present or all  our
> actions
> > are  arbitrary and accidental and  there is no 
> logic
> > to be gained? The point is- claims on the
> past—even
> > our
> > pasts -- can be contested but cannot be done
> without.
> > And that we everyday invoke and use these
> character
> > traits to guide us in our actions is absolutely
> > relevant. And because crime has this life as the
> > backdrop, 'situations' as well as 'characters',
> > 'dispositions' as well as 'life style' have to be
> > taken into account ( and this briefly answers
> > the situational psychological objections
> > regarding behavioral inconsistency and the
> > impossibility of character or 'character building'
> by
> > teaching virtues: what I'm arguing for is
> coherence,
> > not consistency).
> >              What is actually wrong is the
> > gender bias in the Section where the immoral
> character
> > of the complainant could be invoked by the defence
> > lawyer to impeach her witness; the witness is
> > understandably a woman here. The moment we make it
> > gender neutral we assume the bias is corrected.
> The
> > immoral character clause should be applied on both
> the
> > complainant and the alleged perpetrator; for men
> --it
> > should be made more rigorously so—given the
> > patriarchial nature of our society and men like
> > Amarmani Tripathy.
> > The way it is happening now strategically-- is
> well
> > illustrated  by one www.onlinedetective.com which
> will
> > give you all information u regard necessary to
> date,
> > marry, have sex or start a business: here it is-
> >  "And how do you really know that the guy you've
> > started
> > dating isn't actually a convicted wife-beater with
> > several restraining orders on him, or that the new
> > employee you're about to hire really has all the
> > qualifications she says that she does? What if
> your
> > new neighbor that's suddenly started playing with
> your
> > kids after school is actually a convicted child
> > molester? You need to know these things in order
> to
> > protect yourself, your family, and your business"
> ;
> > this is the 2003 version of their site.)
> >  If these are our inquiries in everyday life, it 
> is a
> > wonder that these are considered irrelevant in a
> > criminal case. The phrase 'protection' above  is
> > signifying and deserves close thinking.
> >
> >  Here is an other  example with a legal niche:
> >  in  2003 again at West London an Indian
> businessman –
> > Amarjit Chouhan along with his family was
> murdered.
> > The UK  police  arrested two English men
> > – examining whose past records – the police had
> come
> > to the conclusion   that the two were ' violent'
> and
> > 'dangerous'.  Now violent and dangerous  are
> > apparently
> > morally negative characteriological  traits of a
> > person, but in the eyes
> > of the Law -  they having surveyed the behavioral
> > history of the  individuals—are   historical
> decisions
> > with legal consequences  and not immediately 
> moral
> > ones ( the use of 'history' in law is already a
> > disputed territory). Here
> > character does not stand for popular evaluative
> common
> > sense conceptions of good-bad, right- wrong etc,
> > because no incentives are there for being a
> morally
> > better person ( his crimes will still be tried)
> > instead there is a sense that  immoral behaviour
> is
> > more a threat to society's security  than a moral
> one;
> > infact  there is a legal -blame worthiness in the
> > sense a repeated offence might ensure more
> stringent
> > punishment. If our recommendation to include the
> > character of the convict is accepted, in that case
> > reinvoking the case of Amarmani Tripathi, any past
> > conviction will also add a dimension  to this. 
> This
> > is  clearly
> > explicated in I.E.A ( Section 54, Explanation 2) :
> 'A
> > previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad
> > character'. This statement proves again that
> character
> > in the I.E.A does not derive from ordinary or mere
> > moral  precepts as
> > the Law Commission et.al understand it but has
> special
> > techno-legal value.
> > Let us extend this  argument to the sphere of
> Indian
> > politics :
> > wasn't this  the clause we are pressing through a
> bill
> > in a different form-for the knowledge of the pasts
> of
> > our political representatives to be delivered to
> the
> > people?—or else why are we concerned about their
> past
> > convictions?—even their moral history held in
> their
> > 'clean' images—in short –their ' characters'?
> Because
> > we are invoking the moralization of politics (
> that
> > politics should not violate  moral norms), -
> aren't
> > we? We are moved by the current  demoralization of
> > politics, but at the same time—it is peculiar  we
> are
> > about to argue in favour of the de-moralization of
> Law
> >  -that law and morality should be separate ( which
> is
> > in reality a rational illusion of modernity)—not
> > knowing that the demoralization of politics is
> only a
> > step further! To be more concrete—what has been
> > considered a relevant inquiry for a political
> > representative is irrelevant for an ordinary
> citizen?
> > This is awfully undemocratic and politically self
> > defeating.
> >
> > 2.IMMORAL CHARACTER, WHERE THEN?
> >
> >
> >      The model of this debate was set when a
> British
> > judge- Lord Devlin while responding to the report
> of
> > the
> > Committee on homosexual Offenses and Prostitution
> > argued,
> >  " without shared ideas on politics, morals, and
> > ethics no society can
> > exist
..therefore with " recognized morality"
> being
> > present , legislation against immorality is
> > indispensable to prevent the disintegration of
> > society 
 Criminal Law exists
> > for the protection of society, not as the
> 
Wolfenden
> > Report asserted, for the protection of the
> > individual."
> >  The Wolfenden report in turn had asserted
> > that " there must remain a realm of private
> morality
> > and immorality which is 
not the law's business."
> > There is nothing wrong with private immorality;
> > immorality unless it harms others or else is
> public is
> > at par with the liberty of individuals. For
> example ,
> > I might be a homosexual -  while my
> community—legal
> > community in which I live, sees homosexuality as
> > immorality; if I 'm engaged in homosexual acts in
> > private—outside the purview of the public
> eye—perhaps
> > in the bedroom, the state will not intervene; but
> if I
> > pursue it as a particular kind of  lifestyle
> openly
> > and demand rights for the same the state needs to
> > intervene and negotiate. ( It is necessary to read
> the
> > references to character through reputation in the
> > I.E.A  by not separating it from its appropriate
> > contexts. It clearly states ( in Explanation-55)
> that
> > 'in Section 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word '
> character'
> > includes both reputation and disposition; but
> except
> > as provided in Section 54, evidence may be given
> of
> > only  a general reputation and general disposition
> and
> > not of particular acts by which reputation or
> > disposition was shown.') There are two or three
> > factors at stake here: while the Indian Evidence
> Act
> > speaks about bad reputation in general  --clearly
> > tells about reputation that hasn't grown out of
> > private immorality; if I've been  privately and
> > secretly immoral how do I come to have a
> > (dis)'reputation' and be known as immoral?
> Further,
> > reputation has nothing to do with (moral) sexual
> acts
> > only; one can earn ill repute just because s/he is
> > cruel to the animals or a swindler or a black
> money
> > maker. A girl when walks with a half bare bosom (
> > agreeably -a private part) or a boy exhibits
> something
> > from his private 'inventory'—it is said to be an
> event
> > of public immorality ( indecency) which violates
> group
> > or civic  morality; it is possible to go further
> and
> > argue that the girl or the boy outrages her/ his
> own
> > modesty when s/he does so. In this sense - that
> one
> > must be free to  lead any sort of life one wants
> to -
> > stands for all and nothing: a married woman/ man
> if
> > does not respect marriage as a moral contract and
> > justifies fornication by her/his  actions cannot
> be
> > accepted on grounds of her freedom or she being
> > privately
> > immoral and therefore to be tolerated by all. It
> is on
> > the
> > question of character at times -- that a suit of
> > divorce is successfully filed and won even by
> > submitting the burden of proof, and no way it can
> be
> > argued that if a wife files a suit of divorce
> because
> > her husband has been  adulterous, she should be
> taught
> > that law has nothing to do with morality and one
> can
> > be privately immoral and she should have  inquired
> > whether her hubby had taken enough caution to be
> > secretive. This is just ridiculous!
> > Secondly, that one's character is a private matter
> and
> > the Law should not interfere in matters private
> has
> > been disputed most by the feminists themselves. By
> > saying
> > ' personal is political' ( though Ive extensively
> > written on how this collapses the personal and the
> > private) they took so called private
> > matters for public legislation; the issue of
> marital
> > rape was brought to light by their incessant
> efforts.
> > If they were to be satisfied with the immorality
> that
> > can be safely practiced in private, they would not
> > have called forth for legislation on the
> consensual
> > validity of conjugal copulation that obviously
> does
> > not take place in public.
> >
> > 3. CHARACTER—A MORAL QUESTION! REALLY?
> >
> >          However, their substantive answer  to my
> > objections
> > could be something like this: Law
> > looses it's legal character if it is lead by the
> > axioms of morality; it will see to the illegality
> of
> > the  event in question rather than the immorality
> of
> > the event. An immoral 'victim' and a perpetrator
> with
> > a sound moral history should be considered equals
> > before the eyes of the Law. Legality and morality
> are
> > two different things. Justice has to do only with
> > legality and not morality.
> >                                    Long back it
> was
> > Karl Marx who had told us most emphatically—how
> Law is
> > not just Law; it is out and out political. Again
> it is
> > the works of one of the
> > greatest philosophers of the 20th century—Jurgen
> > Habermas—which have reminded us that it is through
> the
> > political legislature - which is the law making
> > body—that morality and politics enter into law
> through
> > the back
> > door perhaps,(remember the Shah Banu controversy);
> and
> > it is simply an illusion that law and morality,
> law
> > and politics, or law and society are internally
> > separate and separable. Further –if Law apart from
> > having to have  compulsory legal validity ( i.e
> it's
> > equally enforceable for all and  whose violation
> will
> > entail
> > punishment) is to have normative or social
> > validity—that is--if it is to be seen as 'just' - 
> has
> > to negotiate - with the moral expectations of  a
> > population and seek consensus through argument. -
> or
> > otherwise as has been pointed out  how would Nazi
> > laws, even retrospectively,
> > be questioned? If  law is to justify itself in the
> > eyes of all affected and gain social validity
> apart
> > from legal validity, then the 'Law is Law' slogan 
> is
> > simply dangerous. The Nazi laws can be questioned
> only
> > on grounds of morality and politics.
> > And morality-- if not brought within the purview
> of
> > law will never get tested of it's own validity in
> > terms of human rights or  gender sensitivity.
> > Nivedita Menon reminds us, how
> > the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment decided
> to
> > overrule a tribal custom where rape had been  a
> > customary practice -  by saying that there cannot
> be
> > any customary practice which could override
> certain
> > basic human rights of individuals. Therefore
> various
> > moralities—belonging to the individual or 
> groups—will
> > never be tested if a rigorous demarcation is
> > maintained between law & morality. But these are
> all
> > arguments as to how law will mislead itself if it
> were
> > to avoid the question of character in a case of
> > sexual assault or a  rape trial—and through this
> > amendment—apparently-- it has taken that route; 
> what
> > remains to be known is the effect of this 
> amendment
> > on the citizen.
> >
> > 5. CONCLUSION
> >    Let us see the consequences of this argument
> for
> > the citizen- individual:.
> >  Once upon a time someone called Mendelville had
> > proposed the models of the bad citizen and the
> good
> > citizen. The model of the bad citizen entails – he
> > recognizes only legal obligations, so is always on
> the
> > lookout for a chance to violate it safely: the
> moment
> > he makes it sure that he will not be caught in the
> act
> > of breaking the law, he goes along. A good citizen
> > irrespective of the vigil of the law, being
> inspired
> > by moral obligations—does not violate
> prohibitions.
> > Therefore following this if you were to have only
> > legal
> > obligations, you would not rape only when you're 
> sure
> > you'll
> > be caught in the act of violation; the moment I
> can
> > make it sure otherwise,  I would be up with my
> talent.
> > But it is sure we don't rape not because we have a
> > legal obligation, but also because a moral
> obligation
> > not to do so. A binary distinction between
> legality
> > and morality will produce more people with legal
> > obligations only—and reinforce the model of the 
> bad
> > citizen--  and the consequence understandably is
> > dangerous.
> >  Therefore, such an amendment which seeks to
> delete
> > all questions regarding character or the moral
> history
> > of an individual, indirectly by its long hand,
> > discourages citizens to  adopt 'justified' moral
> > behaviour at all. Take the ( 2002 onwards)  drive 
> by
> > the Kolkata
> > police to arrest men folk who 'annoy' and '
> harass'
> > women standing by the roadside – waitng for buses,
> > through 'indecent' proposals. A lot of men were
> > arrested
> > but lately the police were not so pleased to find
> that
> > a lot of women folk ( you know who they are) do
> invite
> > clients that way and for
> > them 'wise' women are being proposed and harassed
> from
> > no where. The moment the police started picking
> some
> > of those women too—there was protest from
> > 'concerned'quarters and the move was
> abandoned.However
> > it is the case in which the ordinary women
> > themselves condemn the actions of some women for
> whom
> > they are being propositioned and harassed. Now,
> such
> > an
> > amendment which seeks to delete all questions
> > regarding character or the moral history of an
> > individual, indirectly by its long hand,
> discourages
> > citizens to  adopt 'justified' moral behaviour at
> all.
> > The conclusion that can be  derived  is this: -
> the
> > woman who wears revealing clothes, tries to sleep
> her
> > way to the top—(no matter if it is  furthered by
> > criminals
> > and politicians) and gets assaulted, raped or
> > murdered, and the woman who
> > does not do so and goes all along with community's
> > 'positive' morality-- but still is harassed,
> assaulted
> > or raped --- the law  shall be doing grave
> injustice
> > to the latter woman -  if it places both of  them
> on
> > the same plane by not distinguishing between the
> > differing behavioral dispositions of the two
> > individuals. Then the second woman  in particular
> is
> > prone  to do this kind of a  reasoning, "well, if
> my
> > actions, dispositions, or reputation does not
> matter
> > and am placed equally with that (wo)man, why
> should I
> > at
> > all lead a moral life in a   community?" Same with
> the
> > men who are (sexually) corrupt, cunning and yet
> > successful. Virtuous men tend to loose to the
> 'ways of
> > the world'.
> > So our point is -  this amendment discredits those
> who
> > tend to live
> > according to the 'justified' or justiciable moral
> > standards of their communities and civic life, and
> > discourages future moral behaviour from citizens
> > because they will understand that that won't be
> > recognized. "If my honesty is not credited at some
> > point of time—particularly in times of crisis, why
> > should I at all  be honest?"
> >
> > While this is one aspect, millions of women who
> have
> > been forced for various external reasons to
> become-
> > for example –prostitute/sex sellers ( excluding
> the
> > call girl and their client syndrome who-- I argue
> > elsewhere, should be summarily persecuted under a
> > moral regime);
> > would they be discriminated
> > against?  Here, the alleged rape of a prostitute
> > raises difficult questions and needs extensive
> > discussion and interpretation. If their character
> is
> > considered—which will be immoral according to
> certain
> > standards, then would raping them  be considered a
> > lesser crime? I can just attempt an answer here
> but
> > begin by saying that for us this is a false
> question.
> > In terms of a moral-ethical ideal-argument,
> > prostitution is something  beyond any defense and
> asks
> > for its outright annihilation. But if this gives 
> a
> > semblance to some that I'm avoiding engagement
> with
> > the question, then let me clarify that here we are
> > pulled into a blind alley : the morality test has
> to
> > be neutralized  and it is done in this manner.
> >    I've proposed a matrix where the character test
> > would be
> > made gender neutral. And there is also a hint that
> > character would be understood to stand for an
> > inventory of stable dispositions of an individual
> over
> > time emptied of it's normative or moral judgmental
> > contents ( who might not be  absolutely consistent
> but
> > coherent).
> > Following that – the question of immorality
> > would have a descriptive reckoning. But if we want
> to
> > retain the force of morality for possibility's or
> > simplicity's sake, then invoking that --consider
> where
> > the convict alleges that the complainant woman is
> a
> > prostitute
> > and is therefore of established loose morals and
> is
> >  lying; they have had usual paid sex, there
> > was some brawl on the payment when the woman
> charged
> > extra money after sex and he had denied ( nowhere
> do
> > these people claim that raping the prostitutes has
> had
> > been their right -  as some wrongly contend). Now
> the
> > courtly  indictment for the other (male) side
> could
> > be- "well, that the woman is of loose morals is
> okay,
> > but how  do you having been of strict morals 
> visited
> > her for sex?"( With this we support the recent
> > proposed ( as changes to the PITA) arrest of
> customers
> > visiting them.) When it becomes obvious that both
> can
> > be
> > constructed as immoral, the morality test is
> > neutralised and other considerations resume. But
> to
> > start to
> > recognise the violation of the prostitutes, one
> cannot
> > but
> > take into account their different life or living
> > style; their identity has to be established first
> :
> > and this
> > falls well in line with our main  proposal and
> Anil
> > Biswas is again correct.
> >
> >               Armed with this correctness – we
> could
> > recommend – for
> > the time being-- the following --
> > 1)      The amendment deleting section 155(4)
> should be
> > nullified by a newer amendment and stress should
> be
> > given on Section 151& 152  because they suffice to
> > restore discursive justice by confronting
> harassment
> > in the courtroom.
> > 2)      Section 155(4) should be revised to entail
> inquiry
> > into the
> > moral character/sexual history  of both the
> > complainant and the alleged
> > perpetrator of the sexual assault and provided the
> > perpetrator is male -  the inquiry  should be made
> > more stringent and more rigorously applied. ( As
> > explicated before, character, situation, past and
> > present
> >  lifestyle should be adequately linked and
> integrated
> > into
> > the  identity of the complainant and the
> defendant.)
> > 3)      In case of complainants with sexual
> identities like
> > the sex sellers—legal protection should be doubled
> and
> > rape in their case has to be theorized differently
> > from
> > the general civilian women given the complex
> nature of
> > the formers' sexual consent which can be bought.
> There
> > is no proviso in Indian rape laws as to this
> double
> > bind. The rape of a sex seller – to understand it
> > differently—a beginning has  to be made but that
> again
> > has to account for her different 'way of life or
> > living -style': this has to be written into our
> legal
> > discourse.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      Check out the all-new face of Yahoo! India.
> Go to
> > http://in.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> 



      Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/