Desicritics Category: Politics: Laws

Now I Have A Right To Reputation

K. M. — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:44:40 EST

The Times of India reports

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person’s reputation is an inseparable part of his fundamental right to life and liberty and hence, the police and other authorities with the power to detain should be very sure of their facts against an individual before taking him into preventive detention and lodging him in jail.

“The reputation of a person is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution”

Let me reiterate some facts that I noted in an earlier post. Under the Indian constitution:

I do not have the right to express my thoughts freely. The state may impose “reasonable restrictions” on my expression ”in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” (article 19)

I do not have a right to my property. (The right to property is not a fundamental right)

I do not have a right to my body. ”Nothing in this article (article 23) shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes”

But now I do have a right to reputation - a right to what others think of me, a right to others judgment. And this is what the Times has to say about it

It should be welcomed by those who are disturbed by the rampant trend among cops to send the accused to jail even for bailable offences or when the evidence has not fully firmed up. Anxious to appease the chorus for swift justice and to be seen as discharging their law enforcement brief, cops and other detaining authorities see jailing the accused as an easy option.

There is no need to invoke a right to reputation to keep the police from abusing their powers. In the earlier post I wrote,

“This mess of contradictory and concrete-bound articles institutionalizes an approach of rampant pragmatism to governance. It institutionalizes the idea that there are no absolute rights, no absolute principles and no absolute limits to the actions governments can take.”

This ruling and its purpose serve to underline that.

Book Review: NEXT

K. M. — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:24:33 EST

NEXT is a novel by Michael Crichton. Or at least it claims to be. It has a disorganized plot, too many characters with too little characterization and gratuitous sex. Just about two weeks after reading it, I can hardly remember the characters or their roles in the plot.

The main plot describes the efforts of a biological research company engaged in creating genetic drugs to recover some cells that could be used to fight cancer. The cells have been obtained during a routine treatment and the patient is unaware that his cells are special. The doctor who treats him discovers that the cells are special and continues his research without informing the patient.

When he decides to commercialize the cells, the patient sues his company but loses the case. He then gets an offer from a competitor for his cells and goes into hiding. Meanwhile the cell samples are stolen and the company attempts to obtain cells from the patient’s daughter and grandson, providing enough material for all the action.

There are also some sub-plots. There is a researcher who discovers a “maturity” gene, accidentally gives it to his drug addicted brother who comes out of his addiction, then tries out the gene on some other people, only to discover that the gene actually causes premature ageing and death. There is another researcher who inseminates a female chimpanzee with his own sperm with some genetic process (I don’t recall the details) and lands up with a humanzee kid, resembling a chimpanzee in appearance but capable of human speech.

He takes the kid home and sends him to school disguised as a child with some rare medical condition. Overall, the plot is somewhat incoherant and one has to make an effort to remember the characters when they reappear after a few pages.

As a novel Airframe was much more engaging and Prey was a lot more exciting even though the plot in Prey was much worse. (Airframe and Prey are the only other novels by Crichton that I have read). If NEXT were just a novel, it would be a waste of time. But NEXT is more than a novel. It raises serious questions about patent laws in the domain of genetics, intellectual property rights, what it means to own ones body, commercialization of genetic research, role of universities and government in research etc. In fact, Crichton has a 7 page note at the end of the novel, explaining his views on these issues. Since one of the purposes of this novel (perhaps the primary purpose) is clearly to raise these issues, let me present a summary of some of the issues from the novel and Crichton’s views.

Crichton presents a world that is almost out of control, a world in which the state of the art in genetics has far surpassed the state of the relevant laws. Here are some examples:

The lawyer representing the doctor and his research company tells the patient’s daughter after winning the case, that it would be futile for the patient to appeal the ruling. “UCLA is a state university. The Board of Regents is prepared, on behalf of the state of California, to take your father’s cells by right of eminent domain.”

The CEO of the research company wants a divorce and custody over his children but his wife doesn’t. His wife’s grandfather died from a fatal genetic disease and there is a chance that she might have it too. The CEO’s lawyer demands that the wife be genetically tested and gets a court order. The wife is unwilling to be tested since a discovery that she carries the disease would ruin her life.

An insurance company cancels a person’s coverage based on some genetic information about his father who died in circumstances that caused a legal enquiry. Someone at the company that performed the genetic tests says “Anyway the son is saying he did not authorize the release of genetic information about himself, which is true. But if we release the father’s information, as we’re required by state law to do, we also release the son’s, which we’re required by state law not to do. Because his children share half the same genes as the father. One way or another, we break the law.”

“The COX-2 inhibitor patent fight was famous. In 2000 the university of Rochester was granted a patent for a gene called COX-2, which produced an anzyme that caused pain. The university propmptly sued the pharmaceutical giant Searle, which marketed a successful arthritis drug, Celebrex, that blocked the COX-2 enzyme. Rochester said Celebrex had infringed on its gene patent, even though their patent only claimed general uses of the gene to fight pain. The university had not claimed a patent on any specific drug.”

Op-Ed commentary: “Columbia University researchers now claim to have found a sociability gene. What’s next?… In truth researchers are taking advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge… Geneticists will not speak out. They all sit on the boards of private companies, and are in a race to identify genes they can patent for their own profit…”

At the end of the novel, Crichton presents his views in the form of a 5 point course of action

1. Stop patenting genes: Crichton writes that genes are a fact of nature and such cannot be owned or patented.

2. Establish clear guidelines for the use of human tissues: Crichton writes that there should be legislation to ensure that patients can control the purpose for which their tissues are used.

3. Pass laws to ensure that data about gene testing is made public: Crichton suggests (not very clearly or convincingly) that there should be some genuinely independent verification of findings and full disclosure of research data.

4. Avoid bans on research: Crichton essentially argues that “To the best of my knowledge there has never been a successful global ban on anything. Genetic research is unlikely to be the first.”

5. Rescind the Bayh-Dole act (an act permitting university researchers to sell their discoveries for their own profit, even when that research had been funded by taxpayer money): Crichton laments that thirty years ago, universities provided a scholarly haven, a place where disinterested scientists were available to discuss any subject affecting the public. Now universities are commercialized, the haven is gone and scientists have personal interests that influence their judgement. Also “Taxpayers finance research, but when it bears fruit, the researchers sell it for their own institutional and personal gain, after which the drug is sold back to the taxpayers.”

I agree with points 1, 2 and 4 and strongly disagree with points 3 and 5. In fact I believe he has got the issue backwards.

In his support for point 3, Crichton writes “Government should take action. In the long run there is no constituency for bad information. In the short run, all sorts of groups want to bend the facts their way. And they do not hesitate to call their senators, Democratic or Republican. This will continue until the public demands a change.” This is true but his conclusion doesn’t follow. An “independent agency” in charge of verifying findings has to be under the control of politicians who will be all too willing to oblige the groups who who want to bend facts in exchange for backing. This phenomenon is not new at all. It is called lobbying. Requirements for disclosure are even more ridiculous than bans. You can force a person from doing something with limited success. How do you force a person to disclose what no one else knows? And most importantly, government has no moral right to <i>require</i> someone to do anything. Men are not slaves.

About the Bayh-Dole act, again Crichton has the facts right and the conclusion wrong. Universities are certainly commercialized today. And researchers who are funded by public money and allowed to make private profits certainly act in unscrupulous ways. The incentives are definitely wrong. But the solution is not to de-commercialize research. That is neither possible nor desirable. It ignores the context of why the act was passed in the first place. It was passed because non-commercial research does not work.

Describing a character who is a director of NIH (National Institutes of Health), another character says: “Rob’s a major player at NIH, He’s got huge research facilities and he dispenses millions in grants. He holds breakfasts with congressmen. He’s a scientist who believes in God. They love him on the Hill. He’d never be charged with misconduct. Even if we caught him buggering a lab assistant, he wouldn’t be charged.” and again “It was classic Rob Bellarmino. Talking like a preacher, subtly invoking God, and somehow getting everyone to push the envelope, no matter who got hurt, no matter what happened. Rob can justify anything. He’s brilliant at it.” The solution to unscrupulous researchers (in as much as the problem can be “solved”) is not to have more such men like Rob. It is to make them impossible, or more precisely to make it impossible for them to enjoy political clout and arbitrary powers to grant millions in grants. It is to divorce research from government.

The Hindu Terrorist and Current Investigations

Ashish — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:39:55 EST

For the first time in the country, the term 'Hindu terrorist' has come into common usage. It all started with the Malegaon blasts of September 29, outside the office of SIMI where 6 people died in the explosion, and many others were injured. As it turns out, this was not a case where terrorists, inspired by the word of radical Islam, had committed the crime. While the blast is under probe, all information that has been revealed so far by the ATS, and by the press, is that this was in the nature of a retaliatory attack (retaliation for the bomb attacks carried out by terrorists inspired by radical thought). While investigation is being carried out, this incident and the investigation has already led to a huge amount of hue and cry.

For once, both the BJP and the Shiv Sena are on the defensive. One of the main accused, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, was apparently a fiery speaker who was capable of rousing the spirits of people; incidentally, she was also a former national executive president of the Durga Vahini, and has been shown in the same photo as Rajnath Singh and the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister. The BJP has disowned her and her actions, claiming that this was done after she left the organization (and this part may be true). However, many constituents of the Sangh Parivaar are not happy with this and are pitching for the BJP to support the accused. The Shiv Sena is in total support of the accused (one can always consider the Shiv Sena to have a sense of irrationality in their actions).

This is where the BJP should have been a party with a difference. Having a political plank of National Security would mean that the party should stand firm against anyone who indulges in matters such as riots and bomb blasts. In this case, the refusal of the party to take a firm stand against the alleged bomb plotters means that the actions of the party are similar to the actions of the Congress, Samajwadi Party and are personally very disappointing. No matter what the reason, there cannot be any justification for supporting any brand of terrorists, whether they be terrorist inspired by radical Islamic theology or Hindu terrorists inspired by some concept of revenge. The bigger worry (based on current police reports) is that a senior army officer is involved, against their duty of protecting the nation:

Public prosecutor Ajay Misar said in the court that Purohit had attended most of the meetings organised by others accused at Kashmir, Pune, Bhopal, Nashik, and Deolali. "Since he is a senior army officer, he could have been the source for the RDX used in the bomb. We also have evidence that he distributed money to several people through his organisation through cheques and cash. The financial transactions are through hawala as well," said Misar, adding, "Purohit also trained several youths in bomb making."

Those arrested also include retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay and former Durga Vahini national executive president sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. The ATS completed all the formalities regarding the arrest of Lt Col Purohit — the first instance of an armyman being booked for a terror act — on Tuesday evening. Purohit came in contact with Upadhyay when he was posted at Nashik as liaison unit officer. Sources said he used the Nashik stint to fraternise with the extremists in various radical Hindu outfits and to draw them into Abhinav Bharat fold.

It is incumbent to nip such attacks and planning in the bud. The country already faces enough problems from terrorists and separatists in many corners of the country without having more people join this front (and there are terrorists who are Hindu as well - the ULFA, Naxalities, and many others). The BJP and other parties should take the lead in cutting such misguided people from getting public support and that there is no sympathy for them. Else, there is no justification in the BJP blaming people for showing support for the terrorists killed in the Jamia Nagar shootout in Delhi.

Polygamy: Why The Step-Motherly Treatment?

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:41:18 EDT

As India intensively debates the demand for decriminalisation of homosexuality, there is growing consensus everywhere that two consenting adults ought to have the freedom to do almost anything they like as long as they don't harm anyone else. Homosexuality is not a crime anywhere in the West. In most Western countries, homosexuals have the right to marry or enter into civil partnerships.

Whilst this is encouraging, I find it surprising that a a similar debate is totally lacking with respect to polygamy. In my opinion, if two consenting adults can do what they like in the privacy of their bedrooms and beyond, three or four or more consenting adults should have a similar right.

Polygamy is a generic term used to describe a situation where an individual (male or female) has multiple spouses. When a man has many wives or partners, it is called Polygyny. When a woman has many husbands or partners, it is called polyandry. Among organised religions, only Judaism and Christianity have strict prohibitions against having more than one spouse. Polygyny is most common among Muslims who have religious sanction for this practice. Polyandry is a lot less common, especially in the modern world. In India it used to be practised on a large scale among matriarchal tribes such as the Khasis of Meghalaya and matrilineal communities like the Nairs and Menons of Kerala. Recently I read a CNN news item regarding the practice of polyandry in Himachal Pradesh.

It is not only among Muslims that you see polygyny being practised. The US has the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who used to practice polygyny on a large scale. Some of them still do.

The ban on polygamy is enforced through the criminalisation of bigamy and adultery. A person commits bigamy when he or she undergoes a marriage ceremony when already married. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code penalises a person who undergoes a marriage ceremony whilst having a having a living husband or wife, with imprisonment of up to seven years. If the spouse in the second marriage was unaware of the first marriage, the punishment is higher (imprisonment of up to ten years) under Section 495.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor.” In other words, only a man can be guilty of adultery and then only if his lover is a married woman. The woman in the adulterous relationship will only be guilty of abetting the offence of adultery. The offence of adultery, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, is meant to protect married men from other men who may steal the affections of their wives.

Now consider this scenario. A married man or woman has an affair outside his or her marriage. The parties in the illicit relationship don't bother to get married. In any event such a marriage will be void and so unless there are religious reasons, there is no incentive in going through a marriage ceremony for a second time. Is there any offence being committed in this example? No, not unless a married woman is having an affair outside her marriage, in which case her lover will be guilty of adultery.

Therefore, the criminalisation of bigamy prevents married people from registering relationships they may be involved in outside their marriage, but does not actually prevent the relationship (unless it amounts to adultery). In my opinion, polygyny and polyandry ought to be legalised, just as homosexuality ought to be decriminalised and homosexuals given the right to have a civil partnership. Every marriage and civil partnership must be registered and the register should be available to the general public for inspection and accessible through the internet. Bigamy and adultery should not be criminal offences, though they should be a ground for divorce. Just as a spouse whose partner cheated on him or her can get a divorce, a spouse whose partner contracts a second marriage should be able to get an immediate divorce. A person who got married without knowing about his partner's first marriage should be able to get compensation for fraud. Criminal law should have no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

It may be argued that if polygamy were to be legalised, polygyny will become common, considering the weaker position women occupy in Indian society, whilst polyandry will only take place in poor communities where there is a scarcity of resources. This is a feasible argument, but I believe the answer lies in empowering women by educating them etc. and not in interfering in what consenting adults do.

Supreme Court Orders Police Officer To Compensate The Victim

DeeptiA — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:33:30 EDT

In India, the police derive their powers from laws enacted during the British time. These laws were meant to enforce the power of the state (and the rulers), and this sentiment drives the power and role of the police. Throughout India, if citizens are polled over the role of the police, you will find it hard to find people who have positive views.

This is also my personal view; my interaction with and observations of the police have convinced me that they are generally inclined to enforce the law and protect the rule of law (and there are many honest and great police officers as well), but they also see the law and the threat of force as a way to get benefits for themselves and their masters (who certainly are not the citizens of this country). Further, as every small trader / streetside vendor / other small businessman would volunteer, if you do not keep the local policemen happy, then things will be tough:

AHMEDABAD: Supreme Court has asked additional director-general of police Rajan Priyadarshi to pay Rs 8 lakh towards compensation to the person he assaulted blinding him in one eye, during a demonstration in 1987. The incident took place on February 1, 1987, when Priyadarshi and then inspector RJ Yadav resorted to lathicharge during a protest demonstration. In this, a Congress leader, who has recently joined BJP, Dr Prafull Thaker was injured and lost his right eye. He moved the court seeking compensation for the injury.

This must be a shock to the police officer, since the police assume that the right to use any amount of force during suppressing a protest is their given right (all the way from the brutal attack on Lala Lajpat Rai during the rule of the British), and the fact that a court could force them to pay compensation was unheard of. In the more advanced nations, powers given to the police are with responsibility and they can be prosecuted for excesses.

Why the Kid Glove Treatment for Raj Thackeray?

Ashish — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:19:18 EDT

The drama over Raj Thackeray is reaching a new high. Raj Thackeray, once he split from the Shiv Sena had to make a separate image for himself. So, one of the ways to do this was to try to appeal to the parochial nature of people; blame outsiders for whatever is the economic poor condition and try to inflame their sentiments. He has managed to be somewhat successful in this quest, inflaming sentiments and overall leading to a situation where immigrants from North India have been attacked inside Mumbai and other parts of the state of Maharashtra. In the past, this led to panic and the temporary stoppage of many industrial units with many of their workers running away.

And how does the Chief Minister handle this whole situation. The Shiv Sena has long been a thorn in the side of the Congress in Maharashtra, with their more pro-Marathi position and higher propensity to appeal to populist sentiment. The Congress cannot afford take such positions, since it needs to appeal to all sections of people, and cannot afford to antagonize the voters of North Indian origin. And of course, taking a more extremist position in Maharashtra would expose them to a backlash elsewhere; and their chief Sonia Gandhi would be targeted for such positioning; so if you get a person all ready to be more extremist than the Shiv Sena, you can imagine the scenario of a Congress Chief Minister salivating over the prospect of the Sena's divided vote.

What this has resulted in is the Congress treating Raj Thackeray with kid gloves; they come out with empty soundbeats about 'The law will take its own course', 'We will protect everyone and not let violence happen', and so on. And yet, they allow the lumpen elements of the MNS to attack and do violence in broad daylight, they do token arrest of Raj Thackeray, keep him in absolute comfort and let him out by the next day (first time, they let him out within a few hours, and the next time overnight). The police officers claim that they have nothing against Raj Thackeray.

And they can see the campaign working, the Shiv Sena is now unsure of how to behave and is trying to take credit for the campaign of the MNS. Read this report of the treatment of Raj:

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader Raj Thackeray need not worry about being arrested during Diwali, at least in the case filed by the Kalyan railway police. A Kalyan sessions court on Friday extended its interim protection to Thackeray till the next date of hearing, which falls on November 11. Sessions judge K K Tantrapale, however, emphasised that one of the conditions for the interim protection was that Thackeray will have to refrain from giving provocative and inflammatory speeches.

This whole situation has seen a woeful lack of an attempt by the State Government to try and prevent the violence, and the whole atmosphere of intimidation that is equally bad. Even after large scale condemnation by various parties (including allies of the Congress), there does not seem to be any clear attempt to show Raj Thackeray the violations of law that he has committed. Instead, after seeing the repeated statements of Raj (followed by direct action of his partymen), I am reminded of the way that the militants expelled most of the pandits from the Kashmir Valley. It is like a 2 step process, where Raj does not directly state violence, but leaves nothing else to be desired, and then his partymen carry out the actual violence.

A Uniform Civil Code For India - Will It Happen In Our Lifetime?

Vinod Joseph — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:20:10 EDT

Yesterday (22 October 2008), a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court observed that India urgently needs a law (yet another!) to set up bodies at Central and regional levels to regulate, control and supervise Muslim marriages and divorces. Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Harun-Ul-Rashid were passing their verdict in a matrimonial case involving a Muslim couple. On the face of it, this observation by the learned judges appears sensible and progressive, but I was actually disappointed by it.

India is a secular country where every community is allowed its own personal laws. Christians have the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act 1869, Hindus have the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1976 and so on. Muslim personal law, based on the Sharia, is not codified. Since Muslims are governed by the Sharia, an Indian male Muslim is entitled to have four wives at any time. It is interesting to note that after independence, Pakistan modernised its personal law and made it quite difficult for a man to marry a second time. A written approval from a government appointed arbitration council must be obtained before a man can take on a second wife. Tunisia and Turkey have actually abolished polygamy.

The Indian Muslim male's right to marry more than once is misused not only by Muslims, but also by men from other communities. I remember the case of a non-Muslim chap accused of bigamy managing to prove that he had converted to Islam prior to his second marriage. It is not unheard of for men who want to marry for a second time to convert to Islam.

Article 44 of the Indian constitution says that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." The Indian State has made very few 'endeavours' in this regard. Neither the 'secular' Congress Party nor the right-wing BJP has had the guts to introduce a uniform civil code which will apply to all Indian nationals irrespective of religion. The Supreme Court has on various occasions reminded the Indian government of its failure to implement a uniform civil code.

What am I to make of the Kerala High Court ruling that doesn't call on the government to implement a uniform civil code, but instead asks for central and regional bodies to "regulate, control and supervise Muslim marriages and divorces"? Do the honourable judges who passed this verdict believe that a uniform code will not materialize in the near future? What sort of regulation will these bodies carry out? Will it be made mandatory to register each Islamic marriage and divorce with these bodies? Have 4 wives at any given time, but do register each wedding? If the government is to interfere in personal laws (and interfere it must), why go in for such a half-hearted measure? Any interference will be met with opposition from the fundamentalists and so, why not take the bull by its horns and do a thorough job?

I believe that most Indian Muslims would welcome a uniform civil code since Islamic personal law is one of the so-called 'perks' allowed to this community, which isn't actually a perk at all. It is not as if the Koran calls on every Muslim male to mandatorily have four wives! However, we are yet to hear a popular demand from within the Indian Muslim community for a uniform code. I am not sure when such a demand will arise, but rather than wait for a moderate messiah to arrive, the government should put this code in place and worry about the consequences later.

Bush Administration: Mercifully, the End Is Near For His Lies And Deception

David C. Kanz — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:01:17 EDT

It is becoming more apparent to everyone in the United States that the politics of fear and intimidation and imperialism conducted by the Bush Administration may be coming to a merciful end.

Beyond dispute is the "manufacture of madness" which has been the quintessential characteristic of the Bush Administration, on many levels, not the least of which is the unlawful and immoral invasion of Iraq.

How the people of the Middle East will ever be able to forgive us is beyond me. The death and destruction conducted on the basis of many lies regarding, WMD's, Al Qaeda is unfathomable to many of us in the United States.

My only hope is that we are able to elect Barack Obama and begin to repair in some way what remains of the lives we have allowed to be destroyed.

It is no small issue that the Governor of Alaska has to her credit the assistance of the government of the Sudan in the genocide in Darfur. Twenty two million dollars of the Alaska Permanent Fund remain invested there despite an outcry among legislators both Republican and Democrat in the state of Alaska.

In my opinion, Governor Palin should face charges of the participation in crimes against humanity for her refusal to divest these funds from the Sudan.

Her arrogance is only superseded by her malevolence on this issue---she didn't want to risk the financial security of the people of Alaska by divesting these funds yet provided no basis for making such an absurd and morally negligent statement.

The world needs to know that there are many here in the United States that see things very differently than George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Words will not mollify nor ameliorate the suffering and death that has been caused by the policies of these people, however, maybe, very soon, America will be given the opportunity to at least reflect in its foreign policy humanity, instead of the vices of the rapacious wolves who now run and want to continue to run our country.

I think about these things every day. I cannot escape them.

US Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Troy Davis Execution

Kavita Chhibber — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:16:05 EDT

I wanted to take some pictures Monday night but the counselor went home.
I'll place a request to purchase a few photo coupons so we can take pictures during our next visit. I'm looking forward to it.

Personally I'm doing fine. I'm patiently waiting to hear some good news from the U.S Supreme Court. I'm ready to go home and begin the rest of my life..
They moved me back into my old cell yesterday evening.

This morning I went outside and played a few games of basketball. ..and got plenty of exercise...:)

My eyes blur with unshed tears as I read this hand written letter from Troy. I notice that he has this endearing habit of signing his name as Mr. Troy Davis. It had made me smile when I had read it for the first time.

His hand writing is large and sprawling but meticulous. He does not forget to put a smiley face and he does not forget to say "God Bless You" when he ends.

Just last week, I sent him a hand painted card for his birthday on the 9th.

I wrote the following on many blogs including my own website-

Troy Davis turns 40 today - and he still waits for some reason to celebrate this day.

As a kid he loved G.I. Joe and got many of those figurines for his birthday, recalls sister Martina Correia. Birthdays were fun events in the family backyard with cake, ice cream and hot dogs and some nice gifts. Martina was not around when Troy turned 16, a special birthday for any teenager but sent him gifts while training in the Military. Little would she know that his 21st birthday would be behind bars and on death row.

A maximum security prison is hardly the perfect haven to celebrate a special occasion. That too of inmates whose spirit is being broken through isolation, bad nutrition, and a non productive life style.

The only exceptions are July 4th when they get hamburgers and hot dogs to celebrate Independence day, or when a convict is executed. Then the guards get a special barbecue meal. When an inmate receives a lot of cards they may just acknowledge the birthday briefly as the guards read the mail. Once a month they rent a DVD and the inmates can watch a movie. There is a TV which is controlled by the guards and the inmates can watch that.

They were allowed unlimited books-not any more. Now its seven, the number of visitors too has been cut down drastically and there are not many activities except for a short outing in an enclosed area with a basketball hoop where they can shoot baskets on concrete floors.

"Many inmates have diabetes and hypertension because of the food they get to eat," says Martina. "There are many inmates with HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis, and don't get medical treatment. The inmates have to pay 5 dollars each time they visit the doctor and if there is no family to finance them, then they remain untreated unless they are dying."

Last year a death row inmate died of cancer and a major news paper reported it as-death row inmate escapes death by dying of cancer." Ironic.

The winter months are harsh. The inmates sleep with 4-5 thin military style blankets, the heating is inadequate. "Last year to conserve energy, they cut off the hot water daily from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and so many people fell sick taking cold baths. If someone sends you money, they charge you a dollar per month as tax in he prison. The inmate has to buy everything from the prison store, so that the prison can make some money."

Martina says her family has never been far away from Troy. They used to send Troy 3-4 boxes of things that he could use, but now its been cut to one 15 pound box once a year. Martina and her family has visited Troy for every birthday, and every holiday they could. They have sent individual cards from each family member and friend. Cards that said-even though he is across the miles, he is with them. "We have a present under the Christmas tree for Troy each year. The pile is waiting for him, when he comes back. My mother still wakes up at 6 a.m. every Sunday to cook an elaborate Sunday dinner as if she is still cooking for a houseful of growing kids. Troy used to love her cooking and ate everything!"

The US Supreme Court had asked for more time to look at the information before it gave its decision on Tuesday, the 14th of October.

Today October 14th the highest court in the country proved that it chose technicality over humanity, and denied Troy's appeal. They handed their decision without a comment said one newspaper. The Washington Post however had this to say-"In refusing to hear a full appeal, the court maintained the high bar it has set for assertions of innocence following convictions in capital cases. Georgia now can set a new date for Davis's execution, because the court's stay expires with today's order."

The highest bar? Even if it meant killing a possibly innocent man?
There is no closure for the MacPhail family, says Mark MacPhail's mother.

She may not realize this- forgiveness brings a closure like no other, but when we lose a loved one, we forget everything but the need for revenge.

Since then I have sat numb with shock. I didn't have the courage to call Martina and just sent her a text message, until I could compose myself. Troy is a brave man-his sister Martina redefines the word courage.

I'm unfortunately not as brave nor do I have the kind of faith that they do-and so I crumble....Life teaches you many lessons through example..I'm afraid I just don't understand this one..

The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:31:42 EDT

Two young Conservative politicians in the UK, Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan have come up with a plan (the “Plan”) for what they call – “renewing Britain”. Daniel Douglas Carswell has been the Conservative MP for Harwich and Clacton since 2005. Hannan, a writer and journalist, is the Conservative Minister for European Parliament (MEP) for South East England since 1999. The plan put forth by Carswell and Hannan is set out in a 195 page document titled “The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain” that can be either bought (for £10) or downloaded (for £5) online.

Bad Shape – In the eye of the beholder

The Plan is based on the assumption that the UK is in a bad shape. Like beauty, bad shape is also something that lies in the eye of the beholder. I remember when I started my first job in the UK, I was told (apologetically) by so many colleagues that the building which housed our offices was in a terrible shape. ‘Ghastly’ and ‘horrible’ were the adjectives most often used. Before coming to London a year before to do a one-year masters course at the London School of Economics, I had a four year stint in Mumbai during which time I had seen a lot of wobbly buildings with even more wobbly staircases and antique lifts. To my eye, I could find nothing wrong with my new office building. On the contrary, it looked unbelievably solid and sturdy. No, the problem I soon learnt, was not in the stability of the building, but in its aesthetics. Grey in colour, with no glass or other frills one sees in most modern buildings these days, it was clearly not intended to have people exclaim in admiration as they walked past. The same is the case with the UK, a very prosperous country by any standard, with nothing much seriously wrong with it.

What exactly is wrong in the UK?

Carswell and Hannan manage to find a lot wrong with the current state of affairs in the UK. But they are not just cribbers, they have a magic bullet solution for UK’s ailments.

“The British state is failing. It can’t deliver even the most basic services competently. We have the highest prisoner population in Europe, and one of the highest crime rates. Our schoolchildren compare dismally with similarly aged pupils in other countries and in previous generations. Our healthcare system is more likely to kill its charges than any other in the developed world. Our roads are choked, our railways crumbling, our airports unbearable. Our borders are, to all intents and purposes, wide open.”

Each of the statements made above by Carswell and Hannan is debatable. For example, the International Centre for Prison Studies says that Russia has the highest rate of prison population (635 per 100,000) in Europe. Scotland and England and Wales have the 17th and 18th highest rates in Europe. I guess that when Carswell and Hannan say “Europe”, they mean “Western Europe”. Even then, Spain has a higher rate than Scotland or England and Wales. Northern Ireland is 39th in Europe, lower than France or Germany with a prison population of 87 per 100,000. The United States of America, a source of inspiration to Carswell and Hannan in many respects, has the highest prisoner population in the world. If you look at the percentage of female prisoners within the prison population, England and Wales is at the 19th place, way below Norway, Austria, Switzerland and Germany. The British health care is admittedly not as good as say, healthcare in various other European states, but then, as Carswell and Hannan admit in the Plan, such other states spend a lot more on healthcare than the UK. British road and rail infrastructure is indeed not as good as what you find in say, Germany, but then Germany has always had better roads even during the days of Winston Churchill.

The Plan

The Plan revolves around a series of legislative measures (which will not take more than 12 months) to reform Britain. Carswell and Hannan feel that MPs are too powerless and have too many perks. They want to clean up Westminster by pruning the amount of perks MPs get. The House of Commons will be reduced in size. The House of Lords is not really compatible with democracy, Carswell and Hannan opine, but do not want to tackle it as part of the Plan since it will require a lot more time than one year. Policing and prosecution decisions must be made by elected officials. Judges should not be allowed to make law as they have been doing of late. Parliament must reign supreme, in its pruned form. The UK must withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. English counties and cities should have all the powers that have been devolved to Scotland. Parents who send their children to private schools must be able to claim the per capita average being spent on them. Similarly, patients must be able to opt out of the NHS. There should be greater devolution of powers. Local governments must be given all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland and the right to collect sufficient revenue to do many things on their own.

Small government

“To the size of a state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for they can none of them retain their facility when they are too large.” This quote from Aristotle finds place at the beginning of the Plan document. The main grouse espoused by Carswell and Hannan, which runs throughout the Plan, is that the UK was traditionally a small state with the bulk of its laws derived from customs and practices, but is no longer so. In the last few decades, especially as a result of the accession to the EU, the UK has come to become a state run by bureaucrats and quangos (Quasi Non-Governmental Organizations) not elected by the people. Britain has moved towards continental European values which prefer a neutral and supposedly impartial administrator to an elected politician who may have biases and prejudices. Carswell and Hannan don’t like bureaucrats or quangos who only help themselves and create more paper work for themselves. On top of it all, even bureaucrats or quangos will have their own prejudices, we are told. Carswell and Hannan don’t use the words ‘welfare state’, though it becomes clear that they do want the British welfare state to be rolled back.

After the recent turmoil in the financial markets, not many people will find the idea of a small government appealing. The question being asked now is why the independent regulators weren’t more vigilant. There isn’t much of a demand to do away with regulators despite their many lapses. However, Daniel Hannan has not changed his mind if this blog post of his is any indication.

To be fair to Carswell and Hannan, their idea of a small government is a lot more than financial deregulation. As explained in detail below, the Plan envisages a small government everywhere, especially at the local level.

Elected Sheriffs

Carswell and Hannan want the UK to emulate the US in various respects, one of which is the subservience of police chiefs and prosecution services to elected Sheriffs. Sir Ian Blair, the London Metropolitan Police Chief, is used as an example of how undemocratic and unaccountable a police chief can be. At the time of the Plan’s publication, Sir Ian Blair was clinging to power despite facing an enormous amount of criticism. His role during the 7 July bombing and the death of Jean Charles de Menezes left a lot to be desired. The London Assembly passed a resolution of no-confidence in Sir Ian Blair. The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said that he would like Sir Blair to leave. Despite all this, Sir Blair stayed in power since he could only be fired by the Home Secretary (which happened recently after the Plan was published). Elected Sheriffs should also have the power to set local sentencing guidelines. This might mean that different towns or counties might have different approaches to the same offence. Shoplifting might attract a higher penalty in London than in Manchester. But that would be quite democratic. If the residents of London want to follow a particular approach to an offence, they should be free to do so, irrespective of what Manchester thinks.

I have some sympathy for this approach. You might argue that a nation as small as the UK should not try to emulate the US and end up with different laws in different parts of the country. If Carswell and Hannan have their way, illegal immigrants might, if caught in Barking, be flogged and deportated, whilst Argyllshire in Scotland might merely deport them. In the US, Texas enthusiastically enforces the death penalty whilst 13 states have abolished it. However, it cannot be denied that a much higher percentage of Texans support the death penalty than citizens of states where the death penalty has been abolished. If you believe that democracy should be subservient to the goal of moving the entire nation to a higher plane of values, you might not like this approach. However, what constitutes a ‘higher plane of values’ will always be debatable.

Human Rights Act

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human rights and all UK laws are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 framed under this convention. Laws made by the British Parliament can be overruled if they are found to violate the Human Rights Act. It is not unheard of in the UK to challenge laws and regulations on the ground that they breach human rights. Carswell and Hannan do not like the idea of judges using the Human Rights Act to override the will of the Parliament. They want the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. If the Plan were to be implemented, the UK will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Illegal immigrants, minorities and to a lesser extent prisoners, rely on this law more than others since they have very few other rights. Carswell and Hannan cite the example of an illegal immigrant who in 1997 was able to overturn his deportation order on the grounds that he would not receive the same medical treatment in his home country as was available in the UK. The illegal immigrant relied on Article 3 of this convention which says that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ I find this example a bit outdated since the UK now deports illegal immigrants who are ill and need urgent medical care. In the beginning of this year, media reported the case of a cancer-ridden Ghanaian woman who was deported from the UK and died soon after.

All the examples cited by Carswell and Hannan as examples of how courts have used the Human Rights Act to overturn the will of the Parliament involve illegal immigrants or prisoners or citizenship applications. I do have sympathy for the view that Judges should only interpret and should never make the law. However, if the Human Rights Act were to be scrapped, the most vulnerable section within British society will suffer the most.

Parliament must be supreme

Carswell and Hannan want a Reserve Powers Act to be enacted in order to guarantee the supremacy of the legislature against judicial activism. Carswell and Hannan find it intolerable that a national legislature might be subservient to an international body. For this reason, they oppose the International Criminal Court which can prosecute national leaders, a process which they rightly say may be misused. At least in theory, any political leader anywhere in the world, including from the UK, may be tried by the ICC. Carswell and Hannan go to the extent of saying that “the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals have now become a law unto themselves, prosecuting some men for no better reason than that it was thought politically expedient to have inductees from all sides in a war.” The job of prosecuting national leaders must be left to national courts, they say.

Thankfully not many people in the world share this point of view. If they did, war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic would never have been brought to book.

Carswell and Hannan want the UK’s defence and foreign policy to be determined entirely by the Parliament with a lot more parliamentary oversight over diplomats. According to Carswell and Hannan, “British foreign policy is cocooned from the democratic process. It is conducted by highly qualified officials who, although often technically brilliant, have drifted away from the values of the rest of the country. Left to their own devices, diplomatists have evolved an approach to international relations that is elitist, managerialist, supra-nationalist, technocratic and contemptuous of ‘populism’.” Reading this, I was reminded of Republicans accusing Obama of elitism!

And look at what these elitist diplomats have got the UK into? They got the UK into the EU! What could be worse than that? Carswell and Hannan seem to hate the European Union more than anything else in the world.

Each and every real and perceived foreign policy mistake is blamed on elistist diplomats who follow their own ideology rather than the people’s dictates. Unlike the diplomats of yore, modern diplomats do not project British interests. Though experts, diplomats have as many prejudices and biases as anybody else. Currently, diplomatic appointments, the contracting of treaties and national defence, are all controlled by Downing Street under Crown Prerogative powers. This has allowed the Foreign Secretary to sign up to treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty without Parliamentary approval. Carswell and Hannan want all these powers to be transferred to the Parliament. Each time the Parliament is reconstituted, all treaties and diplomatic appointments must be reviewed and approved, else they will lapse. Even if this sounds like a good idea in theory, I doubt if this can be implemented in practice unless the MPs work all year around in the Parliament, something which doesn’t fit in with the Plan for a reduced House of Commons.

Gentlemen (or Lady) Members of Parliament

Carswell and Hannan want to prune the pay and perks which MPs get. MPs will meet only for a limited number of days in a year and will be ‘amateur’ politicians. In the sense that they will need to carry on a trade or profession of their own which will pay their bills. The only compensation they get will be for the days they need to spend in Parliament.

On paper this sounds good. But in practice this would generally prevent people without a great deal of inherited wealth from entering politics. In my opinion, it is not possible to be a part-time politician. Even if an MP does not have to spend all his/her time in Parliament, I doubt if it will be possible for the MP to hold a regular job. There will be exceptions for sure, but this proposal would take politicians to a situation similar to that of sportsmen in the days when sport was played (mainly by the wealthy) for glory rather than money.

Right to Opt-Out from State Schools and the NHS

Carswell and Hannan feel that schools in the UK are ‘failing due to too much government.’ They want the Danish system to be followed in the UK which would give parents who send their children to private schools the right to claim the per capita average being spent within the state system. In other words, the cost of sending children to private schools will come down. The net impact of such a move, in my opinion, would be to widen the rich-poor divide in the education system. The poorest children would continue to languish in state schools, whose quality would deteriorate even further.

Something similar is to be done with the NHS. Carswell and Hannan rightly say that the NHS is bloated and inefficient. Patients should have the freedom to seek services from a private health care provider and opt out of the NHS. Carswell and Hannan specifically recommend the health care system in Singapore where patients deposit money in a health care savings account (till the money reaches a critical limit) and pay their private health care providers from that account. Catastrophic insurance (of around £400 per annum) is also bought by everyone. The Plan rightly claims that the Singaporean system is even better than the system (of privately insured healthcare) in the United States.

Personally speaking, I would benefit if these suggestion were to be implemented. So would most middle-class residents in the UK. But these bits of the Plan have the potential to make British society a lot less egalitarian.

Devolution of power

Carswell and Hannan want local governments to be autonomous with all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland. At present ninety per cent of all revenue collected in Britain goes to the Chancellor in Whitehall. This money is distributed by the Chancellor to various authorities and bodies. The net result is that local councils are quite powerless and good candidates are not interested in standing for elections at the council level.

The Plan proposes the scrapping of VAT and replacing it with a local sales tax (“LST”). Different regions will have different rates of LST. This will lead to tax competition between various regions. Local councils should also have the freedom to scrap council tax.

I can see a lot of merit in these suggestions. However, the consequences may involve a drastic fall in the amount of money being available with local councils in deprived areas. The Plan does mention a top-up for such areas, but I feel it is unlikely to be equal to the actual loss in revenue.

Social security is to be distributed at the local level. Carswell and Hannan rightly point out that local authorities are in a much better position to detect welfare fraud and determine parameters for entitlement. This is something I fully endorse as long as deprived areas as given a proportionately higher allotment to meet their welfare costs.

Cut down on red-tape

Carswell and Hannan want to repeal various Acts that provide the legal base for burdensome and costly regulation. The Plan lists 26 Acts which are to be repealed. These include laws framed under the EU Directives on Part-Time Work giving part-time workers equal access to pay, pensions, annual leave and training as full-time staff, Anti-Money Laundering Rules and the Hunting Act 2004 which outlaws hunting with dogs. As would be evident to anyone who reads the entire Plan, most of the laws which Carswell and Hannan want to repeal are social welfare legislation which conservatives have always hated. You might agree or disagree with Carswell and Hannan depending on which shade of the political spectrum you belong to.

The Plan proposes that all new pieces of legislation are to have a sunset clause that will ensure that enactments do not survive in perpetuity. I don’t agree. Some laws contain sunset clauses and these are usually the draconian anti-terrorism laws which curtail civil liberties. Otherwise laws are meant to make things better and ought to survive for perpetuity.

Alternatives to the EU

As mentioned earlier, Carswell and Hannan don’t like the European Union and they propose that the UK ought to withdraw from the EU and instead be a part of the European Free Trade Area (“EFTA”) just like Switzerland. Being in the EFTA would give the UK trade access to the European Market without having to tag along with the EU in matters such as labour policy or welfare measure or immigration. Carswell and Hannan point to countries such as Iceland and Switzerland which are not part of the EU and manage to remain prosperous. I guess Iceland was a prosperous country when the Plan was published. It is no longer so very prosperous at the moment.

I do agree that if ideologically most people in the UK differ from continental Europe, it makes little sense to be a part of the EU.

People’s Bills and Blocking Referendums

Carswell and Hannan recommend that citizens ought to be able to table bills in the Parliament if they collect sufficient signatures. The top 6 popular bills should be voted on by MPs. Similarly, if 20,000 people sign a petition to block a bill which has received its third reading, but before it receives Royal Assent, the bill should be blocked. If within a prescribed period a specified percentage of the electorate sign up to the petition, the bill should not become law.

These are good proposals and I would support them. Please read the Plan in full if you want to understand these proposals since the explanation I have given above is sketchy and may not give you an accurate picture of the proposals as contained in the Plan.

What’s the Position on Immigration?

One very important issue which has not been addressed in the Plan is that of migration. Thought not always discussed openly, migration has been one of the hottest issues in the Western world in this decade. Surprisingly, Carswell and Hannan don’t have much to say on this. There are a few mentions of reversing the flow of illegal migration, cracking down on illegal immigrants and the failures of the Migration Service. When discussing the drawbacks of being in the EU, it is said that the EU has prevented the UK from having an annual quota on immigrants. But a specific policy to tackle the perceived problem of immigration is missing. This is a glaring omission indeed.

Since the Plan is silent on this vital issue, I am tempted to infer what Carswell and Hannan might have in mind based on what they have said on other matters.

Switzerland has the most successful policy on migration in the whole of Europe. When I say “successful”, I mean success in controlling migration since controlling and reducing migrant inflows is the cornerstone of most migration policies, including that of the UK. How does Switzerland do this? To apply for Swiss citizenship, the applicant must have legally lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years. The final decision on a citizenship application is made by the local community where the applicant lives. The local community will interview the applicant and put his application to vote before citizenship is granted. Do Carswell and Hannan wish to implement the Swiss approach I wonder? It would fit in with the Plan which wants to devolve power to local communities. Currently, a person who has worked in the UK for five years will almost automatically obtain permanent residency. Permanent residents obtain citizenship (almost automatically) a year after becoming permanent residents. If the Swiss system were to be implemented in the UK, I would assume that the number of people who obtain British citizenship will be reduced to a trickle. Would members of one community or race find it more difficult to get citizenship than others? Possibly.

No foreigner has the right to migrate to another country. The visa stamped on a foreign passport is always a favour bestowed on the passport holder rather than an entitlement. Every country has the right to implement the most appropriate immigration policy. That being said, immigration is an emotional topic, especially during a recession when jobs are being lost and the economy feels pinched. It is very easy to cause scare mongering and get voters excited on this topic. Sometimes the scaremongering works, sometimes it doesn’t. I do wish Carswell and Hannan had not remained silent on this issue.