Tuesday, April 17, 2012

When Prevention is not better than cure

After Delhi became the rape capital of India the government passed an ordinance that bars and pubs should not employ women after 8PM. While I believe most of the people in country would be in agreement with this move by the government, a majority of the twitter folks and other main stream media elites were aghast and expressed outrage. Their outrage stemmed from the fact that the government let rapists walk away free but penalize employment of women who are innocent. While the topic of why tweeters and "common man" have divergent opinions is an interesting topic by itself - lets set that aside for another day. This post is about why I think GoI is correct and why I disagree with feminists, many journalists, and most tweeters writing on this topic.

Allow me to express my disagreement via these five categories of elementary logic that many arguing on this topic don't seem to understand.

1. A person is a rapist only if he commits rape:  I generally assumed this to be common sense. Its as simple as saying only fruits that are mangoes can be branded as mangoes. But such is the sad state of affairs that this needs to be spelled out. If a person has already committed the act of raping someone, he is a criminal. It would be accurate to brand him a rapist. The police should be searching for him and work on arresting him. That is a separate topic. Not directly relevant to the topic of discussion here - which is preventing rape. From reading the news it appears that the police/government have identified that there are areas, time-of-day, situations where the probability of women getting raped is very high. This means that there is some evidence and statistical backing to conclude that in these situations the observed instances of rape is alarmingly greater than the mean. If a government is a sensible one - it is common sense to prevent exposure of women to that kind of probability. This preemption does not mean that government is letting rapists walk-away free. And you know why that is so? This is because in this instance the occurrence of rape has been prevented. By not letting women be in that dangerous situation, the act of rape did not happen. Unless there is a pre-existing threat by a specific person, you can't arrest arbitrary strangers who may have raped a woman if given an opportunity. Legally, they aren't rapists. therefore should walk free. You can only arrest people who have raped. So claiming that government let rapists walk away scott-free while punishing women is an inaccurate statement. There are no rapists in this situation.

2. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is: Pause and reflect on the previous phrase for a moment. This paragraph is based on this theme. My biggest accusation of tweeters, journalists and social media experts is that they are very theoretical about laws and constitutional provisions. I accuse them of being greatly out of touch with some practical reality. For example; I can leave the door of my house open and legally expect that no citizen will steal from my house. In theory this works. In practice this wont. If all citizens open their doors, they are entitled to expect that the police will prevent criminals from entering. In theory it is the responsibility of police to ensure this. In practice the size of police force will not scale up to match the crime rate increase in this situation. In theory and practice the people who steal in such situations are criminals and deserve jail sentence. But there aren't enough policemen in the force to arrest everyone. The only way the government can deal with this situation is make it illegal for you to leave the door open. Extend this to wearing a Rolex watch, wade of $1000 bills in your pocket and a Ferrari and go to a crime neighborhood. If you do this everyday - you will get robbed someday. Yes, the people who mug you are criminals. In theory you have the right to expect police to protect you at all times. In practice they can't. In theory the police shouldn't be judgmental on you and protect you. In practice, they will be and they won't. In theory you can go in a bikini to a pub, get slosh drunk, hitch a ride with complete strangers in an call-taxi and not expect to get raped. In theory the police force should assign 1 policeman with  a revolver to protect every single woman who exposes herself to such dangerous situations. In practice...

3. Human Beings can do more than 1 thing at a time.  This may sound surprising to many tweeters but human beings can do two things at the same time. I can watch TV and eat a muffin at the same time. Really, I can. I have seen many people do two things at the same time. Some comb their hair and whistle. Some talk on the phone and type on their computer. But many tweeters assume mutual exclusion when none exists. If you accuse a person of being careless because he left the door of his house open, these feminists assume you are forgiving the criminals who entered the house and burgled stuff. This is patently not true. Blaming someone does not mean "shifting the blame". It is not a zero sum game. I can accuse the victim of being careless and at the same time agree that the burglar is a criminal. You know why? because human beings can do two things at the same time. So if police has given explicit instruction to women citizens to not venture into dangerous areas beyond a particular time, consume alcohol and hitch-ride with strangers. And if a woman ends up doing all the above and gets raped. I.. (wait for it) (wait for it) will blame her for being careless and irresponsible. I will blame her for not putting a premium on her personal safety. This does not mean I condone and forgive the rapists. They are criminals and will need to be arrested. Punishing a criminal and calling someone careless isn't mutually exclusive. We can do both things. And we should be doing both.

4. Post-rape situation is different from preventing rape:  If policemen act indifferently to complaints of rape they are not discharging their duty and deserve reprimand. My personal view is that rapists deserve capital punishment. Eve-teasing deserves multiple years of jail sentence.There are no situations where a rapist can be condoned and the blame shifted to the victim. No girl ever "asks for it" because of the way she dresses or walks or drinks.  It is true that many times women lie about rape. It is also probably true that the instances where they are genuinely raped far outnumber the other instances where it is a cooked up lie. Once it is established that someone has been raped the police should not be biased by the other cases they have seen where women have lied. They should act in an unbiased manner to pursue justice. However, when it comes to preventing rape - the 'prevention' must be given maximum priority. If this comes at the cost of marginal economic opportunities for women then - so be it. If a government is forced to make a trade-off they should always trade-off economic opportunity to prevent rape.

5. It is not 'All or Nothing'. It rarely is: Sometimes RBI doesn't allow me to transfer  larger amounts of money across countries at the same time. I am inconvenienced but not dead. I can still transfer some money. I can't go tell the RBI that if they don't allow me to transfer $1 billion it means that they are a non-entity. It doesn't mean I live in stone age. It doesn't mean that I can't transfer $1 if I wanted to. I can still transfer some money. Some kind of jobs may not available in the place where I live. That could be my perfect dream job. But that is okay - I can find a job that is reasonably close to what I want that matches my skills. If  the government has failed in giving me employment that is 100% to my liking, it doesn't mean that they have killed all my hopes for employment. They haven't failed. Unless I have enormous sense of entitlement, the fact that I have employment means the govt is doing a good job. Theoretically they are supposed to help me. But needn't satisfy my every whim. So lets face it. The government has asked women who work in pubs after 8PM to not go to work. This doesn't mean we have regressed back to the Mughal era where women have to be covered head to toe and never venture out of their house. You guys need to get some perspective. Working in a 'saaraya kadai' doesn't require you to have 3 PhDs and embellish a 3-page resume. You probably have transferable skills to work somewhere else. It doesn't mean the government will completely stop women from working everywhere. This is not a slippery slope. It doesn't mean government will prevent women from working in a place/time/situation where 1 instance of rape happens. It is not "all or nothing". It is an equilibrium. It is  a trade-off or balance where reasonable employment opportunities are provided for reasonable costs/restrictions. You may ask "who decides what is reasonable". It is the elected government. Live with it. If you don't like it change the government. Any other questions on this will fall into one of these 5 categories.

In conclusion: This is a situation where a government has traded-off employment opportunities for women in pubs after 8PM to reduce their exposure to rape crimes. It is probably because of practical difficulties in ensuring safety for women in all bar/pubs across the country/city/state. It is not a kick back to stone age for women. Its a practical trade-off. Stop over-reacting. This leads to "grease the squeaky wheel" situation. The upper class elitist twits make such a big deal about careless women who get drunk, party and hang out with questionable strangers. And there is generally no noise about impacted women who dont fit into this class description.

The underprivileged voiceless women are used in an argument only as an embellishment. They are never the main topic. just a side act. And they are talked about only as a support act when some rich delhi girl gets raped when she's partying at 1AM. In this context the poverty ridden Ranganathan street cloth shop women are mentioned in passing to give the journalist a noble purpose. If these feminists and jounalists truly cared they would've protested against a specific (very very specific) element of injustice in that space. Its not like it never happens. It happens everyday but its never news.

On the other hand nonsense news such as kudigaara bar hopping reckless teenagers (and in the kolkata case: 37 yr old kudigaara mom-of-two was bar hopping and hitch-rided with strangers) getting raped is front and center news. This drains the resources and focus of the govt and makes them focus on unimportant issues. The fakeness of this issue makes an average guy cynical. which further contributes to poor response to real issues.
P.s: Some disclaimers to let you know of my personal biases. 
1. I don't like the alcohol industry-mafia and wish them bad things
2: I have low tolerance and sympathy for people who consume alcohol, let go of their senses and their personal security. Same disregard I have for drunken drivers who get into accidents. Given this I care a rats-ass if women get employed in bars or not.
3. Post is based on twitter discussions (& indirect contributions ) with Gaurav and IITG

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the ordinance said those that leave their doors open are not entitled to police protection, that is one thing. But enacting a law that makes leaving doors open illegal is backwards.

What if a bar wants to employ women after 8, and is ready to provide them all with private security?

If it is just due to concerns of practicality like you said, people would get it. This kinda reeks of moral policing, etc. Which is what is offensive.

-M

MLC said...

neenga solradhu seri dhaan, na oththukaraen.. aana indha post-a padichitu yevvalavu supposedly "murpoakku sindhanai" konda pengal unga blog-a attack panna poraanga-nu theriyalaiyae!!!

I said...

Working in a bar is a mainstream sought-after woman employment prospect? India is truly shining. I have seen it only in the movie 'No One Killed Jessica'

For every bar that is ready to provide a woman with security there will be 1 + n bars that won't be ready. (or employ a boy in her place) If the government enacts a rule requiring that employers who employ girls after 8 should provide security then the outrage would be 'unfair regulation'

Another solution is for Delhi girls to study something useful and work in dignified jobs instead of making cocktails or being DJs in bars. I guess that is judgmental and backward-thinking.

Harini Kannan said...

Agree with a lot of things, hawkeye sir. But there is one major contradiction in your theory. Points 2 and 4.
If post-rape situation has to be dealt with the way you have outlined in Point#4 (without bias) - that is extremely theoretical as well. In practice, this is the kind of mentality that prevails among Delhi police force today. Given this situation, expecting them to not be indifferent to rape is impractical too - especially if the law says the woman must not have been at the bar after 8PM. By saying you are advocating practicality - you are infact contradicting yourself.

Like the previous comment says, prevention lam sari than. But putting it down as the law of the land is what is problematic.

Hawk Eye said...

harini,

this 'major' contradiction reenforces #2 and makes the law even more necesary?

i dont see it as a contradiction. just want to know even if it so - it only makes the law more meaningful.

Kaushik said...

You do seem to make a valid argument in your first point, but just IF the statistics had indicated that there was higher level of rapes occurring say at 2 PM will every women be asked to leave at 2? This nonsense from the GoI is just a move to pass the blame from the GoI to the victim.

In India there is absoultely no fear of punishment for a wrong deed committed. Hypothetically if there is an ordinance that allows you to shoot dead any burglar, I am sure a burglar will think twice about entering a house even if the door is open. It is only fear of punishment or in some cases death that would deter people from committing crimes.

And I think a good starting point would be to castrate the rapists.

Anonymous said...

About 90% of rapes dont occur to "forward" women who are out drinking themselves blind and hitching a ride with strangers. It is in fact the more timid, underprivileged who are being opportunistically raped. Being dressed in a saree/salwar/burqa and staying indoors after 8pm doesn't necessarily keep them safe. While the prevention thing is very practical, being cautious and responsible for one's safety doesn't really a deter a majority of rape cases. Enna solringa?

Anonymous said...

Nice article but I disagree with it on many levels.

There are two fundamental issues as you've pointed out.

1) The punishment meted out to Rapists. I'm adding this - Low conviction rate for rapists.

2) Enforcing the curfew which you think is a practical solution - or as I call it 'Shifting the blame to the victims'.

Frankly, all of us should actually be outraged about #1. Sure enough, you want capital punishment etc., but my point is that we should not even be talking about #2 here and I'll explain that later.

I'm ticked off when the police force decides to focus on #2 and come up with these weird-ass solutions when they should actually come up with something similar for #1. Oh and I dont buy the theory that solution for #2 solves #1. It should be the other way around.

Frankly, this is to cover their ass when someone gets raped in the night. As one comment rightly picks up on this, if it starts happening at 2 PM, the curfew will start at 2 PM?

IMO, this theory vs practical logic should not be applied here. I think we are sensible enough call bullshit when we see bullshit. This curfew nonsense actually stems out of our traditional.. "oh.. night nerathal velila pona safe illa theory". Sure. I agree that its not safe. I'd like to hear this theory only from parents/relatives or know it myself as an adult to be careful.

But i dont want to hear it from is the lawmakers and the police force that's supposed to protect everyone. What they should done is to come up with a serious solution for #1 (which convicts rapists and ensures that it doesnt happen ever again) and gave a recommendation for #2 (just like how its recommended to lock your doors) and not enforce a curfew.

Frankly, they should stop worrying about covering their asses and focus on solving the actual problems.

Hawk Eye said...

M,

although 'I' answered some of the points you mentioned. I dont think government can ever say "I wash my hands if you employ women after 8 in bars and something happens its all your problem". its very impractical and no one will buy it. the govt has act in a way where it will be perceived as fixing this

MLC & I,

i frankly didnt think working in 'saaraya kadai' will become such a big priorty where fundamental rights are defined by that. i should become the dictator of this country. i really want to be. i'll clip the fundamental rights off everybody.

kaushic,

category 5. Its not All or Nothing. Meaning - I am not saying 'all things the govt does is correct. or nothing the govt ever does in correct. In this instance for the 8PM + bars I find what they are doing to be logical. I would do the same thing. I dont know what solution they will do if they find out 2:00 clk in the prime time for rape. If they come up with a good solution I may like, if they dont I may not like it

anon @ April 18, 2012 12:14:00 PM

I agree.

Anon @ April 18, 2012 2:47:00 PM

if you call #2 as "shifting the blame". I disagree with your logic. It is not.

On #1 - I dont know who publishes stats for these things. While what you say seems believable I have been fooled before. So unless I know super low-level details I am not willing to agree that there is low convinction rate and why it happens (whether the police is indifferent or some such thing). I generally believe media and more importantly Tehelka to be big time liars. That doesnt mean this conviction rate is also untrue. In my mind 'judgement reserved'

/* But i dont want to hear it from is the lawmakers and the police force that's supposed to protect everyone. What they should done is to come up with a serious solution for #1 (which convicts rapists and ensures that it doesnt happen ever again) and gave a recommendation for #2 (just like how its recommended to lock your doors) and not enforce a curfew. */

ya.. i disagree with this because its not practical. I dont think rape will ever get solved/stopped. Not in the next 100 years. While I am a big fan of utopia - I know it will not happen. So Id rather spend time practically soilving real issues as opposed to chasing this utopia. Even if I go by your assumption that conviction rate is poor - I actually think that rape will not go away from this society even if you manage to improve the conviction rate to 90%. That maybe the cynical part of me saying that. but i find your conviction argument unconvincing.

Harini Kannan said...

This is a moot argument Hawkeye sir. You have restricted scope completely to a very narrow scenario - "8PM curfew for bar workers will prevent rape from happening to said bar workers after 8PM."

What is there to argue in this? Ithukku ivlo periya post and justification'e unnecessary. Ofcourse what you are saying is practical for that 8PM bar working woman. The outrage around this is not about whether it is practical or not.

Th outrage stems from whether this is the correct angle to approach a solution to this problem. When GoI proposes a solution (mandate in this case), it cannot be coming from a single narrow sample scenario. The complete End-to-End problem of rape and what such a law would mean and cause to an already poorly addressed issue of a woman (or a man)'s sexual exploitation in our country has to be thought of.

You can't carve a small piece of a pie and say it is practical to keep the piece closed to keep flies away while leaving the entire pie out in the open. Ofcourse, you will say - I am only concerned about the small piece right now and the solution is not meant to be for the entire pie - but there lies the problem.

On top of this you have so much prejudice for the sample space that you are advocating a solution for. Ithu waste argument in my opinion.

Hawk Eye said...

harini,

the outrage was for 8PM curfew. It was not for anything else. Its not like there was 27 curfews imposed by the govt and i picked the easiest one. so this is not the small piece of the pie. this is all the pie. I think you are embarassed to find out that the scope of the outrage is trivial and so are trying to make the issue bigger than what it is.

if the whole post is unnecessary for such a narrow scope then the netire outrage was unnecessary for such a narrow curfew. if your argument is that this is a slippery slope you are commiting the 'all or nothing' fallacy.

yes i have bayangra prejudice against kudigara podhumakkal. i disclosed it. but that still doesnt mean my arguments are flawed.

Maganthi Jayabalan said...

harini madam,

enakku oru matter puriyalai.did any of the outragers say while in this situation we understand that goverment is practical but what we are outraging about is their overall poor handling of rape cases .

saaraya kadaikku ponnunga velaikku poradhu avalavu mukkiyam illainnu sonnavangalai ellam twitter'la feminists thittaranga. when hakkie gives this response neenga scope is not broad enough solreengo. Total rape end-to-end'ku post kodutha overall women's issue such as dowry, domestic violence is not addressed solluvengo.

indha scope idhellam outrage panrache cleara sollanumga.

V said...

"not venture into dangerous areas beyond a particular time, consume alcohol and hitch-ride with strangers" will apply to men equally as women. Maybe men are not raped, but all other kinds of danger exist to the man. So it is simple common sense that the GoI has converted into a curfew of sorts. Idhukku edhukku ivlo saththam. Indha "karpu" matter'a sensationalize/emotionalize pandradhunala dhaan ivlo prechanai.

The number one enemy/threat to women these days are not rapists BUT pseudo-feminists (who are mostly women). To all "pseudo-feminists": Poyi pullaingala padikka vaiyunga. Pulla illana pethukarthuku vazhiya parunga. Neenga sound uttu uttu, ellarum kadha pothikittanga. Nobody is listening to you even if you are not shouting these days.

Anonymous said...

" so this is not the small piece of the pie. this is all the pie."

Oh come on now... If this is what you have to say, then a few of us here are not even in the argument. This is more like.. I have a point.. I will explain it elaborate detail using my own examples (mostly narrow).. but wait if you do the same, then it doesn't fit the bill.

Frankly, I feel like I'm just hearing a one-sided dialogue which doesn't welcome a valid contrary argument or let's anyone take a step outside and see the bigger picture or the wider ramifications... just like a bunch of other old-school comments down here.

chrisjarvis said...

Many people are curious about why so many TV viewers watch satellite TV online.

STC Technologies

Anonymous said...

adhavadhu the feminists have comeback to this. dhikkku mukku adified. So now they're desperately trying to poke holes using some crook or nook.

in this case they're trying to get blogger to say something they'd like to pounce on

Venkat L said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venkat L said...

I want to really like this post but that's the problem - I am a part of the gallery that it plays to. I hate elitist tweeters and 'feminists with pea-brains', I probably do not have any sympathy for idiot drunkards too - so the post is right up my alley!
But the fact is that the above is what historians or analysts call a prior or a bias and while they're good to have discussions around, they cannot be the premise under which policy makers operate.
So while i totally endorse the fact of showing the finger to mindless tweeters and the like - a more balanced introspection suggests that the Delhi police acted inadequately and inappropriately.
A quick googling to understand the reasoning for rape indicates that Evolutionary Psychology has this to say :

“Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction.”

So the first assertion - "A person is a rapist only if he commits rape" should ideally be replaced by "A person can be a rapist in waiting until he commits rape" - If we want to talk about Prevention in the truest sense of the word, then it would be better to follow this premise as opposed to treating cancer with band aid by saying - Let's prevent women from dressing provocatively or working beyond 8 in bars - and the wannabe rapists will frustrate themselves into insignificance. That's not going to happen, for as sure as we're having this discussion, the crimes are more likely to shift to a different time and level..because the root cause is not the environment, it is the persona!

This doesn't mean that your first assertion is incorrect, just that it is inappropriate for anyone who needs to take decisions for preventing rape to act on.



- Venkat L

Venkat L said...

The Delhi police cannot look at this as a conservative right vs. liberal left argument - however much their personal convictions support one side.

I know you say this :
"From reading the news it appears that the police/government have identified that there are areas, time-of-day, situations where the probability of women getting raped is very high. This means that there is some evidence and statistical backing to conclude that in these situations the observed instances of rape is alarmingly greater than the mean."

But I do not have your faith, I believe that it is a knee jerk reaction based on very flimsy (at a glance!) analysis. Something like, let's look at a few key data points - ah! I see that most of the rapes have occured post 8 and the profession column of my spreadsheet has "bars" - so I can prevent something as complex as rape just like that by eliminating these two aspects namely time and place! Even high school kids should be able to provide deeper insights from data than that...

At the very least, they should have done the following :

Authorized a more thorough analysis of data available on rapes, rapists, contexts etc. Solicited opinions of medical, psychological, anthropological experts to understand why people end up being rapists. See what the data shows up!
Put in place protection mechanisms for women who work late hours as much as it is practically possible (infrastructure, policy decisions, the works!)
Tone down the rhetoric and articulate best practises wherein they can bring the Prevention perspective - much in the same way smoking is handled with a statutory message that would allow people to take decisions and (rather unfortunately) have stupid people own up to what happens to them.

I'm confident that the above are well within the realms of possibility and not utopian pursuasions...

ore line le solonona - Government has taken the easy way out! It's not a trade off of economic opportunity, it's a trade off with the effort required to (attempt to) get to the bottom of a crime and solve it properly

What happens tomorrow if this same crime shifts to a different time and profession is now a question up for grabs!

- Venkat L

Hawk Eye said...

venkat,

all valid points. one of the points i considered including but decided against was the "grease the squeaky wheel" view. these upper class elitist twits make such a big deal about careless women who get drunk, party and hang out with questionable strangers. And there is generally no noise about impacted women who dont fit into this class description.

Those underprivileged voiceless women are used in an argument as an embellishment. they are never the main topic. just a side act. And they are talked about only as a support act when some rich delhi girl gets raped when she's partying at 1AM. In this context the poverty ridden ranganathan street cloth shop women are mentioned in passing to give the journalist a noble purpose.

if these feminists and jounalists truly cared they wouldve protested against a specific (very very specific) element of injustice in that space. Its not like it never happens. It happens everyday but its never news.

On the other hand nonsense news such as kudigaara bar hopping reckless teenagers (and 37 yrs old kudigaara mom-of-two type bar hopper who hitch-rided with strangers) getting raped is front and center news. i truly think this drains the resources and focus of the govt and makes them focus on unimportant issues. the fakeness of this issue makes an average guy cynical. which further contributes to poor response to real issues.

the greatest thing about this delhi ban is that someone told these idiots that they are unimportant. they truly are.

Venkat L said...

:-), I couldn't agree more with your response! and share your frustration and despise at this lot..
just that the comment is clear, but the post was open to interpretations..

I am a ComplexNumber said...

"bars and pubs should not employ women after 8PM" is too narrow a statement to argue about...I personally don't think we need a post to justify this....
but on the other hand...nothing is a narrow issue...there are various POV

Let us throw all our moral statements out....Saaraya Kadai has been around for a very long time...And in Hindu / vedic culture it is NOT even a taboo...
So let us not be moral police....and focus on the actual issues

I don't know if statistically it is proven that it is infact the case...that major bucket / sector of women raped is from this "bars and pubs" women sector...

While on one hand it seem to make sense, on the other hand it doesnt. Let me explain the second hand.
Consider a women working in a pub....as a person making cocktail and not as an escort or something illegal
(Again I dont have any moral qualms just defining legal / illegal...actually on second thoughts it doesnt matter quite that much and infact the more illegal, the
more protected they are...)

I think they expect danger and are pretty much expected to have safety/security as their top concern...I dont know how it works...I presume they have some bouncers
or boy friends or actual secure vehicle / other policy where they do get a secure travel from pub back to home...

One other notorious industry in India is S/W companies and Call Centers....Now here I have personally seen that most large companies start with a very good
security policy and a good fleet of vehicles and drivers who are checked for background etc...However once the scale goes big, I dont know if the Admin depts
slacks a bit here and there...

Also knowing how GOI works I think they might not have a sound statistics to support their theory and hence the solution...

I am just curious how a large city in other countries like NYC or Tokyo manages this issue. Again, they dont have a big police force
(At least never at a 1:1 ratio taht Hawkeye is hinting at :)

We need to be freakenomical about this...This is a pretty serious issue...and I think we can learn from what these other large cities did / did not do...to fix such
wide spread rapes...

Sometimes the solution is NOT even at a direct correlation level...I am reminded of "Broken windows" analogy ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Anonymous said...

No one fkn cares at the end of the day. There is no enforcement of any law in this country - so let them have curfew at 8 PM or 1 PM, women who can work will work. Employers who want to employ these women will find a way to hire them and make them stay after 8.

It is just a new way for the cops to make more money.

There are easier ways to solve this problem -

1.Child marriage
2.Make them wear a Burkha
3.Killing baby girls as soon as they are born.
4. Not educate girls and make sure they stay home all the time.
5. Making sure the rest of them look ugly.

We have done all these things in the past. They have proven to be extrememly effective. In the spectrum of things, having laws that prohibit women to do certain things after a particular point of time/time in day is not very far from any of the things listed above - as long as we just judge them based on statistics and effectiveness. Lets make all of them legal/mandatory as well. That will probably stop all the rape.

-Prabhu

Hawk Eye said...

dei,

maybe u should read the post esp pt #5

Anonymous said...

Prabhu, 1 and 4 are good ideas only.

The social consequences of education to women are starting to outweigh the advantages. Women get too arrogant these days, don't respect their in-laws and not even their husbands. If they earn Rs.2000 a month they think they are peria idhu and spend it all on lipstick, nail-polish and push-up bras.

Subfusced said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Subfusced said...

You might want to add a sentence or two exposing what this so-called "curfew" is. It is not a restriction of free movement or right to assemble. It is not even restriction of women's right to work at Bars and Malls after 8 PM. The Deputy Commr's order was ONLY to mandate a few necessary upgrades to bars and malls that employed women after 8 PM such as:
1) Complete CCTV monitoring of premises with live webfeed accessible at the nearest police station.
2) Company-hired transportation (with duly maintained records of drivers' ID's) to drop female employees who work past 8 PM to their homes.
3) A register of names and ID's of female employees who stay past 8 PM for their own safety.

ONCE the employer (Bar/Mall) fulfills these requirements, then they will get a license to employ women after 8 PM. Till then, they aren't allowed to have women employees stay behind after 8 PM.

In other words, the DC is saying, ensure you have a record of your employees' names and faces (for launching a complaint if they go missing!), have a CCTV so you can monitor if anyone is harassing them (and so there's evidence to nab rapists), and ensure that they get home safe (so they don't have to fend for themselves at midnight.) IMO, this is a landmark victory for worker's rights, and every establishment (regardless of whether it employs men or women) should implement this to reduce crime!

Instead, one malicious author spun it around like women weren't permitted out of their homes past 8PM. She needs to face criminal charges for intentionally misleading the public.

PS: This isn't even the police passing the buck to others - this method is called community policing and it's seen as the BEST way to prevent crime by Scotland Yard and others!

rhv said...

You usually make sensible posts but this one is total pseudo logic. GoI has no right to enact such a curfew. And your examples are lame. No rich man wearing a Rolex watch is stopped from going to a Crime filled neighbourhood. Second, in all your examples like the RBI one, all restrictions imposed on a person is independent of gender. RBI doesn't have different limits for men/women. Why doesn't GoI prevent men from going to pub after 8pm. It won't because then the pubs won't have any business and it makes sense. What the govt should do is make it mandatory for the employers to provide secure drop off option for women employees. And I have no idea how restricting women pub employees(what about customers) should prevent rape. Bottom line a sensible person(Which I know you are) like you should know that the curfew is unconstitutional since it is against the Right to Equality. There might be some legal loopholes which might allow the govt to get away with this but prima facie gender based curfew is unconstitutional. And yes I am aware of certain jobs where women are not allowed to work, like underground mines. Hawkeye said "I frankly didnt think working in 'saaraya kadai' will become such a big priorty where fundamental rights are defined by that." Well its what you choose in such a situation tells you about your true self. Its easy to fight for something you approve of. Its difficult to fight for something which you don't approve of,even though you know that it is the right thing to do.

Hawk Eye said...

rhv,

overall you make some good points. but here are parts that i disagree

/* GoI has no right to enact such a curfew */

they do. they are the govt. they are the only people who have the right enact curfews.

/* No rich man wearing a Rolex watch is stopped from going to a Crime filled neighbourhood. */

i agree. I am not sure why you quote it. I didnt say they are. how many mugging incidents have you head like this hit the news big time? on the other hand, if you did hear news items such as this everyday - what would you do/say?

on your gender argument. the govt didnt stop employment for all women. They restricted employment for women in a narrow category. I would totally support an order that banned pub activity for both genders after a particular time. My approval for this ordinance has nothing to do with the impacted party being women. I like situaations where govt doesnt get caught up the theoretical notion that fundemantal rights have to be held up under any sort of circumstances. And thats the issue i have with the lie of your argument. its too theoretical

rhv said...

Hawkeye,

/* GoI has no right to enact such a curfew */
What I meant by 'such a curfew' was that they can't/shouldn't restrict a curfew to certain gender. They definitely can issue curfew on everyone irrespective of gender. They can issue guidelines or suggestions maybe to women alone. But I find a one sided Curfew against the Right to Equality.

/* They restricted employment for women in a narrow category. */
This is a grey area. Why don they stop women from working at night altogether in IT companies too. Not like rape is not reported in such situations and it will definitely stop any untoward incident. And I am sure men can be made to work in the night. Not like there is shortage of men employed in the workforce. I dunno what your arguments are for allowing women to work in IT(or do you think that you might not want to allow them in the IT industry also(at night) I dunno but I just assumed that you don't mind them working at night) at night but not in pubs or bars at night. Bartenders are not the ones who get drunk in the first place. I don find much of a difference between the two cases. I might be wrong but you support the curfew because you are not for this whole pub thing. I don't have any problem with you against this whole pub thing. But the fact that you can support a gender biased curfew doesn't augur well. And about practicality I believe women employees can be safely employed if proper reasonable steps are taken like providing secure transportation etc. There will be instances but i believe it shud be comparable to that of what women in IT industry face.

I get your point about being practical vs theoretical but like I said it is a grey area. At what cost do you want to be practical. I believe there is a better solution than outright curfew which can reduce the crime(to acceptable levels) as well as allow women to work after night. As far as there is a better solution a biased curfew is unequal. There is always the issue of practicality vs theory. Ideal solution can never be attained but one should always point one self in the ideal direction. No point in the reverse direction claiming that anyway ideal solution is not possible. I dunno if you have seen the movie iRobot but the master robot Vikki has a practical solution do you want something like that.
And all this above argument is assuming you support a outright curfew on women employees in pubs/bars after 8pm. If what @Subfusced says looks like there is no outright curfew like that but that is not the what i care about. Even if outright one sided curfew is not true you do support that and this is all about that.

Hawk Eye said...

rhv,

in my *personal* opinion the probability of a potential rapist hanging around in the pub/bar after 8PM at night is greater than probability of such a person hanging around in IT companies. In that bars pubs at night have more porrikis than IT companies.

you can quote intances where rapes happen in IT companies and non-bar areas. I would not disagree with you. Goes back to the 'All or nothing' point. most people disagree with this irdinance because they think this will push back women to stone age in 10 milli seconds. the extrapolation seems like a reflex.

i strongly disagree with this. I dont think any govt no matter how bad they are will extend this logic to all situations. if they do i will disagree with them

The Raj said...

"in my *personal* opinion the probability of a potential rapist hanging around in the pub/bar after 8PM at night is greater than probability of such a person hanging around in IT companies. In that bars pubs at night have more porrikis than IT companies.

"

I guess you havent heard the repeated stories of cab drivers dropping IT women employees off after 8pm trying to molest them. It happened frequently. The solution suggested was not to ban women employees from working late in IT companies altogether but for the IT company to make it mandatory that the women employee is not dropped off last and there is always someone else with her. Also, the cab drivers are thoroughly background checked.
rhv is suggesting something along these lines for bar/pubs as well. Simply banning the gender from the said profession altogether is the lazy way out, not to mention regressive.
If a few people sit together and actually think about it practical and progressive solutions can emerge.

Hawk Eye said...

you comment essentially proves that the govt does not apply the same solution in all cases. but in different situations applies a solution that is relevant to that situation

which makes all the concerns around this ban spreading to other domains unnecesary.

Rex said...

Dear Hawkeye,
What do you say to this article from yesterday?
- A boy, not a girl or a woman.
- In broad daylight, not late night outside a mall.
- Wearing a school uniform, which hopefully isn't 'revealing' or skimpy.

So what are the cops gonna say now? He was asking for it? How much longer are we supposed to take the probability of rape as a given and modify our lifestyles around it instead of catching these bastards and making an example of them?

Anonymous said...

Probability of a rapist hanging around in pubs/IT companies? Are you guys serious? Do you really think that all rape incidents are planned?

Imagine yourselves as U.S. army men who are stationed in Colombia, seperated from your wives for a long period of time, and intoxicated in alcohol's effect while celebrating a certain victory over a rebellion; And let your imagination grasp if you can, walking down a colombian street while spotting some cute latin american women of "white iberian" ancestry, around the corner. What would you do next? How many of you would swear by your loved ones to be a goody goody? Knock it off guys!!!

By the way, i'm tickled to see Hawkeye comparing any locality in India/around the world with Mambalam & T.Nagar. It's like he wouldn't hesitate to compare Saravana stores,Ranganathan street,Chennai with "Louis Vuitton",5th Ave',NY.

Anonymous said...

Probability of a rapist hanging around in pubs/IT companies? Are you guys serious? Do you really think that all rape incidents are planned?

Imagine yourselves as U.S. army men who are stationed in Colombia, seperated from your wives for a long period of time, and intoxicated in alcohol's effect while celebrating a certain victory over a rebellion; And let your imagination grasp if you can, walking down a colombian street while spotting some cute latin american women of "white iberian" ancestry, around the corner. What would you do next? How many of you would swear by your loved ones to be a goody goody? Knock it off guys!!!

By the way, i'm tickled to see Hawkeye comparing any locality in India/around the world with Mambalam & T.Nagar. It's like he wouldn't hesitate to compare Saravana stores,Ranganathan street,Chennai with "Louis Vuitton",5th Ave',NY.

Anonymous said...

Anon what the hell are you pething? Too much foreign language documentaries? US troops and Delhi rape. Enna da connection? Nee enna CNN-IBN news anchor aa?

Anonymous said...

Apart from hawkeye's analysis of the government's move, i can sense his sympathy for the victims when he said "My personal view is that rapists deserve capital punishment", which is not unusual. It's rather boring. My sympathy goes out to the poor rapist.

Mel Gibson threatens to beat his wife, and the "Today Show" pointed out her "passive aggression." Ines Sainz, a reporter for TV Azteca, was sexually harassed by players for the New York Jets, and sports commentators immediately wondered if she was "asking for it". One look at her outfit that she wore to the Jets practice would tell you that she obviously wanted them to look in that direction or she wouldn't dress like that. But hawkeye believes that the victim doesn't ask for it because of the way she dresses or walks or drinks. Give me a break.

Let's forget about it. As i had mentioned before, imagine yourself as the U.S. trooper who is stationed in Colombia. However disciplined he may be, what if there was "sex in the air"?

vijay said...

"you comment essentially proves that the govt does not apply the same solution in all cases. but in different situations applies a solution that is relevant to that situation

"

That is YOUR inference. My comment does not prove anything. It only shows an instance where a practical and reasonable solution was thought up. Knowing our govt. they take the easy way out 7 out of 10 times at the expense of practicality and reason

bb said...

well said

Choco said...

Its a sensitive topic. You put forth your views quite bluntly. And you where not completely wrong. In fact I agreed with most of the things you said while I was reading the post.
As bb says, Well said!

ankur verma said...

Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Extremely useful info specifically the last part I care for such info much. I was looking for this certain info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.songs

The Hermit said...

Good thoughts...

But an alternate suggestion Hawkeye:

Why not shut all bars after 8 pm thereby preventing rapes on barmaids or drunk maids or by other anonymous kudigaara podhumakkal from committing such rapes?

The fact that a restriction on one gender with no change to the status quo of a criminal charged with rape is the factor that causes the outrage.

Rape trials should be much charged more severely than just a few years' sentence, especially in a society which is still extremely hostile to rape victims and where the victim in most cases is blamed.

If you are willing to blame a victim for leading a carefree life you are likely to keep looking for that flaw to justify the victimisation (while of course condoning the rapist).

BTW: nothing personal just an intelligent discussion

Rahul said...

Ready to Move Projects Raj Nagar Extension

Ready to Move SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates Limited is a Group that Stands for Meticulous Planning and Application of Consumer insights Gathered During Course of 25 Years. Nestled in this Township Bustling With life is SG Estates SG Impressions Plus Ghaziabad.

Keywords->SG Impressions plus, SG Estates, Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension, Raj Nagar Extension, Ready to Move Flats in Ghaziabad
SG ESTATES LTD
105-106, Deepshikha Tower, Rajendera Place, New Delhi-110008
Telephone: 011-42323230 (Hunting Lines)
Fax: 011-42323244
Email: -info@sgestates.in
Call@ 9999008503

www.sgimpressionsplus.com
www.sgimpressionsplus.in

Rahul said...

Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension | 9999008503 | SG Impressions Plus

Ready to Move SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates Limited is a Group that Stands for Meticulous Planning and Application of Consumer insights Gathered During Course of 25 Years. Nestled in this Township Bustling With life is SG Estates SG Impressions Plus Ghaziabad
Ready to Move SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates Limited is a Group that Stands for Meticulous Planning and Application of Consumer insights Gathered During Course of 25 Years. Nestled in this Township Bustling With life is SG Estates SG Impressions Plus Ghaziabad.


Keywords-> SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates, Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension, Raj Nagar Extension, Ready to Move Flates in Raj Nagar, Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension NH-58

SG ESTATES LTD
105-106, Deepshikha Tower, Rajendera Place, New Delhi-110008
Telephone: 011-42323230 (Hunting Lines)
Fax: 011-42323244
Email: -info@sgestates.in
Call@ 9999008503

www.sgimpressionsplus.com

Rahul said...

Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension | 9999008503 | SG Impressions Plus

Ready to Move SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates Limited is a Group that Stands for Meticulous Planning and Application of Consumer insights Gathered During Course of 25 Years. Nestled in this Township Bustling With life is SG Estates SG Impressions Plus Ghaziabad
Ready to Move SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates Limited is a Group that Stands for Meticulous Planning and Application of Consumer insights Gathered During Course of 25 Years. Nestled in this Township Bustling With life is SG Estates SG Impressions Plus Ghaziabad.


Keywords-> SG Impressions Plus, SG Estates, Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension, Raj Nagar Extension, Ready to Move Flates in Raj Nagar, Ready to Move Raj Nagar Extension NH-58

SG ESTATES LTD
105-106, Deepshikha Tower, Rajendera Place, New Delhi-110008
Telephone: 011-42323230 (Hunting Lines)
Fax: 011-42323244
Email: -info@sgestates.in
Call@ 9999008503

www.sgimpressionsplus.com

Rahul said...

Raj Nagar Extension SG Impressions 58 call-@9999008503

SG Estates - SG Impressions 58 Raj Nagar Extension Ghaziabad. it is Located at a Distance of Mere 15 Km from ISBT Anand Vihar, 2.3 Km from Meerut Road, 3.5 Km from Rajnagar and 3 Km from DPS

Indigo Tower SG Impressions 58 phases -2 Raj Nagar Extn Ghaziabad, offers budget homes with facilities that fulfill the aspirations and demands of today's home seekers.


Keyword :> SG Impressions 58, Raj Nagar Extension, SG Estates, SG Impressions, Flat in Ghaziabad, Project in Ghaziabad, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad, Raj Nagar Extension NH 58
Contact Us
SG ESTATES LTD
105-106, Deepshikha Tower, Rajendera Place, New Delhi-110008
Tel : 011-42323230
Mobile->9999008503
Email: enquiry@sgestates.in
http://www.sgimpressions58.com/