Stupidity can take many forms. This blog, for example. Or a center page article from The Hindu. In which, Julie Bindel argues that women need not assume personal responsibility for their safety.

Rape, under any circumstance, is a crime, nay, a sin. There can be no justification for assaulting a woman. Roughly, from this point, Julie Bindel and sanity part company.

In rape trials, the perpetrator of the crime can plant doubts in the minds of the judge or the jury by claiming that the act was committed with the consent of the victim. The signals of consent, as misread by the assailant, could be the victim’s promiscuity, revealing attire, lewd language, the influence of alcohol etc. Bindel argues that the victim cannot be blamed in such cases, because she is only exercising her individual right.

Fair enough. The only thing we need to check is if Bindel locks her house when she leaves it for work.

We were taught in middle school that with rights come responsibilities. Feminists like Bindel hold the view that society must protect women, even if they themselves violate their individual rights flagrantly.

Let’s be clear; women have the right to go out, dressed outrageously and be gagging to pull a man for sex.” If Bindel’s argument were true, people should hang signs outside their homes proclaiming that a particular room has jewellery and cash worth a million dollars. A map or floor plan might help. Not just that. In case such a house is robbed, then when the case comes to court, judges should recommend the houseowner to the Nobel Prize Committee.

Locked houses get robbed, no doubt. But that is no reason why any sane person would leave the doors of his house open at all times. Maybe there is some obscure survey that says otherwise, but chances are an unprotected house is more at risk than even a half-secure house.

The theft is still a theft; it is a crime, and punishment for it must be no less than it should be for a normal theft. But what should not be lost on the courts, the victim and society is that fact that while the victim of the crime did not actively encourage the thief, criminals are only looking for chinks in the victim’s armor to advance their aggression.

Consent is a tricky issue for courts to establish weeks or months after the crime has been committed. But the legal system can only go some distance. Perpetrators of rape, or any other crime, should be shown no mercy. But the onus is always on people to protect themselves. If they fail to, they are partly to blame as well.

 

Over the past few days, I chanced to watch some of Cho’s dramas on Google Video. It doesn’t require a long time fan like me to inform you that Cho’s dramas are a tour de force. My personal favorite is Mohammad bin Tughlaq, which I have watched many times over on screen and as a stage play. However, of the ones I saw over the past week, Judgment Reserved is the one that stands out.

A leading lawyer decides to appear for the perpetrator of a rape. Despite a mountain of evidence, the lawyer is sure that the accused cannot be guilty, as he had saved his daughter a few years ago when her honor was on the line. Meanwhile, the witnesses – a movie director, a social worker, a magazine editor, and a college professor – in the case seek to gain from the publicity that the case has generated. At this point, the accused informs the lawyer that he is indeed guilty of the crime.

With a view to expose the fickle-mindedness of the witnesses – a symbolism for the society in general – the lawyer decides that he will still plead that his client is not guilty, and even if so, that society is responsible for corrupting the minds of today’s youth. But as his train of thoughts move forward, he realizes that he would be committing a grave mistake if he were to argue that a crime was not so criminal, and that winning an acquittal for his client would only serve to worsen societal malaise.

The latter part of this drama, especially the segment where the lawyer and his assistant (played by Cho) prepare for the case, is a brilliant argument for social conservatism. At one point, Cho says:

“தப்பை தப்புனு சொல்வதற்கு பதிலா, அதுக்கு அழகழகா காரணம் கண்டுபிடிக்கறோம்; பேரெல்லாம் வெக்கறோம்…” (Instead of pointing out a mistake as one, we – the society – try to find reasons behind the same; we seek to give names to our mistakes, all with a view to legitimize our mistakes)

As someone who has always looked at Cho as just a political commentator and satirist, I found this argument of his appealing.

Whereas change is inevitable, change forced upon society through the hammer of legitimization of criminal activities has done more harm than good. Here is a quote that I have made up myself.

“ஆபத்திற்கு பாவமில்லை” என்று எண்ணினான் அன்றைய மனிதன்.
“பாவம் செய்தாலும் ஆபத்தில்லை” என்கிறான் இன்றைய மனிதன்.

In case you want to watch the drama online, these are the links to parts one, two and three.

© 2011 VKpedia Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha