For free speech

India created a law which is used against free speech, the basic human rights.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act

Note: The Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended in 2008. The amended Act which received the assent of the President on February 5, 2009, contains section 66A.

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

I am challenging the anti free speech IT act.

Taslima Nasrin vs State of UP [W.P.(Crl) No. 222 of 2013]
| FEBRUARY 8, 2014

This writ petition was filed by Bangladeshi author and activist Taslima Nasrin, under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for quashing an FIR filed against her under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Said FIR was filed against the petitioner in the city of Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, in the wake of her tweets regarding a ‘fatwa’, (a virtual bounty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on her head) that was issued against her. It is premised solely on a press report on said tweets published in the Hindi daily ‘Amar Ujaala’ in November 2013, which purportedly offended the religious sentiments of an Islamic cleric, around whom the tweets were centered. The petitioner argues that the FIR was registered without a preliminary inquiry towards ascertaining whether any cognizable offence had been made out against her. Moreover, the petitioner submits that even if all the averments in the complaint and the FIR are accepted, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner. In the complaint, neither are the actual tweets by the petitioner extracted, nor is a copy of the said press report annexed with the FIR. For these reasons, it is submitted that the FIR is a motivated and malicious one, aimed at wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. It is essentially an abuse of legal process. In addition, Section 66A can easily be clubbed with other provisions of the Indian Penal code, including Section 295A, by deliberately giving any statement made on the internet a religious color or flavor and misreading the same.

It is argued that Section 66A violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The language and phraseology of the Section is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse. All terms constituting an offence under Section 66A have not been defined either under the IT Act, the General Clauses Act or under any other legislation. The Section would be indiscriminately clubbed with other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, as has been done in the petitioner’s case.

Further, the freedom of expression is a recognized human right under various international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Section 66A of the IT Act is wholly inconsistent with these conventions, and constitutes a severe, regressive and wholly undesirable restraint on this hallowed right. While the petitioner, not being an Indian Citizen, does not herself invoke Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, she requests the Court to take judicial notice in the interest of the citizens of India, that Section 66A of the IT Act is totally inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and virtually takes away this right insofar as the medium of the internet is concerned. It is submitted that the invocation of penal provisions on tenuous grounds has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, that is to say it severally disincentivizes citizens from exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech for fear of frivolous prosecution and police harassment. The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that the constitutional protection of free speech is calculated to insulate the freedom from such a ‘chilling effect’. It would amount to little consolation to say that the right to free speech of a citizen will be eventually vindicated at the end of an extended legal proceeding. The very fact that the machinery of the criminal law is set in motion against citizens on frivolous grounds amounts to harassment that is inadequately mitigated by the eventual discharge or acquittal.

Thus in light of the above circumstances, the petitioner prays that:

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, be declared unconstitutional and void

A writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate be issued writ to quash and set aside the FIR registered against her

No news yet from the Supreme Court. 66a is still there. Free speech is still under threat.

Inhumanity, Ignorance and Islam go hand in hand

Some Muslims would deny, but the truth is, the Taliban practices pure Islam. They want no democracy in Afghanistan. Islam is for theocracy, not for democracy. The Taliban wants to have Allah’s law, exactly what Mr. Muhammad wanted. Allah’s law will be practiced everywhere, non-Muslims and non-believers will be killed. The world will be Darul Islam, the land of Islam.

The great Taliban, the protectors of Islam, cut off the fingers of Afghan voters for casting their ballot.

image

image

image
Ah.

Nukes

Ten Muslim terrorists attacked karachi airport. Twenty eight people were killed including those terrorists. Terrorists disguised themselves as security guards. What if they disguise as security guards and enter the place where nuclear weapons are? What if they switch on the button of those hundreds of nukes? Terrorists can disguise themselves as nuclear scientists. Or maybe they don’t really need to disguise! Scientists who made nuclear weapons for Pakistan were close friends of the Taliban and al Qaeda. During Taliban regime they visited Afghanistan many times and planned to make nuclear, chemical and biological weapons for al Qaeda. They even met Osama Bin Laden. They said, ‘Pakistan’s nuclear bombs belong to whole Muslim ummah.’ Here is the story.
Bashir Uddin mahmood, the jehadi nuclear scientist is now writing books about the relation between science and the Koran.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous. An accident can occur at any moment. No country should have nukes. We are worried about two countries for having nukes. North Korea is ruled by an autocrat, mad man. Pakistan is ruled by people surrounded by religious fanatics. Don’t know who will blow up our planet first.

42% Americans believe god created humans 10,000 years ago.

42% of Americans believe creationist view of human origins. They believe god created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago. Such a shocking and depressing news!

The poor countries are the most religious countries. Most people living in the poor countries say, religion is an important part in their daily lives. Some of the poor countries are not religious though, because their governments restricted religious expression for decades. They grew up as non-religious.

The United States is one of the rich countries that is an exception.

About two-thirds of Americans — 65% — say religion is important in their daily lives. Among high-income countries, only Italians, Greeks, Singaporeans, and residents of the oil-rich Persian Gulf states are more likely to say religion is important.

Most high-income countries are further down the religiosity spectrum. In 10 countries, no more than 34% of residents say religion is an important part of their daily lives. Six of those are developed countries in Europe and Asia with per-capita incomes greater than $25,000.

We can see that religiosity is strongly related to poverty. Not long ago, Bangladesh was created as a secular country, now people of Bangladesh are more religious than people of Saudi Arabia.

But still it is hard for me to find correlation between poverty and religiosity. I think, religion is most able to thrive in seriously dysfunctional societies. Most poor countries are having dysfunctional societies. Religion is popular in dysfunctional societies where people are anxious about their daily lives, so they’re looking for god’s help to end their misery.
Highly religious countries are not highly successful socially.

A researcher said, ‘it’s not fear of death that drives poor people to be religious, and it’s not a god gene or a god module in the brain or some sort of connection with the gods, it’s basically a psychological coping mechanism.’ Probably he is right.

The USA is a highly technological science-based country, but almost half of its citizens deny basic science. Unlike poor countries, it does not have dysfunctional societies, but its citizens are religious. Maybe not only societal dysfunction, but some other reasons make people believe in creationism, not in evolution. The gap between the rich and the poor in the USA is bigger than that of Europe. There is a 3rd world inside the wealthy USA. That poor 3rd world is dangerously religious. The people living in that 3rd world don’t have proper education and good standard of living. Most likely that is the reason for huge number of Americans to become religious, in order to improve their condition with the help of god.

People should have the right to say ‘Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell.’

Irish Pastor James McConnell said bad about Islam. He said, ‘Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell,’ and then he had to apologize. Shouldn’t he have the right to say bad about Islam? He has the right to say bad about millions of things, then why not about Islam? He is ignorant if he thinks Christianity is any good. But he has the right to be ignorant. Doesn’t he? You and I can loudly say, ‘Jesus was a liar and a charlatan. Virgin Mary was not a virgin. Christianity is a bullshit religion, there are bullshit in the Bible about gay people, about women, about slavery, about dinner, about shellfish, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation.’ Do we have to apologize for saying derogatory things about Christianity?

For the sake of humanity, do not let Islam to be exempted from critical scrutiny and do not please prevent people from expressing their opinions on Islam.

Killing women is not a crime

Killing women is not considered a crime in Pakistan.

Farzana Parveen, 25, was killed in Lahore by her family members last month because she married a man against her family wish.

Pakistani police officers will be investigated because they didn’t intervene when Parveen was publicly beaten to death with bricks.

Such killings often originate from tribal traditions in Pakistan and usually happen in rural areas, not large cities such as Lahore. Human rights activists said bystanders, including police, often don’t intervene because the killings are considered family matters.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said 869 women were victims of honor killing last year in the nation of about 180 million people. The actual number is of course much higher.

Nothing is easier in this world than killing women.
Farzana’s husband said he killed his first wife in order to marry Farzana. If Farzana were not killed by her father and uncles, she would have been killed by her husband. The man who is able to kill his first wife, is able to kill his second wife.

Farzana would not have enjoyed her life if she were alive because she was a woman. Millions of Farzanas get killed for being women. Men’s misogynistic mindset is responsible for the suffering of women. Misogynistic mindset will continue to remain until men collectively get rid of it. I do not think they will ever stop hating women. Or may be they will. But sure not in our lifetime.

A Turkish man electrocuted his wife for giving birth to a female baby

A Turkish man electrocuted his wife.

A Turkish man is charged with electrocuting his wife as punishment for giving birth to a girl — while on the phone to police who failed to avert the crime, media reported Friday.
The 29-year-old from southeastern Diyarbakir province does not deny murdering his wife by placing a live electric cable under her chin as she slept, a day after their second baby girl was born in January.
The Vatan newspaper published on its front page a transcript of a telephone call he placed to police in which he announced his murderous intent, in real time.
“I killed someone,” the man told the police operator, according to the transcript.
“Who did you kill?” asked the officer on the other end.
“I am killing my wife right now,” said the man.
“Did you kill her or are you killing her?” the officer asked.
“Well, she isn’t dead yet. But I am killing her if the murder is halal (permissible in Islam),” the man replied.
The officer then asked if the suspect had a problem with his wife.
“I am telling you that I killed my wife but you are asking what the problem was,” the man replied.
“I closed her mouth as she is in the throes of death,” he then said.
At which point the police operator snapped into action: “OK, wait. I am sending a unit”.
A defence lawyer told the court at a hearing Wednesday that his client killed his wife because she gave birth to “a girl once again”.
The suspect, a waiter at a local restaurant in the Kurdish-majority region, also has a four-year-old daughter.
A defense lawyer at a court hearing on Wednesday criticised police for failing to talk the suspect out of his crime.
“If a police officer with a high persuasive capacity and training were on the phone, (the woman) would be alive today”.
The case was the latest example of what rights activists say is a failure by EU hopeful Turkey to protect women from domestic violence.

Men hate women for giving birth to female babies. Men hate female babies, men hate anything female, men often rape them and kill them. Men hate women so much that they often beat women up, torture women, abuse women, assault women, burn women to death, stone women to death, cut women into pieces,

Men killed 214 women and 10 children in Turkey last year. Men will continue killing this year.