Indians fired and arrested for celebrating Pakistan's cricket win

[essentialsaltes]

If you need a reminder of what attacks on free speech actually look like.

Like millions of others around the world, Nafeesa Attari was glued to her screen as India played Pakistan in their opening match of the T20 World Cup.

The schoolteacher from the northern Indian city of Udaipur watched as Pakistan won the match by 10 wickets in what was a clinical and emphatic win.

Days later she was arrested and held in a police cell. Her apparent crime: her WhatsApp status celebrating Pakistan's victory.

Ms Attari was fired from her teaching job, and arrested under a section of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises "assertions prejudicial to national integration".

Rajendra Parmar, a member of the hardline Hindu nationalist group Bajrang Dal, had reported Ms Attari to the police.

"These people should go to Pakistan. You're living in India, earning here but you're celebrating their win," he told the BBC.

A group of medical students in Kashmir have also been charged - under a strict anti-terror law - for allegedly rooting for the Pakistani cricket team.

(see also)

 

[rambot]

Over a cricket match?

 

[Sabertooth]

That reminds me of the scene from How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying (1961),...

Grand Old Ivy

 

[Halbhh]

If you need a reminder of what attacks on free speech actually look like.

Like millions of others around the world, Nafeesa Attari was glued to her screen as India played Pakistan in their opening match of the T20 World Cup.

The schoolteacher from the northern Indian city of Udaipur watched as Pakistan won the match by 10 wickets in what was a clinical and emphatic win.

Days later she was arrested and held in a police cell. Her apparent crime: her WhatsApp status celebrating Pakistan's victory.

Ms Attari was fired from her teaching job, and arrested under a section of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises "assertions prejudicial to national integration".

Rajendra Parmar, a member of the hardline Hindu nationalist group Bajrang Dal, had reported Ms Attari to the police.

"These people should go to Pakistan. You're living in India, earning here but you're celebrating their win," he told the BBC.

A group of medical students in Kashmir have also been charged - under a strict anti-terror law - for allegedly rooting for the Pakistani cricket team.

(see also)

Seems they sure could use more of the "love your enemy" way to help make a less stressful society.

 

[IntriKate]

Thats pathetic

 

[Sabertooth]

Thats pathetic

Sports Buff​

 

[Hammster]

If you need a reminder of what attacks on free speech actually look like.

Like millions of others around the world, Nafeesa Attari was glued to her screen as India played Pakistan in their opening match of the T20 World Cup.

The schoolteacher from the northern Indian city of Udaipur watched as Pakistan won the match by 10 wickets in what was a clinical and emphatic win.

Days later she was arrested and held in a police cell. Her apparent crime: her WhatsApp status celebrating Pakistan's victory.

Ms Attari was fired from her teaching job, and arrested under a section of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises "assertions prejudicial to national integration".

Rajendra Parmar, a member of the hardline Hindu nationalist group Bajrang Dal, had reported Ms Attari to the police.

"These people should go to Pakistan. You're living in India, earning here but you're celebrating their win," he told the BBC.

A group of medical students in Kashmir have also been charged - under a strict anti-terror law - for allegedly rooting for the Pakistani cricket team.

(see also)

Do they have free speech laws? If not, then it is not an attack on free speech.

 

[Bradskii]

Do they have free speech laws? If not, then it is not an attack on free speech.

I don't think that you need a law for the concept to hold. But yes, they do. With the following restrictions:

• I. security of the State,
• II. friendly relations with foreign States,
• III. public order,
• IV. decency and morality,
• V. contempt of court,
• VI. defamation,
• VII. incitement to an offence, and
• VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India.

If you had to pick two countries that really don't get on well with each other then Pakistan and India would be top of the list (you only have to know how Pakistan came into being to know that). If I was a Pakistani living in India, then I'd be keeping a very low profile if we beat them at anything. There would definitely be social repercussions. But arresting her? That's crazy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do they have free speech laws? If not, then it is not an attack on free speech.

Right to Freedom

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right -

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you need a reminder of what attacks on free speech actually look like.

This is a perfect example of the kinds of the outcomes when certain things are made into a "Sacred Cow" (to use the idiom)

IE: "something considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so."


Hence, if your first sentence was to imply that people here in the US who complain about free speech being attacked are somehow invalid, I think I would disagree because A) I don't think there's as much of a difference between this example, and examples in the US that people are concerned about... and B) having that mindset escalated to those absurd extremes is the exact type of thing they're trying to prevent from happening.

We already have a noteworthy percentage of the population that thinks that (what they consider to be) "hate speech" should be punishable by law
https://campaignforfreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Free-Speech-Survey-Standard-Banners.pdf


Getting punished because you rooted for the wrong sports team, and getting punished because you told a joke would both fall in the category of "unreasonable" in my opinion. Getting locked up for either is even more unreasonable, yet, we have a sizeable percentage of people who think that "someone should be punished by law for saying something I don't like" is an acceptable position.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A) I don't think there's as much of a difference between this example, and examples in the US that people are concerned about...

You think being put in jail by the state is similar to being put in 'Facebook jail' by Facebook?

 

[Hammster]

Right to Freedom

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right -

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

I guess it’s good to know that governments don’t always follow their own laws.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You think being put in jail by the state is similar to being put in 'Facebook jail' by Facebook?

It's not just "facebook jail"...there are people in the entertainment realm who are losing their livelihood because of "past sins"

At the risk of making it sound like slippery slope.

The mentality that says "people who say things I don't like should be locked up" doesn't just happen overnight, there's a progression pattern there. On the path to that outcome, is social ostracization.

As noted by the polling/survey I posted, there's a large segment of people who think that people should be legally punished for saying things they don't like.

It's not a far leap to "they should be locked up" from "they should be socially ostracized and lose their livelihood, that'll teach 'em"

The moment people think any amount of punishment (legal, social, financial, or otherwise) is the suitable outcome for someone saying something they don't agree with...it doesn't take much coercing to make them take it a step further.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not just "facebook jail"...there are people in the entertainment realm who are losing their livelihood because of "past sins".

I don't think it's justified to put that term in scare quotes. There isn't one amongst us who hasn't done or said something that we'd all class as a past sin. And the usual excuse is that it was not considered wrong at the time. Which is a fair comment. But...we now know it was a sin and we need to accept that, admit to it and promise to ourselves, and to others, that we'll do better. If one comes clean, expresses regret and gives all indications that he or she has moved on, then I think it's fair and reasonable to draw a line under the event and we all can move on.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think it's justified to put that term in scare quotes. There isn't one amongst us who hasn't done or said something that we'd all class as a past sin. And the usual excuse is that it was not considered wrong at the time. Which is a fair comment. But...we now know it was a sin and we need to accept that, admit to it and promise to ourselves, and to others, that we'll do better. If one comes clean, expresses regret and gives all indications that he or she has moved on, then I think it's fair and reasonable to draw a line under the event and we all can move on.

I put it in quotes because I feel a lot of the "past sins" that people end up targeting aren't actually "sins" at all. For instance, a comedian telling an edgy joke.

It'd be one thing if everyone was employing the mindset and measured approach that you laid out above.

But there's a pocket of people who want to punish other people for "saying the wrong thing", and in ways that go well beyond a social media ban (although, given that social media has become the new public square, I don't think that type of ban is as trivial as some make it seem) in the form of taking away their livelihoods.


When the major societal institutions are disproportionally on one-side of political fence (due to the people who are running them), and that particular faction deems themselves the arbiters of what kind of speech is "acceptable", and failure to abide by their position comes with financial ramifications, that's not a good situation to be in.


I don't see a liberal CEO boxing people out of the public square as all that different than a conservative CEO paying off legislators to impose the kinds of legislation they want.

Both basically equate to "I'm rich, I control this institution, and you have to bend to my whims"

 

[Whyayeman]

Narendra Modi has rekindled the nationalism of the 1940s. His and the BJP's blatant sectarianism is fanning old injuries and prejudices.

No good can come of this. The naked hatred of Muslims is dangerous for us all; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Pakistan were supported in the arms race by USSR; India by USA. And we thought the Cold War was over!

 

[Bradskii]

I put it in quotes because I feel a lot of the "past sins" that people end up targeting aren't actually "sins" at all. For instance, a comedian telling an edgy joke.

That I don't mind. But...some edgy jokes can be based on racism or mysogyny. Some people can take it as banter and some will be offended. Rightly offended? I guess that depends on the person. But you don't have to go too far back in time to get some Youtube clips of acts or comedians or even entire sitcoms that are simply shameful to watch now. And you can check the comment section and still some people see it as funny. 'They don't allow stuff like that anymore!'

It's a difficult subject. No doubt about it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That I don't mind. But...some edgy jokes can be based on racism or mysogyny. Some people can take it as banter and some will be offended. Rightly offended? I guess that depends on the person. But you don't have to go too far back in time to get some Youtube clips of acts or comedians or even entire sitcoms that are simply shameful to watch now. And you can check the comment section and still some people see it as funny. 'They don't allow stuff like that anymore!'

It's a difficult subject. No doubt about it.

Part of it is virtue signaling or "being offended on someone else's behalf"

For instance, if you look at some of the comedy of Ralphie May or Andrew Schulz, they both tell jokes that nature (they do it across the spectrum... IE: a "nobody is safe" sort of approach).

You look at the audiences that paid to go see them on their specials, the people who are in those groups are laughing hysterically (because the jokes are funny)...meanwhile, a bunch of 23 year old Caucasian girls are playing "white knight" and racing home to twitter to post stuff like this:

 

[Bradskii]

Part of it is virtue signaling or "being offended on someone else's behalf"

For instance, if you look at some of the comedy of Ralphie May or Andrew Schulz, they both tell jokes that nature (they do it across the spectrum... IE: a "nobody is safe" sort of approach).

You look at the audiences that paid to go see them on their specials, the people who are in those groups are laughing hysterically (because the jokes are funny)...meanwhile, a bunch of 23 year old Caucasian girls are playing "white knight" and racing home to twitter to post stuff like this:

View attachment 308092

Just watched some of their work on Youtube. I'd pay good money not to have to watch watch them again. Outrageously unfunny. Incredibly lazy routines. Which come across as nothing more or less than what they might say at a barbie with some guys when they don't have to be politically correct. And I'd compare them with guys like Ricky Gervais and Jimmy Carr. Some of their standup is seriously offensive. But with Gervais and Carr, there is obviously a lot of work gone into what they do and it's almost an understanding between them and the audience that 'hey, I'm going to see how how far I can go and still get you to laugh'. There's no mean spiritedness. They challenge political correctness. They don't reject it like May and Schultz.

But then again, I wouldn't demand that May not be allowed to do his stand up at any venue.

Reminds me of a comedy club a few of us went to a few years back in Sydney. The MC was a well know Aussie comic. Also known for pushing the boundaries. And he was doing his best but dying. And made the cardinal sin of bad mouthing his audience. 'Don't you like being offended?' Or words to that effect. And as I was sitting nearest the stage it was directed at me. 'I'm going to complain to the management. They said there'd be comedians'. Think you can do better? Well, I'd had a few beers so I took the mike off him and cracked a couple of jokes. Then he made a derogatory comment about one of the women in our group and her son asked him to discuss it outside. It kinda went downhill after that. Security was actually needed. Hell of a great night.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think it's justified to put that term in scare quotes. There isn't one amongst us who hasn't done or said something that we'd all class as a past sin. And the usual excuse is that it was not considered wrong at the time. Which is a fair comment. But...we now know it was a sin and we need to accept that, admit to it and promise to ourselves, and to others, that we'll do better. If one comes clean, expresses regret and gives all indications that he or she has moved on, then I think it's fair and reasonable to draw a line under the event and we all can move on.

Well, two things about that.

First, the kind of people @ThatRobGuy is talking about in post #13 will not accept coming clean, expressing regret, and giving all indication of moving on. The reason they searched for and dredged up said past comment is because they intend to exert all possible punishment of that person now. An apology is merely chum in the water for them.

Second, what gets classed as a "sin" gets broader and broader every day, and truth is not a defense.