Is RW telling lies about "PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE Bill"?

[Alam_dar]

@beetle you posted (link) that Draconian laws are being made against the Hindu majority. And then you gave link to the complaint, which was filed against the  "PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE Bill"

1 hour ago, beetle said:

It was the communal violence bill that assumed that the majority is always the one that indulges in violence and the minority always needs protection. 

In India...that is not at all true .

In west bengal, there are areas where criminals from the muslim community can commit crimes and find refuge because the police can't even enter those areas because of political patronage.

There are areas in WB where hindus can't celebrate durga puja 

There are places in kashmir where no hindus are left.

So to assume the majority community is the aggressor in India is pretty wrong and to make draconian laws against them is something that will make the majority community worried.

The law was for minorities but most minorities do not have issues with the majority community except muslims and sometimes christians.

https://www.change.org/p/global-hindus-protest-against-congress-policy-on-harassment-of-hindus

 

Ok, I am reading this stuff. Please tell me:

 

(1) Have you read this Bill yourself in original (The PDF file)? 

Or are you following only that, which has been written in the complaint about this bill? 

 

(2) I have read the allegations in the complaint, and then tried to found out it in the original bill. To my surprise, these complaints are totally false. 

 

(3) First complaint is this:
 

1.     A Hindu against whom any Muslim/Christian/minority make any Complaint shall be presumed in law to be guilty by Police & Courts till that Hindu proves his innocence (Sec70, 71 & 73)

I read the Sec 70, 71 & 73, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this accusation.

Here are these sections:

 

70. Information to National Authority or State Authority regarding delayed or biased investigations.-

71. Further Investigation or re-investigation

72. Judicial inquiry into occurrence of organised communal and targeted violence.

 

Please read these sections in original yourself (link) and tell me how they are related to this accusation?

 

2.      An accused Hindu Shall have to be immediately arrested as all offences under this bill are non-bailable & cognizable (Sec 56)

Sec 56 is about "Defender for Justice and Reparations", and I found absolutely nothing that has been accused in the complaint. 

 

3.      This law can be invoked only by a minority against Hindus.

No reference has been given for it. But logically I could understand that mostly minorities will use this bill, while it is about the situations where majority group could socially boycott and thus blackmail the minority group person. 

 

4.      Accused Hindu shall not be informed who has complained against him (Sec 38) but police has to inform complainant progress of the case.

I read Sec 38, which is about "Procedure with respect to armed forces."

Therefore, again it has nothing to do with the accusation in the complaint. 

 

5.     A minority is not required to give any evidence to support his complaints against Hindus (Sec 70, 71 & 72)

These 3 sections I discussed above, and they are totally non related to these accusations. 

 

6.     A Hindu refusing to do business with any minority shall be immediately arrested [Sec 3 (f) (i)]. Taking advantage of such anti – Hindu laws a minority can force a Hindu to sell /rent his property and even surrender his daughters to minorities.

This is the only section which has some relation to the accusation in the complaint. But the way things are presented in the complaint are misleading. Original Sec 3 (f) is this:

 

Sec 3 (f):
“hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of s. 2(c), Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Bill, 2011 s. 2(a), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 2 that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:

(i) boycott of the trade or businesses of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or,

(ii) publicly humiliate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation or any act of indignity; or,

(iii)deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights; or,

(iv)force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livelihood without his or her express consent; or,

(v) any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

 

I see that person of minority group is being protected here from the bullying of majority group, but nowhere I am able to find that it compels any Hindu to sell his property to a Muslim, or to marry his girl to a Muslim boy as has been accused in the complaint. 

 

7.      A minority cannot be punished for making even false complaints/ statement against Hindus (Sec 40)

Here is the original section 40:

40. Identity of victim and informant to be protected.- The National Authority shall take appropriate action to protect the identity of the victim or informant at all times.

 

Again I am unable to see any relation between the complaint and the original text. 

 

Therefore, I wonder how truthful is RW while making accusations? Or is it only spreading false propaganda? 

 

Do you really consider the RW to be truthful? 

[beetle]

I don't care to get into another discussion .

The act was divisive and congress rightly got thrown out for trying to divide people into minority and majority.

 

When opportunistic politicians give an opportunity to people / group to get peoples attention ,they will use it.

 

I also do not understand your facination for things that you as an outsider have no clue about.

Edited August 2, 2019 by beetle