vvvslaxman Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It has no relevance. Even if you unlock it she is still not going to be safe. Documentary was made to get some 15 minute fame and money. She got it already. If you really want to interview rapist you don't necessarily have to interview those who are related to high profile case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It has no relevance. Even if you unlock it she is still not going to be safe. Documentary was made to get some 15 minute fame and money. She got it already. If you really want to interview rapist you don't necessarily have to interview those who are related to high profile case. But locking it won't make it safe either so what exactly is the point in banning the documentary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 But locking it won't make it safe either so what exactly is the point in banning the documentary? Protecting the identity of the victim one thing. Preventing them airing opinion of a remorseless criminal and his defense lawyer . Using a tragic story to make money and in the process stereotyping with clever editing. They have violated certain things legally and morally. Unless the rape victim is alive and she volunteers to make a movie on herself it is frankly insensitive to make money out of her. I have no problem with airing certain parts of the interview. I am just staying the pros and cons of airing. As far as there are no pros in airing except inciting internet crowd into a frenzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Rapists in the west are lonerangers, isolated freaks. Rapists everywhere else are society's children. She is one ugly looking cvnt though. So there is that. Yeah, its all a big kaaanspiracy to defame India. Thats why she did it. You are doing jack **** to stop the rapes, so you ban the airing the documentary that exposes the repulsive mindset of rapists and their apologists. How is that ****ing lawyer even alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Protecting the identity of the victim one thing. Preventing them airing opinion of a remorseless criminal and his defense lawyer . Using a tragic story to make money and in the process stereotyping with clever editing. They have violated certain things legally and morally. Unless the rape victim is alive and she volunteers to make a movie on herself it is frankly insensitive to make money out of her. I have no problem with airing certain parts of the interview. I am just staying the pros and cons of airing. As far as there are no pros in airing except inciting internet crowd into a frenzy. The documentary was made with the consent of the parents.They are a part of the documentary.They allowed the real name of the victim to be used.They have said they approve of the documentary because it shows the face of the society. Today, the editor's guild has requested the govt to lift the ban because it tells the bravery of the victim and her family.People who have seen the documentary believe it is good and there is no exploitation of th victim ...or defamation of th country. By not showing it and using th victim or her identity as an excuse...we are again shaming the victim. If the parents are brave enough to not want to hide for no fault of theirs or their daughter....then why this excuse. The only people who have the right to object are the victims family....and they are not objecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Cxcl-9Ly4E4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Rapists in the west are lonerangers, isolated freaks. Rapists everywhere else are society's children. She is one ugly looking cvnt though. So there is that. So very classy of you. Yeah...it happens everywhere so we should learn to live with it and not try to show the rel faces of people.No wonder the politicians get off so easily with this kind of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HippoSucks Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Why are so many Indians overly sensitive about every little thing? If you don't want to watch the documentary, don't watch it. But who made the law that no one can make a documentary about a rape victim? In fact I would call this good journalism from the makers because they are showing the idiotic mentality of rapists to the general public. On top of that, they are acquainting people with this incident so hopefully it doesn't occur again. That is a good thing, not bad... Apparently BBC is being hypocritical because they disallowed some documentary from airing in 2014 because it would hurt the sentiments of their general public. I don't know about that but I don't see that as hypocritical as a documentary about a rape victim should not hurt anyone's feelings. Even if it was hypocritical, what does it have to do with this incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 The documentary was made with the consent of the parents.They are a part of the documentary.They allowed the real name of the victim to be used.They have said they approve of the documentary because it shows the face of the society. Today, the editor's guild has requested the govt to lift the ban because it tells the bravery of the victim and her family.People who have seen the documentary believe it is good and there is no exploitation of th victim ...or defamation of th country. By not showing it and using th victim or her identity as an excuse...we are again shaming the victim. If the parents are brave enough to not want to hide for no fault of theirs or their daughter....then why this excuse. The only people who have the right to object are the victims family....and they are not objecting. Last i read Father was promised that real name would not be dropped. but they dropped anyway. Secondly opinion of rapist is not definitely not his. He just used the argument his defense lawyer presented in the court. You seriously don't think he is waiting around on the road to check who is provocatively dressed and decide to teach them a lesson do you? Hard to believe. Rapists don't think that deep before committing a rape. He could have blurted out whatever the heck he wanted to say rile you up.That is not necessarily true. Anyway you look at it giving a platform to a rapist is flat out wrong. Rapists are psychotics crave for power. They come in all shapes, white, black, brown, asian, caucasian, jew, hindu, muslim.. It is an universal problem. She has definitely misled the authorities. The interview with the criminal should be discarded . Everything else they can air. Anybody tell it is reality i say no. It is not reality. None of us thinks that way. Few idiotic politicians and slum dwelling rapist and his defense lawyer don't reflect our society. They have to talk about measures. Keep talking about the victim, rapists eternally will do jack sh**. We have moved past the stage where action should have been underway. Do they have sex offender registry and their finger prints in a database that is accessible to the entire Indian police. Do they have CCTV installed in critical locations. Do they have facility to protect the identity of victim without turning into a media circus? If the documentary had asked such hard hitting questions instead of asking "expert opinion" of a rapist i would have appreciated. This was just made for publicity with an emotional touch for which we easily fall prey to. I squarely blame the authorities to let her even interview this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Yeah, its all a big kaaanspiracy to defame India. Thats why she did it. You are doing jack **** to stop the rapes, so you ban the airing the documentary that exposes the repulsive mindset of rapists and their apologists. How is that ****ing lawyer even alive? Agree, the issue is bigger than the messenger. What she says or does is immaterial to the issue in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Reading the social network and feeling, expressions from my friends it is tremendously polarized. Some women absolutely detest the idea of giving air time to the criminal. Some find it thought provoking without going into the specifics. Same with guys. Some say it should be aired I would say 50/50 reaction for this video. 50/50 umpire's decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Yeah, its all a big kaaanspiracy to defame India. Thats why she did it. You are doing jack **** to stop the rapes, so you ban the airing the documentary that exposes the repulsive mindset of rapists and their apologists. How is that ****ing lawyer even alive? Blind people can be helped, sighted people with selective blindess can't. If you can't be bothered to research longstanding propaganda tools like drain inspection for which their is plenty of literature available, it ain't my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 So very classy of you. Yeah...it happens everywhere so we should learn to live with it and not try to show the rel faces of people.No wonder the politicians get off so easily with this kind of ****. Make sure to use that class to teach the young boys in your family. Clearly, otherwise, Indian society will make rapists out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Blind people can be helped' date=' sighted people with selective blindess can't. If you can't be bothered to research longstanding propaganda tools like drain inspection for which their is plenty of literature available, it ain't my problem.[/quote'] Propoganda? I suppose that is evident in all the conspiracy theories you have tried to find when there aren't any. Yeah, this discussion with you is going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 That was a despicable defense. Having said that would you say that lawyer would do the same crime to a woman based on what he said? Most certainly not. If you notice something lawyer and criminal both say the same thing. It is almost like Lawyer coached him into saying the same thing he says as anything else would go against his defense. Lawyer in all likelihood made sure they both were on the same page. The convict is convicted his fate is sealed, the lawyer is not befitting to his role in the minimum and is free to spew his misogyny. If he had said that the matter is subjudice and he will do his job to defend his client in the case there is nothing wrong in it. But both the lawyers said a number of generic over arching statements that was so fundamentally misogynist and with such arrogance that it was repugnant. I am sure you agree to that, my point is the poverty or in this case the 'rape tourist' bbc director might not be right when she says the whole Indian society is at fault because the rapist and the lawyer exist in India, definitely she is just a pseudo from bbc, how ever questionable her intentions appear there is one message that comes out of the documentary. The fact that such a lawyer exists, one who displays a *****h exaggerated masculine and most cringe worthy pride to call for burning of his 'house ladies' in his 'farm land' if they venture out after 9:30 thats just..punishable by maximum incarceration for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Rapists in the west are lonerangers, isolated freaks. Rapists everywhere else are society's children. She is one ugly looking cvnt though. So there is that. she is the usual "pseudo b star star " but the documentary was unintentionally good, it did betray the true minds of the lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Ok the only problem with the documentary is the following. " Director is a westerner " If she was Indian then what she said would have been welcome by AAP and Arvind Kujliwal ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 The convict is convicted his fate is sealed, the lawyer is not befitting to his role in the minimum and is free to spew his misogyny. If he had said that the matter is subjudice and he will do his job to defend his client in the case there is nothing wrong in it. But both the lawyers said a number of generic over arching statements that was so fundamentally misogynist and with such arrogance that it was repugnant. I am sure you agree to that, my point is the poverty or in this case the 'rape tourist' bbc director might not be right when she says the whole Indian society is at fault because the rapist and the lawyer exist in India, definitely she is just a pseudo from bbc, how ever questionable her intentions appear there is one message that comes out of the documentary. The fact that such a lawyer exists, one who displays a *****h exaggerated masculine and most cringe worthy pride to call for burning of his 'house ladies' in his 'farm land' if they venture out after 9:30 thats just..punishable by maximum incarceration for me. This is something we knew even before the document. This is not uncovering anything new http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tk-article-1.1236369 Dated 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I've watched the documentary. I was deeply moved by the narrative especially the interviews with the parents, I was repulsed by the convicted driver and defence lawyers, shocked that they clearly come from a society that gives credence to their attitudes, I was proud of the mass protests in the immediate wake of the crime, and frankly inspired. If Aamir Khan dished this up on a Sunday morning the whole of India would be applauding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sachin34357 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 what happened to freedom of speech and expression lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts