The only way to control violence and rioting is by controlling those who are violent – those who burn buses, or kill or attack other people (no matter what they claim ‘provoked’ them).
Same as rape. The only way to prevent sexual assaults is by controlling those who commit these assaults. No matter what they claim ‘provoked’ them.
Same as thefts. Murders. Child abuse. The only way to control any crime is to control those who commit the crime.
And for this we must acknowledge that Violence is the crime – not dissent, disagreements, western-clothing, wealth, poverty or ignorance.
So this is not going to control violence. It might do the opposite. It might suppress voices and create a sense of entitlement in those who see violence as a legitimate means to express disagreement.
MUMBAI: In an attempt to contain protests over objectionable posts on a social networking site about Chhatrapati Shivaji, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar and the late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, the Maharashtra police have decided to take action even against those who ‘like’ the controversial posts.
Those who ‘like’ such posts will be booked under the Information Technology Act and under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Nanded police have said. A person could face three to five years in jail if convicted under Section 66 (a) of the IT Act (punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc), applied in this case.
It seems just like we tolerate rape-apologists deciding who is to blame for rapes, now we are letting Violence-Apologists decide who is to be blamed for violence. (FB-likes in this case)
What do you find offensive enough to make you violent? Is it legal for you to be offended enough to get violent?
I gave it a lot of thought, and I think the only thing that can make me violent is defence from violence.
But then it seems there are some people who tend to get violent – what should be their legal rights? Should they have The Right to Take Offence? And should those who offend them risk being jailed?