Save Indian Family Foundation, strongly and severely condemns the Derogatory Ad being telecast at the behest of Kitply Industries. The ad shows a young timid man getting married to a woman and on the first night the bed crumbles. The wife asks the husband, “Kitply nahi laye kya?” (Have you not bought Kitply?) and slaps the husband.
Openly, brazenly and cold – bloodedly this ad not only depicts Domestic Violence on men but also promulgates it, inspiring women to do it and telling men that this is a way of life. World over international studies have proved it beyond doubt that Domestic Violence is not a gender specific issue and is a matter of equal concern for both men and women.
The situation is far worse in India wherein gender biased, lopsided, avaricious, pernicious, draconian, anachronous and unconstitutional anti – male marital laws fail to recognize the presence of Domestic Violence and acknowledge the same for men. Yes, Domestic Violence laws in India do not consider the fact that men too could be victims of Domestic Violence the way women are presumed and prejudiced to be and the Domestic Violence law in India does not allow men to make complaints of Domestic Violence in India.
This despite the fact holding true that as per Government records i.e. suicide date published by National Crime Records Bureau, every year 56, 000 married men are committing suicide which is considered as a social service in a great country like India, where 82 % of taxes are paid by men. Neither do men have a Men Welfare Ministry for them nor a National Commission for Men to look into their grievances, whereas animals do have. The condition of Indian men is worse than animals in India.
To add to the woes men are subject to the constant fear of being dragged into false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence draining them financially, socially, morally and spiritually in addition to being victims of Domestic Violence as well at the hands of their vindictive and vicious wives and in – laws who do not forget to file false cases of dowry harassment on the innocent men and their families and drag them to police station and court and unleash Legal Terrorism on them and extort money legally from them.
As if all this was no less, when corporates like Kitply Industries rain on men and promote Domestic Violence on men as a norm and when confronted for the same, shamelessly claim that it has been shown in a humorous mood, and shrug away from accountability. The contention that the ad was shown in a light spirit is subject to critical analysis and not becoming of a brand name Kitply Industries.
Save Indian Family Foundation, the single largest umbrella NGO for about 15 different NGOs fighting not only for men’s rights but also for Gender Equality and Family Harmony, severely condemns such derogatory ads and demands apology from Kitply Industries, failing which Save Indian Family Foundation will be forced to issue legal notices to them to respond properly.
One can only imagine the kind of euphoria that would have been generated if they had shown a man slapping a woman in similar manner. So when activists championing the cause of Equality for Women are crying foul, why are they now silent when Gender Equality is critically endangered and its existence seriously jeopardized with such derogatory ad content. This only depicts the hollow goals with which such activists work and want to rake in the mullah in the name of Women Empowerment and feminism but do not believe in actual equality based on truth and justice.
Save Indian Family Foundation re – iterates its demand of an apology from Kitply Industries and once again puts this question to the civil society and the government that how long are they continuing to consider men as second class citizens in their own country?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Alimony - The Trojan Horse of Matrimony
Irony defining life it seems has become a norm in today’s times. And it does not seem to spare the most controversial social institution, working as first step towards familial life, aka the INDIAN MARRIAGE. The irony here is that what starts as a pompous celebration and extravagant spending ends with financially, emotionally and spiritually draining litigation with mud – slinging from both sides aka the DIVORCE. And ending a marriage is very costly for a man, not only of because the fear of false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence against him but also as he is liable to pay alimony or maintenance pedante lite to his wife.
The concept of alimony, although was designed with a noble intention of prevention of stranded and protection of destitute non – earning spouse, the same has increasingly become the single largest motivating factor for girls to break their marriages at the slightest sneeze of discomfiture in the relationship with their husbands. And in order to gain a beneficial and an empowered bargaining position in the negotiation for alimony they even do not refrain from filing false cases of Dowry Harassment against their husbands and in – laws and getting them arrested to plant fear in their mind to make them succumb to their heavy demands of alimony.
Thus, in today’s dynamic socio – economic scenario, alimony has become the Trojan Horse of matrimony. Girls know it very well that the moment they start losing control in the marriage or over their husband they can always walk out of it by entangling the husband in false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence and harassing him so much that he agrees to pay the heavy ransom girls demand to release him from the forced slavery and give him the costly freedom called divorce.
Was ever alimony in divorce meant to be an easy route to tax – free money? Never. But with the existing rampant corruption amongst the police, judiciary and the legal system, men are made to pay heavy alimonies to their estranged wives for settling the false cases and everyone involved in the settlement gets a share of the pie. The practice is thriving like a flourishing business which is so anti – male in nature that every year 56, 000 married men are committing suicide, unable to bear the brunt of fallacy called, The Bad Marriage.
As its definition stands, alimony is subsistence – allowance which allows a non – capable spouse to maintain oneself post divorce. Spouses who are earning or are capable of earning based on their qualifications are not entitled to alimony. One might contend by the above definition that for working women / substantially educated women opting for divorce, as they are not entitled to alimony, their husbands need not worry, but it will be imperative to state here that increasing number of such cases are coming forth where either women have hidden the income and the fact that they earn or deliberately left job to squander money from husband.
Even if the woman is not able to maintain herself, then more than the husband, the parents of the woman are a greater culprit for not properly empowering their daughter with proper education and making her dependent on someone else, expecting that the marriage of their daughter with that person will last for eternity. And is it not the daughter’s right in her ancestral property, her legitimate due that she should get? Why are girl’s parents shrugging away from this responsibility of theirs and discriminating between a daughter and a son when distribution of wealth comes into picture? Why is it expected that only the husband is responsible to maintain the woman even when they are not staying together? Why the girl’s parents are not held responsible for such a condition of their daughter? Will the civil society at least think over these questions if not answer them?
The concept of alimony, although was designed with a noble intention of prevention of stranded and protection of destitute non – earning spouse, the same has increasingly become the single largest motivating factor for girls to break their marriages at the slightest sneeze of discomfiture in the relationship with their husbands. And in order to gain a beneficial and an empowered bargaining position in the negotiation for alimony they even do not refrain from filing false cases of Dowry Harassment against their husbands and in – laws and getting them arrested to plant fear in their mind to make them succumb to their heavy demands of alimony.
Thus, in today’s dynamic socio – economic scenario, alimony has become the Trojan Horse of matrimony. Girls know it very well that the moment they start losing control in the marriage or over their husband they can always walk out of it by entangling the husband in false cases of dowry harassment and domestic violence and harassing him so much that he agrees to pay the heavy ransom girls demand to release him from the forced slavery and give him the costly freedom called divorce.
Was ever alimony in divorce meant to be an easy route to tax – free money? Never. But with the existing rampant corruption amongst the police, judiciary and the legal system, men are made to pay heavy alimonies to their estranged wives for settling the false cases and everyone involved in the settlement gets a share of the pie. The practice is thriving like a flourishing business which is so anti – male in nature that every year 56, 000 married men are committing suicide, unable to bear the brunt of fallacy called, The Bad Marriage.
As its definition stands, alimony is subsistence – allowance which allows a non – capable spouse to maintain oneself post divorce. Spouses who are earning or are capable of earning based on their qualifications are not entitled to alimony. One might contend by the above definition that for working women / substantially educated women opting for divorce, as they are not entitled to alimony, their husbands need not worry, but it will be imperative to state here that increasing number of such cases are coming forth where either women have hidden the income and the fact that they earn or deliberately left job to squander money from husband.
Even if the woman is not able to maintain herself, then more than the husband, the parents of the woman are a greater culprit for not properly empowering their daughter with proper education and making her dependent on someone else, expecting that the marriage of their daughter with that person will last for eternity. And is it not the daughter’s right in her ancestral property, her legitimate due that she should get? Why are girl’s parents shrugging away from this responsibility of theirs and discriminating between a daughter and a son when distribution of wealth comes into picture? Why is it expected that only the husband is responsible to maintain the woman even when they are not staying together? Why the girl’s parents are not held responsible for such a condition of their daughter? Will the civil society at least think over these questions if not answer them?
NCW caught red handed speaking lies
National Commission of Women (NCW) needs to be banned for its unethical activities.
1) They openly support adulterous women by claiming them as victims and seek amendments to grant maintenance to adulterous women.
2) They openly say, DO NOT BELIEVE THE MEDIA REPORTS.
3) They openly speak white lies as depicted below in the mail conversation between them. Read on.
Would the NCW like to clarify what does it mean by harsh?
1) Sending innocent mothers and sisters on the basis of an unverified complaint is not harsh?
2) Shielding 56, 000 husband killers is not harsh?
3) Fudging statistics to get foreign funds for implementing anti - family, avaricious, pernicious, draconian, anachronous, anti - male laws and unleashing them unto the society is not harsh?
4) Openly protecting the rights of adulterous, promiscuous women is not harsh?
5) Demanding multiple maintenance from males under pretext of false allegations is not harsh?, And last but not the least.
6) Turning away old mothers tortured by their unscrupulous daughter - in - laws and her parents is not harsh, saying this does not come under their ambit?
WILL THE NCW ANSWER?
And what realities they are talking of, why don’t they come out in public if they are so astute, devout and sincere?
with regard to your queries you are hereby informed that
1. that NCW does not send innocent mothers and sisters on the basis of an unverified complaint to jails we dont have such power in the first place
2. that the NCW does offer support to women in distress which may also include sisters and mothers and just daughter in laws therefore your presumptions on NCW is factually misleading
3. we do not fudge statistics the staistics are manintained by NCRB and not by NCW
4. ncw has not protected the rights of adulterous women i do not know from where you have gathered such information please do not beleive in media reports
5. we have not ever turned away old mothers etc any women requiring help is provided be it a mother sister or daufghter in law any one requiring assitance can approach us
6. we do not distinguish or categorise in fact you would be surprised to note that the NCW recommendations on implementation of Dowry related acts is that first and foremost resort to counselling and mediation with intention to save the marriage and family and only where a prima facie case exists then the legal recourse is to be taken to
any more queries ???
yogesh mehta
law officer
1) Then why has the NCW not taken any action for the 1, 20, 000 women arrested from 2004 -2007 on a mere FIR? Does NCW consider it right? Does it not consider it should make a move to protect those mothers and sisters who are harassed by police before being tried or convicted? Just answer Yes or NO.
2) Can NCW give me the statistics of the number of women as mothers and sisters it has helped vis - a vis the number of daughter - in - laws it has helped? Just answer Yes or NO. Does NCW maintain such categorized information. Just answer Yes or NO. If not reasons.
3) If you do not fudge statistics, then how did NCW made a claim that 70 % women are denied maintenance on adultery grounds and later when asked to publish source data for it, categorically denied having such information. News link. Do you consider this as fudging of statistics. Just answer Yes or NO. NCW Supporting Adultery. See Link1
4) It is the same media reports based on which you keep shouting on violence on women. And now that I have official email from NCW telling me not to believe media reports. Let the media also know about it. If NCW does not protect the rights of adulterous women by making propositions to remove the adultery clause in maintenance. Do you think this is not supporting adulterous women. Just answer Yes or NO.
5) I would like you to provide me details to convince me how many cases have you have resolved with mediation and how many women other than wives have been genuinely helped by NCW.
PS: We, at Save Indian Family Foundation do not consider the advice to file a case as genuine help as it does not help either. So answer keeping this note in mind.
1) It has been brought to NCW’s notice several times thro’ media. And now also I am bringing it to your notice. What can you do for them? Or better what can you do to prevent such mishaps in future?
2) So categorically NCW cannot substantiate its claim of having supported mothers and sisters?
3) Some cases?? How many judgments do you have? The article makes no mention of that. And when NCW was sent an RTI application for data supporting the claim that in 70 % of cases, women are denied maintenance for adultery why did the NCW reply that it does not maintain such information. If the NCW does not maintain such information, why was it published in Media and if the information was not given by NCW why has NCW not taken action against the tabloid for printing information without approval. This means NCW has got the information published and then later denied having source of that information. Do you consider its ethical on part of NCW to behave in such a manner. I want an answer in YES or NO.
4) “NCW also sought another significant amendment to Section 125, saying that said adultery should no longer be a ground for denying maintenance to a woman. ”
This is from the article. Still you say NCW has not made such a claim and repeat it as well? Are you not writing white lies?? At least make some background research before writing an email. You are being watched by 15, 000 members. And on a discussion note, I would like to know why does NCW consider adultery should be made a civil offense? Adultery in a relationship tantamount to breach of trust. What makes NCW think per se that it is a civil offense and why should a woman be provided maintenance who has walked out of the relationship.
5) Read my point number 5 then revert back. I have asked for some information.
6) Oh sure I will, you do not worry about that.
1) They openly support adulterous women by claiming them as victims and seek amendments to grant maintenance to adulterous women.
2) They openly say, DO NOT BELIEVE THE MEDIA REPORTS.
3) They openly speak white lies as depicted below in the mail conversation between them. Read on.
Would the NCW like to clarify what does it mean by harsh?
1) Sending innocent mothers and sisters on the basis of an unverified complaint is not harsh?
2) Shielding 56, 000 husband killers is not harsh?
3) Fudging statistics to get foreign funds for implementing anti - family, avaricious, pernicious, draconian, anachronous, anti - male laws and unleashing them unto the society is not harsh?
4) Openly protecting the rights of adulterous, promiscuous women is not harsh?
5) Demanding multiple maintenance from males under pretext of false allegations is not harsh?, And last but not the least.
6) Turning away old mothers tortured by their unscrupulous daughter - in - laws and her parents is not harsh, saying this does not come under their ambit?
WILL THE NCW ANSWER?
And what realities they are talking of, why don’t they come out in public if they are so astute, devout and sincere?
with regard to your queries you are hereby informed that
1. that NCW does not send innocent mothers and sisters on the basis of an unverified complaint to jails we dont have such power in the first place
2. that the NCW does offer support to women in distress which may also include sisters and mothers and just daughter in laws therefore your presumptions on NCW is factually misleading
3. we do not fudge statistics the staistics are manintained by NCRB and not by NCW
4. ncw has not protected the rights of adulterous women i do not know from where you have gathered such information please do not beleive in media reports
5. we have not ever turned away old mothers etc any women requiring help is provided be it a mother sister or daufghter in law any one requiring assitance can approach us
6. we do not distinguish or categorise in fact you would be surprised to note that the NCW recommendations on implementation of Dowry related acts is that first and foremost resort to counselling and mediation with intention to save the marriage and family and only where a prima facie case exists then the legal recourse is to be taken to
any more queries ???
yogesh mehta
law officer
1) Then why has the NCW not taken any action for the 1, 20, 000 women arrested from 2004 -2007 on a mere FIR? Does NCW consider it right? Does it not consider it should make a move to protect those mothers and sisters who are harassed by police before being tried or convicted? Just answer Yes or NO.
2) Can NCW give me the statistics of the number of women as mothers and sisters it has helped vis - a vis the number of daughter - in - laws it has helped? Just answer Yes or NO. Does NCW maintain such categorized information. Just answer Yes or NO. If not reasons.
3) If you do not fudge statistics, then how did NCW made a claim that 70 % women are denied maintenance on adultery grounds and later when asked to publish source data for it, categorically denied having such information. News link. Do you consider this as fudging of statistics. Just answer Yes or NO. NCW Supporting Adultery. See Link1
4) It is the same media reports based on which you keep shouting on violence on women. And now that I have official email from NCW telling me not to believe media reports. Let the media also know about it. If NCW does not protect the rights of adulterous women by making propositions to remove the adultery clause in maintenance. Do you think this is not supporting adulterous women. Just answer Yes or NO.
5) I would like you to provide me details to convince me how many cases have you have resolved with mediation and how many women other than wives have been genuinely helped by NCW.
PS: We, at Save Indian Family Foundation do not consider the advice to file a case as genuine help as it does not help either. So answer keeping this note in mind.
1) It has been brought to NCW’s notice several times thro’ media. And now also I am bringing it to your notice. What can you do for them? Or better what can you do to prevent such mishaps in future?
2) So categorically NCW cannot substantiate its claim of having supported mothers and sisters?
3) Some cases?? How many judgments do you have? The article makes no mention of that. And when NCW was sent an RTI application for data supporting the claim that in 70 % of cases, women are denied maintenance for adultery why did the NCW reply that it does not maintain such information. If the NCW does not maintain such information, why was it published in Media and if the information was not given by NCW why has NCW not taken action against the tabloid for printing information without approval. This means NCW has got the information published and then later denied having source of that information. Do you consider its ethical on part of NCW to behave in such a manner. I want an answer in YES or NO.
4) “NCW also sought another significant amendment to Section 125, saying that said adultery should no longer be a ground for denying maintenance to a woman. ”
This is from the article. Still you say NCW has not made such a claim and repeat it as well? Are you not writing white lies?? At least make some background research before writing an email. You are being watched by 15, 000 members. And on a discussion note, I would like to know why does NCW consider adultery should be made a civil offense? Adultery in a relationship tantamount to breach of trust. What makes NCW think per se that it is a civil offense and why should a woman be provided maintenance who has walked out of the relationship.
5) Read my point number 5 then revert back. I have asked for some information.
6) Oh sure I will, you do not worry about that.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Open Letter to oppose NCW's latest proposal
TO,
Dated: 03 September 2008,
Sub: Objections to NCW being awarded the status equivalent of a Court.
Dear Sir / Madam,
This is pertaining to the recent proposal of elevating the status of National Commission of Women to that of a court and giving powers equivalent of a Member of Parliament to the chairperson of the National Commission of Women.
Save Indian Family Foundation, Bangalore, a non – profit, non funded NGO promoted to the cause of spreading the message of gender equality and Family Harmony in the society since the past 2 – 3 years in addition to its efforts to help victims of misuse of marital laws and create awareness about the same has some strong objections to such a proposal owing to the following points:-
1) NCW, as designed to be an astute body working for the causes of women has miserably failed in its duties to protect the rights of women and safeguard the same as the arrest data published by the National Crime Records Bureau shows that close to 1, 20, 000 women have been arrested in the last four years for complaints under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. These women are the mothers and sisters of the husbands accused of false dowry allegations by unscrupulous women who fail to recognize family values and view marriage as a business opportunity to earn tax free money. Such women are shielded by the NCW and as such, NCW does not deserve to be given this special consideration. News link
2) Very recently the NCW had made quite obnoxious an amendment to demand maintenance for live – in partners and to remove the clause of adultery as a reason to deny maintenance to promiscuous and adulterous women. Such a proposal in itself is a direct insult of the sacrosanct social institution called marriage and to those devout and faithful wives who are committed to their husbands. Granting equal privileges as wives to a live – in partner directly degrade the status of marriage in the society which is a solemnized vow in presence of family elders whereas there is no commitment factor in a live – in relationship. And suggesting maintenance for live – in partners is luring more women to enter into multiple relationships and demand maintenance from each partner. This is a direct attempt to degrade and demean the existing status of women in the society. Ironically this statement is coming from NCW, supposed to be working for upliftment of women in the society. Thus NCW, working to protect the rights of promiscuous and adulterous women at the cost of devout and sincere women does not deserve to be of equivalent status as that of a court.
3) In order to support its above claim NCW went ahead and published that in 70 % of cases women are denied maintenance on grounds of adultery. SIFF activists when filed for data to support the claim made by NCW, through an application under Rights to Information Act, 2005, NCW in its reply categorically denied maintaining any such data. It was a white lie published by NCW and a delirious attempt by NCW to fudge statistics and present an otherwise picture to realize vendetta best known to it. Such a body severely lacking integrity and accountability does not deserve such a position. News link.
4) A court of law, supposed to be a temple of justice, is a place where people get their grievances redressed in a procedural manner and such a temple has a very high demand to be fair, unbiased, impartial and just. Granting the status equivalent to court to a women’s commission is direct and in – the – face discrimination against men who are anyways facing a lot of discrimination even in the current scenario when NCW has no judgmental powers and every year more than double the number of men are committing suicides than women, thanks to the heavily lopsided and duplicated laws supported and pampered by NCW. One can only imagine the situation when such a body filled with people of anti – male views assumes a position of power
Hence keeping in view the above objections we severely condemn the proposal to elevate the status of NCW to that of a court and grant privileges equivalent to a Member of Parliament to the Chairperson of NCW and be dropped categorically and buried forever in the bud for larger public interest to restore faith and trust in the system.
Dated: 03 September 2008,
Sub: Objections to NCW being awarded the status equivalent of a Court.
Dear Sir / Madam,
This is pertaining to the recent proposal of elevating the status of National Commission of Women to that of a court and giving powers equivalent of a Member of Parliament to the chairperson of the National Commission of Women.
Save Indian Family Foundation, Bangalore, a non – profit, non funded NGO promoted to the cause of spreading the message of gender equality and Family Harmony in the society since the past 2 – 3 years in addition to its efforts to help victims of misuse of marital laws and create awareness about the same has some strong objections to such a proposal owing to the following points:-
1) NCW, as designed to be an astute body working for the causes of women has miserably failed in its duties to protect the rights of women and safeguard the same as the arrest data published by the National Crime Records Bureau shows that close to 1, 20, 000 women have been arrested in the last four years for complaints under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. These women are the mothers and sisters of the husbands accused of false dowry allegations by unscrupulous women who fail to recognize family values and view marriage as a business opportunity to earn tax free money. Such women are shielded by the NCW and as such, NCW does not deserve to be given this special consideration. News link
2) Very recently the NCW had made quite obnoxious an amendment to demand maintenance for live – in partners and to remove the clause of adultery as a reason to deny maintenance to promiscuous and adulterous women. Such a proposal in itself is a direct insult of the sacrosanct social institution called marriage and to those devout and faithful wives who are committed to their husbands. Granting equal privileges as wives to a live – in partner directly degrade the status of marriage in the society which is a solemnized vow in presence of family elders whereas there is no commitment factor in a live – in relationship. And suggesting maintenance for live – in partners is luring more women to enter into multiple relationships and demand maintenance from each partner. This is a direct attempt to degrade and demean the existing status of women in the society. Ironically this statement is coming from NCW, supposed to be working for upliftment of women in the society. Thus NCW, working to protect the rights of promiscuous and adulterous women at the cost of devout and sincere women does not deserve to be of equivalent status as that of a court.
3) In order to support its above claim NCW went ahead and published that in 70 % of cases women are denied maintenance on grounds of adultery. SIFF activists when filed for data to support the claim made by NCW, through an application under Rights to Information Act, 2005, NCW in its reply categorically denied maintaining any such data. It was a white lie published by NCW and a delirious attempt by NCW to fudge statistics and present an otherwise picture to realize vendetta best known to it. Such a body severely lacking integrity and accountability does not deserve such a position. News link.
4) A court of law, supposed to be a temple of justice, is a place where people get their grievances redressed in a procedural manner and such a temple has a very high demand to be fair, unbiased, impartial and just. Granting the status equivalent to court to a women’s commission is direct and in – the – face discrimination against men who are anyways facing a lot of discrimination even in the current scenario when NCW has no judgmental powers and every year more than double the number of men are committing suicides than women, thanks to the heavily lopsided and duplicated laws supported and pampered by NCW. One can only imagine the situation when such a body filled with people of anti – male views assumes a position of power
Hence keeping in view the above objections we severely condemn the proposal to elevate the status of NCW to that of a court and grant privileges equivalent to a Member of Parliament to the Chairperson of NCW and be dropped categorically and buried forever in the bud for larger public interest to restore faith and trust in the system.
Google Censorship
<>
The major search engines censor access to many web sites. 11 min
They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing something wrong”.
The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn’t have access to certain information.
Google has often censored some of my own pages. These pages have completely and utterly disappeared from their search engines. They do not exist!
(And please do not bother writing to me to explain that this might be because their ‘blind’ algorithms might simply have changed - because I have far too much evidence pointing to the conclusion that these ‘algorithms’ include site-specific and/or page-specific instructions and I also know the internet extremely well.)
You see; Google has a problem. And it is this.
Just like the telephone companies, Google claims that it cannot possibly have any responsibility for what information flows through its system. After all, in much the same way that the telephone companies cannot possibly monitor all the billions of telephone conversations that flow through their systems, Google cannot possibly monitor all the information on the billions of webpages that it lists.
Or so it claims.
And, on the surface, this claim seems to be a reasonable one.
BUT!
If Google is, indeed, censoring information (e.g. delisting pages from its search engines or demoting them in the rankings because of their content) then, quite clearly, it is monitoring this information.
And if it is monitoring this information, then it can surely be deemed to be liable for the presentation of it!
And if this was the case then, for example, this would mean that Google could be held responsible for any libel that appeared on webpages that it had listed - or, perhaps, responsible for aiding terrorists etc etc etc.
In short; if Google admits to monitoring, then it can be held to be ‘liable’.
So, Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, it proudly proclaims to be a defender of free speech and that it would not dream of censoring (blocking, de-listing, demoting etc etc) any webpages of information, and it insists most strongly that, therefore, it cannot possibly be held liable for any of the content but, on the other hand, it does not want to upset governments; and it can only do this by doing what governments tell them.
And so Google has chosen to worm its way out of this dilemma by, quite simply, accommodating to the wishes of governments - and lying to the people about it.
Now some of my long-time readers might recall that the last time that I had a barney with Google - when, if you believe it, they removed all advertising from a single innocuous page concerning men’s issues on my other website - I had to maraud around for three or four days demonstrating to Google that I would trawl the internet here, there and everywhere in order to spread the news about Google’s heinous activities to whomsoever might seem interested - especially journalists.
And I think that what finally convinced Google to be more accommodating was me pointing out the fact that not only was I, clearly, a very energetic activist, but that rushing around the internet badmouthing Google would do absolute wonders for my site’s traffic - and that, therefore, I would find the experience most rewarding - which meant that I was very unlikely to stop badmouthing Google hither and thither - week after week if necessary.
My ads came back.
Well, it looks as if I am now going to have to create a fuss over www.HarrietHarmanSucks.Com - because its pages have been disappeared into the abyss - having all first appeared for a few days hovering between pages 5 and 20 following a search for “Harriet Harman”
And so my plan is this.
I am going to write a piece about why Google needs to be ‘controlled’ and restricted in some way and explain how outrageous it is that it should have so much power.
And then I am going to start marauding around the internet again.
Because, ….
I will not be censored!
LOL!
(And you can forget all the BS about Google being a private company and so it should be able to de-list or demote whatever pages it likes, because it is illegal for companies to cheat people. And if Google is censoring my pages, then it is cheating the people most horribly!)
The alternative, I suppose, is to re-write the pieces so that they are less ‘hostile’.
Hmmm.
I’ll think about it.
Maybe if I grovelled to Harriet Harman in my pieces instead of castigating her Google would re-list my pages.
Grovel. Grovel.
LOL!
Huh!
I would rather that my missus be torn apart and devoured slowly by a gruesome herd of flesh-eating crocodiles.
(While I watched her writhing in agony, ate ice cream, and chatted to my new girlfriend, of course!)
Anyway. The piece above is very good indeed, and definitely worth reading.
+ We have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can’t see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is going on. Bill Thompson
And, of course, this is one of the ways in which western governments intend to stifle dissent.
This is the deal in a nutshell.
Government: “If you, Google, do not disappear from view those most effective pieces that are hostile to us, then we shall bring some kind of law to bear upon you.”
Google: “Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir.”
Government: “But you must not tell the people of this secret deal.”
Google: “Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir.”
There is no question in my mind that this is going on.
And this means that we do not have a democracy.
Of course, Google would not dare to nobble websites that were very influential - because too many influential people might get upset about it.
So, between them, Google and the government keep it all secret and under the carpet.
In other words, as usual, our own governments - and, in this case, Google - are cheating us.
And talk about hypocrisy! - with all our politicians forever criticising the Chinese government for blocking access to websites that are critical of government and its officials, when they are doing something very similar over here.
Indeed, our governments - through their officials - are lying to us all the time.
Furthermore, when, at the time, I did a whole load of research into the matter of ‘adverts’ and the ‘blacklisting’ of them, it became fairly clear to me that the sites that had lost their adverts were mostly on the right side of the political spectrum in that they were often anti-feminist and/or not politically correct.
So, as in so many other areas, my guess is that internet activists who are anti-feminist and/or not politically correct are also having to cope with the customary institutionalised biases against them; but this time, with the aid of Google.
But decent lefties must also be very much concerned about this, firstly, because it might not be too long before those who are pulling the strings are more right-wing and, secondly, because “men’s issues” have precious little to do with being on the left or the right of the political spectrum; because when it come to issues of concern to ‘men’, the official left and right are just as bad as each other.
In other words, all men should be very concerned indeed about Google’s underhand censorship because not only does this undermine the democratic process most seriously, it also means that those activists who are fighting the corner for ‘men’ (rightly or wrongly) are being unfairly treated and that the issues of concern to ‘men’ are - once again - being purposely sat upon and hidden.
The major search engines censor access to many web sites. 11 min
They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing something wrong”.
The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn’t have access to certain information.
Google has often censored some of my own pages. These pages have completely and utterly disappeared from their search engines. They do not exist!
(And please do not bother writing to me to explain that this might be because their ‘blind’ algorithms might simply have changed - because I have far too much evidence pointing to the conclusion that these ‘algorithms’ include site-specific and/or page-specific instructions and I also know the internet extremely well.)
You see; Google has a problem. And it is this.
Just like the telephone companies, Google claims that it cannot possibly have any responsibility for what information flows through its system. After all, in much the same way that the telephone companies cannot possibly monitor all the billions of telephone conversations that flow through their systems, Google cannot possibly monitor all the information on the billions of webpages that it lists.
Or so it claims.
And, on the surface, this claim seems to be a reasonable one.
BUT!
If Google is, indeed, censoring information (e.g. delisting pages from its search engines or demoting them in the rankings because of their content) then, quite clearly, it is monitoring this information.
And if it is monitoring this information, then it can surely be deemed to be liable for the presentation of it!
And if this was the case then, for example, this would mean that Google could be held responsible for any libel that appeared on webpages that it had listed - or, perhaps, responsible for aiding terrorists etc etc etc.
In short; if Google admits to monitoring, then it can be held to be ‘liable’.
So, Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, it proudly proclaims to be a defender of free speech and that it would not dream of censoring (blocking, de-listing, demoting etc etc) any webpages of information, and it insists most strongly that, therefore, it cannot possibly be held liable for any of the content but, on the other hand, it does not want to upset governments; and it can only do this by doing what governments tell them.
And so Google has chosen to worm its way out of this dilemma by, quite simply, accommodating to the wishes of governments - and lying to the people about it.
Now some of my long-time readers might recall that the last time that I had a barney with Google - when, if you believe it, they removed all advertising from a single innocuous page concerning men’s issues on my other website - I had to maraud around for three or four days demonstrating to Google that I would trawl the internet here, there and everywhere in order to spread the news about Google’s heinous activities to whomsoever might seem interested - especially journalists.
And I think that what finally convinced Google to be more accommodating was me pointing out the fact that not only was I, clearly, a very energetic activist, but that rushing around the internet badmouthing Google would do absolute wonders for my site’s traffic - and that, therefore, I would find the experience most rewarding - which meant that I was very unlikely to stop badmouthing Google hither and thither - week after week if necessary.
My ads came back.
Well, it looks as if I am now going to have to create a fuss over www.HarrietHarmanSucks.Com - because its pages have been disappeared into the abyss - having all first appeared for a few days hovering between pages 5 and 20 following a search for “Harriet Harman”
And so my plan is this.
I am going to write a piece about why Google needs to be ‘controlled’ and restricted in some way and explain how outrageous it is that it should have so much power.
And then I am going to start marauding around the internet again.
Because, ….
I will not be censored!
LOL!
(And you can forget all the BS about Google being a private company and so it should be able to de-list or demote whatever pages it likes, because it is illegal for companies to cheat people. And if Google is censoring my pages, then it is cheating the people most horribly!)
The alternative, I suppose, is to re-write the pieces so that they are less ‘hostile’.
Hmmm.
I’ll think about it.
Maybe if I grovelled to Harriet Harman in my pieces instead of castigating her Google would re-list my pages.
Grovel. Grovel.
LOL!
Huh!
I would rather that my missus be torn apart and devoured slowly by a gruesome herd of flesh-eating crocodiles.
(While I watched her writhing in agony, ate ice cream, and chatted to my new girlfriend, of course!)
Anyway. The piece above is very good indeed, and definitely worth reading.
+ We have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can’t see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is going on. Bill Thompson
And, of course, this is one of the ways in which western governments intend to stifle dissent.
This is the deal in a nutshell.
Government: “If you, Google, do not disappear from view those most effective pieces that are hostile to us, then we shall bring some kind of law to bear upon you.”
Google: “Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir.”
Government: “But you must not tell the people of this secret deal.”
Google: “Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir.”
There is no question in my mind that this is going on.
And this means that we do not have a democracy.
Of course, Google would not dare to nobble websites that were very influential - because too many influential people might get upset about it.
So, between them, Google and the government keep it all secret and under the carpet.
In other words, as usual, our own governments - and, in this case, Google - are cheating us.
And talk about hypocrisy! - with all our politicians forever criticising the Chinese government for blocking access to websites that are critical of government and its officials, when they are doing something very similar over here.
Indeed, our governments - through their officials - are lying to us all the time.
Furthermore, when, at the time, I did a whole load of research into the matter of ‘adverts’ and the ‘blacklisting’ of them, it became fairly clear to me that the sites that had lost their adverts were mostly on the right side of the political spectrum in that they were often anti-feminist and/or not politically correct.
So, as in so many other areas, my guess is that internet activists who are anti-feminist and/or not politically correct are also having to cope with the customary institutionalised biases against them; but this time, with the aid of Google.
But decent lefties must also be very much concerned about this, firstly, because it might not be too long before those who are pulling the strings are more right-wing and, secondly, because “men’s issues” have precious little to do with being on the left or the right of the political spectrum; because when it come to issues of concern to ‘men’, the official left and right are just as bad as each other.
In other words, all men should be very concerned indeed about Google’s underhand censorship because not only does this undermine the democratic process most seriously, it also means that those activists who are fighting the corner for ‘men’ (rightly or wrongly) are being unfairly treated and that the issues of concern to ‘men’ are - once again - being purposely sat upon and hidden.
News Coverage for Women's Rights Equality Day
1) Deccan Chronicle Coverage
2) Deccan Herald Coverage
3) DNA Mumbai Coverage
4) Fresh News Coverage
5) Jansamacharnet Coverage
6) Mangaloreancom Coverage
7) Netindia123com Coverage
8) Sahara News Coverage
9) TOI Coverage
10) Yahoo News Coverage
11) Webindia123.com Coverage
12) The Indian.com Coverage
13) Newkerala.com Coverage
2) Deccan Herald Coverage
3) DNA Mumbai Coverage
4) Fresh News Coverage
5) Jansamacharnet Coverage
6) Mangaloreancom Coverage
7) Netindia123com Coverage
8) Sahara News Coverage
9) TOI Coverage
10) Yahoo News Coverage
11) Webindia123.com Coverage
12) The Indian.com Coverage
13) Newkerala.com Coverage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)