Farce

I have been reading Radley Balko’s (Cato Institute) paper Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America, and nothing in it should surprise anyone. The US legal system is shot; so are those of many other “democracies”. The system that is meant to protect the people has consistently been used against them – drug raids, encounter killings, blatant violation of laws that protect civil liberties; the list is endless. If there is one thing people need to understand, it is this – governments have no business using the military (or similar outfits) against their own citizens. The military is meant for war; the police for peace; the mentality is different, and military style-policing is a slippery slope that has serious consequences – present and future. As a police chief says (in Balko’s paper) – “If cops have a mind-set that the goal is to take out a citizen, it will happen.” And that is what SWAT is all about; and using SWAT in the “War on Drugs” and “to handle suicides and domestic disputes” (a practice that has been stopped) is insane. Further, police officers who “just like to play war” should stick to video games and paintball tournaments, and stay far away from law enforcement which is serious business – not child’s play.

What we need is someone who will police the police – a citizen’s tribunal with powers to send policemen, judges and politicians including prime ministers, presidents and members of parliament to prison or even sentence them to death. Every person who is part of the legal system and who is involved directly or indirectly in a case of wrongful death or passage of laws curtailing civil liberties should be hauled before such a tribunal – mandatory sentencing, no outs. A body that will sit on top of the judiciary, executive and legislature watching over them – striking down laws and rulings that go against the principles of natural justice. Nothing else will put the fear of God into the crooks that run democracies. But the powers-that-be are hardly going to let that happen; keeping people frightened is what government is all about – you don’t argue with people who literally have the license to kill. Karl Popper says, “You can choose whatever name you like for the two types of government. I personally call the type of government which can be removed without 
violence ‘democracy’, and the other ‘tyranny’.” Modern day nation states with constitutions that don’t protect people from the government, and governments that are more interested in controlling people than protecting them are tyrannies.

In this context, I wonder what will happen if caffeine is included in the “War on Drugs”. Raiding newspaper offices and people’s homes would be more fun than simply going after “criminals”. Getting shot by a SWAT team for having committed the “crime” of drinking coffee – even better!

Busybodies

India has so many anti-liberty laws targeting “victimless crimes” that a “free Indian” is a non-existent entity. And there are people who take perverse pleasure in enforcing such laws. The laws relating to censorship supposedly protect society’s “morality” and Pratibha Nathani used them to good effect in 2006 and had the Bombay High Court basically ban Star Movies and HBO till they got their films certified by the Censor Board. And anti-drugs activists Afzal Khan and Kiran Hundal helped the recent drug bust in Mumbai.

Paternalistic busybodies have this peculiar view of society that since people do not understand what’s good for them, they should be forced into following the “right” path. And stupid laws help their crusade. Every law is prone to misuse, especially those targeting victimless crimes. Its difficult to file a false case of murder and easy to plant drugs on someone. Those who are aware of the incidents surrounding the militancy in Punjab will know that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was misused (every use of NDPS is a misuse) by the Punjab police-

During criminal investigation police frequently resort to torture to extract information from suspects while they are in their custody. Particular pieces of legislation, including the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act (NDPSA) and the Arms Act, are reported to be frequently misused by police to detain suspects for lengthy periods, during which torture frequently takes place. The NDPSA in particular is reported to be called by many human rights activists in Punjab the TADA of peace time. This Act, intended to curb the possession and trade of narcotics, provides for wide powers of arrest of suspects and it is reported to be frequently misused by the police for filing false cases against persons whom they want to get in their custody.
- India: Break the cycle of impunity and torture in Punjab (Amnesty International)

There are just laws and there are unjust laws, and a distinction can be made very easily. Any law that disregards consent and hurts individual rights and freedom of expression is an unjust law – therefore censorship laws, anti-drug laws etc are unjust ones deserving contempt and nothing else. What we need is Members of Parliament who have IQs 125 and above who will spend five years going through every piece of legislation in force in India and making a bonfire of every perverse law. Like the idea of separation of church and state, governments should also follow the ideas of separation of society and state, separation of economy and state, and separation of morality and state. And if we follow Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, we need no state.

Imagine a law (General Dyer-esque) which requires that all Indians crawl on all fours. I have no doubt that if such a day comes there will be a long line of busybodies who will demand the enforcement of this law as well. Reason? Its the law!

A crime is not a crime

when there are no victims – a “victimless crime” is a self-contradictory phrase because without a victim there is no crime.

Whether it is sex, whatever its nature, heterosexual or homosexual, threesomes, foursomes, n-somes, or other kinds of “orgies” or “deviancies”; or dealing with prostitutes; or the consumption of drugs; or smoking; or drinking; or buying and selling pornography; or gambling; or playing the lottery; or buying and selling trans fat loaded fast food; as long as all parties involved are sane and above an objectively defined age of consent, no one – particularly the State – has the right to harass the people involved. Instead of punishing the people indulging in the above mentioned activities, a civilized country will impose the harshest penalty on those who harass these people.

But India is not a civilized country. Its a country where individual rights are trampled upon on a daily basis, where governments, the parliament and the bureaucrats behave as if citizens are their slaves, where groups believe that if they are in a majority or can prove their strength by thrashing others, they can impose their opinions on society, where the highest court of the land throws up its hands and says individuals don’t have the right to their life, where the media has sold its soul to the devil, where people who consume drugs can be thrown in jail for ten years, where suicide attempt survivors can be prosecuted for having survived the attempt…

So its not surprising that the police regularly indulge in busting “rave parties” and shaming kids into covering their faces while leaving the scene of the “crime”; and that the electronic media cannot contain their joy when they run news flashes on screen about spoilt brats (raees zaade) binging on drugs and alcohol.

Pathetic.

Legalization vs. Decriminalization

For the first time ever, Anbumani Ramadoss is talking sense (albeit in a very restricted manner, since his only concern is HIV-AIDS) when he says “Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises men who have sex with men, must go”. But the article is wrong when it says “the Union Health Ministry on Friday favoured legalising homosexuality.”

There is a big difference between legalizing something and decriminalizing it. And the difference lies in the way these words relate to “rights”. Homosexuality, prostitution, discrimination by private parties, hate speech, use and sale of drugs and weapons, practice of a particular religion, non payment of compulsory levies etc are decriminalized. Murder, rape, theft, fraud etc are legalized. The first category of “offenses” don’t violate the rights of others. Those in the second category do. That is the essential difference.

Laws are meant to protect the “rights” of people, not restrict them based on the personal likes and dislikes of a whole bunch of others.