Indian Government Attempts To Censor BBC Gang Rape Documentary; Succeeds Only In Drawing More Attention To It
from the nothing-more-pathetic-than-futile-self-preservation-efforts dept
India's government is attempting to do the impossible and for all the wrong reasons.India has asked YouTube to remove all links to a controversial documentary about the gang rape and murder of a woman in Delhi after banning its broadcast, a government official told Reuters on Thursday...The targeted BBC documentary details the horrific rape carried out by a busful of Indian men.
"We just forwarded the court order and asked them (YouTube) to comply."
In the brutal two-hour assault, the woman was repeatedly violated with a metal rod before being dumped naked along with her companion beside a road near New Delhi's airport. The couple was then ignored by passersby, while police argued over where to take them as they lay bleeding on the street, according to the woman's friend. The victim died of her injuries two weeks later.Supposedly at the center of the Indian government's attempted ban is an "illegal" interview with the bus driver, whose comments placed the blame on the rape victim. The bus driver also claimed he didn't participate in the assault, something disproven later by DNA evidence.
"When being raped, she shouldn't fight back," Mukesh Singh, who pleaded not guilty at the trial, said in one of several chilling comments.The bus driver's lawyer claims Singh shouldn't have been interviewed about an ongoing court case. Maybe so, but Singh was under no obligation to further destroy his own reputation with these comments. The Indian government has justified its ban under the guise of "protecting" women, a job it's apparently terrible at performing.
"She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they'd have dropped her off after 'doing her' and only hit the boy."
The documentary was banned because Mukesh Singh's comments "are highly derogatory and are an affront to the dignity of women," India's Home Minister Rajnath Singh said in parliament on Wednesday.In reality, the government is banning the documentary to insulate itself from further criticism. Various officials have made similarly repulsive comments over the past few years, as reports of gang rapes have hit the internet with alarming frequency.
Haryana's top elected official, Manohar Lal Khattar, said this last year in response to multiple gang rape incidents:
"If a girl is dressed decently, a boy will not look at her in the wrong way," Khattar told reporters, "Freedom has to be limited. These short clothes are Western influences. Our country's tradition asks girls to dress decently."A defense lawyer for one of the accused men blamed not only the woman, but also her companion, who failed to protect her from six rapists.
Manohar Lal Sharma said 23-year-old Jyoti Singh Pandey and her male friend were "wholly responsible" for the horrific torture they suffered in the Dec. 16 attack in New Delhi because they were an unmarried couple on the streets at night, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.So, it's cultural, and those leading the culture -- elected government officials -- don't want to deal with the fallout of their passive and active support of treating women as second-class citizens. That's what has prompted the ban, not the "disrespect" for women voiced by one of the attackers. So far, it has managed to only nail down its own borders, but that means nothing to the world's largest communication platform: the internet.
"Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady," Sharma told the newspaper.
Jyoti's companion, meanwhile, was guilty of failing to protect her, he said.
"The man has broken the faith of the woman," Sharma told the newspaper. "If a man fails to protect the woman, or she has a single doubt about his failure to protect her, the woman will never go with that man."
YouTube has acquiesced to the Indian court order. But that won't keep Indians from seeing the documentary their government is trying to silence. All this ban attempt has accomplished is draw further attention to both the documentary and the government's petty acts of self-preservation.
The government -- unwilling to admit failure -- is exploring its other legal options (protip: there aren't any) in hopes of forcing the rest of the world to play by its stupid, denialist rules.
"We can ban the documentary in India but there is a conspiracy to defame India and the documentary can be telecast outside," India's Parliamentary Affairs Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu said.Nobody's "defaming" India other than the rapists living within its borders. Oh, and the prominent public officials who stand up for them by suggesting those who have been raped/tortured/killed brought it on themselves.
The government was exploring how it could be blocked abroad, he said.
Unfortunately, the BBC -- which produced the documentary -- is now inadvertently assisting the Indian government in its censorious quest. Multiple uploads meant to circumvent YouTube's India-only blockade have been taken down by BBC copyright claims.
While I appreciate the company's desire to route viewers to its monetized upload, there are bigger issues at play here. Unless it's willing to use other platforms to further distribute its powerful documentary (many of which won't generate any income), its removal of other YouTube options only makes it easier to keep India's citizens from seeing something their government has chosen to censor for its own benefit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, documentary, free speech, gang rape, india, rape, streisand effect
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On another important note:
Unfortunately, the BBC -- which produced the documentary -- is now inadvertently assisting the Indian government in its censorious quest. Multiple uploads meant to circumvent YouTube's India-only blockade have been taken down by BBC copyright claims.
Copyright rocks, eh, friendly shills?
While I appreciate the company's desire to route viewers to its monetized upload, there are bigger issues at play here.
No, we don't appreciate. Copyright is a mess and if it wasn't this would be a clear case where the service provided by freely making it available in multiple platforms clearly outmatches the need for some more profit. BBC will only manage to darken its image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since the BBC is funded by the licence fee - which the British public pays. It doesn't need to monetize things that the public has already paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Part of the problem with rape in a lot of 3rd world countries is that the rape victim's own family DOES turn on them for getting raped. In a lot of countries there's what's called 'honor killings', where fathers murder their own daughters for bringing dishonor to their family by getting raped, and for having sex before being married (never mind that the sex was forced on them in the rape). In a number of theocracies rape victims themselves often end up in legal trouble if they live, because of having sex before being married/with someone other then their husband.
A few years ago there was a story that made international headlines when a father decided to go against local tradition and NOT kill his own daughter for getting raped. Under the law of that country, that met the 3 or 4 men who had raped her could be prosecuted for rape because the victim was still alive and able to testify against them.
The rapist's families brought international attention to the incident by trying to publicly shame the rape victim's father into murdering his own daughter in a honor killing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They spend so much time blaming the women, and basically admit men can not and should not be trusted to walk the streets as they can not be expected to control themselves. How can they be fit to hold public offices if their will is so easily destroyed by a short skirt. They should resign their offices and let women run everything as they are supposed to be the responsible ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking savages that should be shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh no. Much, much too merciful. They should be publicly raped to death with broomsticks covered in broken glass and razor blades. The executions should be broadcast in hi-def and surround sound and every man in India should be required to watch them.
Brutal? Yeah. It is. But as the son of a woman who was raped, I don't care to hear any complaints about brutality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That may be the way they did it in the old testament - cf the story of Susanna, but it is not appropriate now.
A basic principle of modern justice is that victims don't get too closely involved in the process. Otherwise the result is never ending blood feuds. If the victims relatives are involved and a miscarriage of justice occurs then the relatives of the falsely accused will take it out on the original victim's family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I would carry out that sentence without the slightest hesitation or merest pang of conscience. They deserve to die, screaming in agony. And every potential rapist watching needs to clearly understand that if they rape...they're next. If they won't stop because it's wrong, because it's evil, because it's horrible, because it's illegal, etc., then maybe they'll stop because they're afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really, like that other guy said, shooting them is enough. Point-blank shotgun blast to the head; effective and efficient. (I have no idea why modern executioners bother with all those weird chemicals and such. Seems like a waste of time and money to me.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because we have this idea that the execution should be humane for the executioner as well as the executed - to the extent that's even possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they can't. How do you give justice to a woman who lives in fear for a lifetime? Who wakes up in the night sweating and remembering? Who suffers the shame of the patriarchy, which of course blames her? Who has to endure (in the case of mine) the estrangement of her family because she's pregnant, and of course they blame her for not fighting back enough?
There is no possible "justice" for all of that, and for all the rest.
And even if you don't agree with that -- and I don't expect that you do -- then you should observe that all the "justice" meted out to date hasn't stopped rape. It's still epidemic. So "justice", whatever its merits, isn't working, it's just that people like to pretend that it is because it's convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can sit there and torture these men for years - keep them in constant pain and begging for mercy - but that won't change anything for that poor woman. If anything, quick and swift justice is the easiest way to bring closure and start the healing process. Eye for an eye in the justice system is a joke. Unless the woman is going to rape these men in return - any third party coming in to execute eye for an eye punishment isn't executing justice, but simply an innocent person engaging in even more violence.
Increasing punishments for crimes doesn't necessarily decrease the crime. This is obviously a culture where rape is tolerated and people feel they can get away with it. You have to change that culture to have any effect - not simply increase punishments to inhuman levels. If people feel like they won't get away with it, even if the punishment is light, it will greatly reduce the crime. That means rapes get reported and rapists get arrested. That simple thing is obviously not happening.
And there will always be crime. There is no utopian scenario where crime doesn't happen. But if you go around torturing people that you feel deserve severe punishment, at what point to you become someone that deserves the same punishment? How long before you become Vasily Blokhin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nail their balls to a wall, literally, and tell the victims' families that they can do whatever they want to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, amputate their hands after castrating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, whilst I mostly agree with that, I think one has to be a little careful here. Leaving my house unlocked does not mean that I am in some way morally responsible for the ensuing burglary - but it may mean that I have been unwise not to lock it.
Having said that I would add that it shouldn't (in a civilised society) be even unwise simply to get on a bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not leaving the door unlocked was wise, you are in no way at fault for being burglarized. Only the burglar is to blame for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Take responsibility
Denying the reality of Richard's situtaion - that he knew he had a good chance to be burglarized with an unlocked door (same as in my neighborhood) - is the same as saying "scantily clad women have in India have no "at fault" when they get raped.
There is a time for wishful thinking and there is a time for reality.
"fault" is not a value judgement - it is a reality judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read my comment carefully. I already said that you are not morally at fauit. However that does not mean that your behaviour was sensible.
The underlying point is that blurring the distinction between moral and practical responsiblity is exactly what those who "blame the victim" are doing. When opposing their argument it is vitally important not to fall into the same error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rape, however, has an additional history that cannot be ignored. For most of US history, and apparently in large parts of the rest of the world, the only person who was ever deemed to be at fault for rape was the victim. Since that cruel and evil attitude still exists, nuance is a very tricky thing. I've heard far too many people say that rape victims deserved to be raped because they dressed or acted in a provocative fashion -- which really couldn't be further from the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that makes it even more important to get it right. Get it wrong and you give your opponent a foothold in the argument.
If my action is to rape, burglarize, or commit any other offense against someone, then I am the only one who is responsible for that.
Morally yes - but there is more to it than that. In this particular case there are others to blame. It is the responsibility of the Indian government and of the local transport authority to ensure that it is safe for a woman to ride on a bus without this kind of thing happening.
It is everyone's responsibility to do the things that lie in their power to prevent these kind of events. Only blaming the immediate perpetrator is a recipe for perpetuating the problem.
Dostoevsky had it right when he said "We are all responsible for everyone else—but I am more responsible than all the others."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was because - in those societies - women were considered the property of fathers or husbands and hence the crime was a crime against them!
There is a case for discarding the term "rape" in order to free ourselves from this history. The only problem would be to find an alternative that conveys the same degree of seriousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about 'sexual contact without consent' for the cases without violence, and straight up 'sexual assault' for those cases where violence was used. Also, the terms I used would be the legal definitions so a woman can finally be charged if she sits on a drunk guy's dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you leave your home or your car unlocked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I didn't lock my door and someone steals my stuff, it's still a burglary and will be punished as such, and I won't suffer any legal or social penalty for leaving my door unlocked. I find it utterly bizarre that this sort of consideration doesn't apply to violent acts such as rape.
The point that I'm failing to get across well is really simple: when people talk about whatever behavior a rape victim engaged in that they perceive made them a more tempting target for a rapist, they almost always mean that the victim shoulders some of the blame. This is not academic because it is the main reason why most rapes go unpunished in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point of my question (which admittedly didn't work out quite like I expected) was to illustrate that while nobody has the right to commit crimes, most people take certain precautions to prevent being victims.
There are a lot of things people have a right to do, that they don't do because it would be stupid to take the chance.
Going through life expecting that laws and other people's morals will keep you safe is a dangerous way to live. It's not right, but it is reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is, the thing this woman did is to ride a bus with a man she wasn't married to. She wasn't trying to rely on others' morals, only that the people on the bus wouldn't visit an almost unspeakable evil on her for no good reason. That needs to not be a dangerous thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Hero They Deserve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And don't forget the people who would ban the documentary! Those people are also tarnishing India's reputation. And the guy's lawyer, who blamed the 2 people on the bus who we know *didn't* participate in the rape and murder. (Yeah, blame the guy for not protecting her, while your client blames the victim for not sitting there and taking it. That's not contradictory at all.)
They are the comments of a rapist. The average person would probably not ascribe them to India as a whole.
At least, they wouldn't have, until the government decided it had to step in. Then it makes you wonder.
Unless the BBC was posing as police or attorneys, the guy OBVIOUSLY knew he was under no obligation to talk to them. It's a good idea for him to shut up, but that's his own fault if he talks. (And anyway, what's the lawyer mad about? The lawyer was victim-blaming too!)
Well, at least they recognize this. But why do they feel the need to block it in other countries, then? When they've got stuff like this going on in their own country, they might want to be very careful about setting precedents about sovereignty and "protecting the dignity of women".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are just following the US lead in this, which is to find a reason why their laws apply to people living in a foreign country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are all Indian Lawyers Rapists?
They are the comments of a rapist."
You appear to be calling this lawyer "a rapist". Is that true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are all Indian Lawyers Rapists?
No, and sorry if that wasn't clear. I am calling his client a rapist. The bus driver's comments are the ones that were in the "illegal" interview, not the comments by his lawyer.
The lawyer I will call a rape apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Justice' in India
Get raped? You dressed wrong or in some other way forced your attackers to rape you. You're guilty, they're not.
Get robbed? You flaunted your wealth or in some other way forced your robbers to steal from you. You're guilty, they're not.
Get murdered? Well clearly you chose to anger your murderer or in some way forced them to kill you. You're guilty(and dead), and they're neither.
Apparently things like 'personal responsibility' and 'self-control' just flat out don't exist in India. If you do something horrific, it's because someone else forced you to do it, and you're completely blameless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Justice' in India
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Justice' in India
You had better believe it. Count Pakistan as far worse, and Bangladesh too. Women in those countries "provoke" the out-of-control male populus by simply existing. The same happens in every country, the difference is that government officials and lawyers do not try to justify outright barbarism in any civilised nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunate unintended consequences of the ban
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/German-prof-rejects-Indian-student-for-rape-probl em/articleshow/46509508.cms
This would not have happened if the Indian Govt had endorsed the documentary, admitted that India has a rape problem and came up with an action plan on how it is going to fix this. Sure, there still would have been controversy but at least they would not have come across as a bunch of misogynistic douche bags (even though many of them are).
I watched the documentary and I agree that many Indian men have the same mindset as the lawyers or rapist. But there are as many Indian men who are open minded and forward thinking, like the victim's father. So this generalization of Indian men is unfair and unfortunate. And again, I think the govt is mostly responsible for this. They have brought this on themselves by banning the Indian media from talking about this while worldwide people assume the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.firstpost.com/living/ndtv-protests-ban-indias-daughter-earns-praise-going-blank -hour-2142425.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF no one has seen it.. the video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The teachings of religion - any religion - is anti-education
Shit. Dogs are treated better than that.
And dogs are not citizens at all.
Remove religion from society and you will have gone far towards actual human progress and evolution for the first time in centuries.
Retain it and continue to act like 9th century barbarians, until we finally rid the world of our miserable selves.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The teachings of religion - any religion - is anti-education
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The teachings of religion - any religion - is anti-education
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The teachings of religion - any religion - is anti-education
Fortunately, it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The teachings of religion - any religion - is anti-education
Is that the old socialist - concerned with the welfare of the citizens, or the new "socialist", based on the facade label selected by the Nazis before WW2, as in National Socialist, which apparently means something between communist and baby-eater?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rape culture
how can you leave them alive..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fgbhh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vxvnvgm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]