Prasad J wrote:
You cannot compare Gandhiji's Civil Disobedience Movement (a part of
which was producing salt illegally) with the present scenarion,
because the Chinese do not plan (since that would be stupidity) to
openly admit to their Government that they are breaking this law.
Under the Civil Disobedience Movement, Gandhiji and his followers
openly broke the law, after announcing to the British that they would
be doing so . It was not done in a secretive way, which is the manner
in which the Chinese would evade the firewall.
But then the Chinese goverment also acts secretly, and looking for
explanations and understanding is akin to approaching Kafka's castle.
Has there been a clear decree that downloading Wikipedia in China is
illegal? Perhaps our Chinese colleagues would admit that their actions
were a breach of the law if the law were clearly stated. Which side is
acting more sercretively?
Again, if two
homosexuals in India defied the Indian Penal Code, they would not be
treated as if they were fighting for a just cause (or following
Gandhian principles)-infact they would be jailed. This is because
Indian society is still against the concept of gays.So does that mean
that the U.N can intervene? No. Because mass public opinion is against
homosexuals-although this opinion may not be all that justified. So
again, you cannot compare this issue with the one in China (where, I'm
assuming most oppose the firewall)since the majority of Indians do
support this law-even though the gays may term it a violation of their
Rights of homosexuals in India would not have crossed my imagination if
you had not raised the issue. Our own former prime minister once said
that "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The
activities of two adult consenting individuals is a private act; if they
choose to make a public display of their homosexuality that may be
another matter. Following the Gandhian principle of announcing that
they are breaking the law would have the paradoxical effect of turning a
private act into a public matter. Justifying the restriction of gay
rights on the basis of majority opinion is an imposition of the Tyranny
of the Majority.
It's conceivable that the UN could make pronouncements on this, but it
would not be likely to consider the issue important enough for
intervention even in a country much smaller than India. I rather
suspect that the vast majority of Chinese citizens are unaware of what