Celebrating Salman Khan’s arrest, belated

Celebrating Salman Khan’s arrest, belated…

[Source: Indiblog India] quoted: The court tried his first case where Salman Khan shot deer, convicted him and awarded him a year in jail. But they didn’t enforce it and waited for his second case on a similar count where he was again convicted a…

hey you
wassup?

i was also heartened to hear about mr khans arrest…dont get me wrong, i dont hate him…jeez…i dont KNOw him but he is such a tosser…a man with such influence (being a worldwide bollywood star) should use his powers to inspire and educate the millions of young indians who idolise such a dick!!!

having said that as a by point…india does need to get tough drink driving..i live in the UK and its so stringent over here…more than 1 beer or 1/2 a glass of wine or 1 shot and you drive, youre out…fines…bans…penalties…the same should be in india…i know its so much harder to implement with corruption and taboo but drink driving has to be made “un-cool” and the only way to do this is bollywood stars and other national idols taking up this stance..im sure alot of Mr khans stunts are alcohol related…no one could be such a dick sober…or could they????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ciao bella

Hi Sooraj,

I do not agree on this case particularly as this has been caught in politics to apease Bishnoi Samaj who has Black buck as their religious idol or something like this. My few question no body would be able to answer :

1) What about poachers who killed all the tigers in Sariska Tiger reserve in Rajasthan? And the state government kept silence untill it was exposed by media but nothing happened even after the exposure. Who would ensure the value for money the visitors visited the reserve in a hope to see a tiger for so many years. Was it not cheating by the state government.
2) What about the forest administrators who allowed it to happen?
3) What about all those who has been seeing Sariska Tigen Reserve to be ruined?
4) What about those who still are killing these precious endangered animals elsewhere too like in Jim Corbett Park, Gir Lions reserve where 12 Lions died in quick succession?

I would like all of the courts to bring in to the jail all those resposnisble for such a massive killing of these poor and helpless animals. Ms.Meneka Gandhi cries foul over Amit Khan riding on horse in Rang De Basanti but she never raised such points and ensure great care by all state government towards these animals.

I am not supporter of Salman khan but my question is why he only, why not others so many who does more harm to these animals then Salman Khan. Was it just because of his celebrity status and everybody wanted to encash popularity out of hype over this.

I would defintely like to seek answer to my points as to what we are doing about all this. Execution of Salman khan is fine but the law must be applicable to all equally whether to the poachers or thoese who are responsible to protect the animals.

Sudhir

Hi Sooraj,

I will appreciate more if all responsible leaders OR Officers, who are the Ministers holding ministry or officeers holding such offices,for welfare of wilde life or forest etc. are made accountable for such massive poaching and are arrested and prosecuted for their gross negligence and irresponsible gesture towards animals.

hi nids i dont know u yeh but what is yor probe u dont like him fair enough but why say those horrible stuff about salman u might be a boy thats why u dont care but i care i luv him to bits i will do anything for salman khan xxx

salman khan be gunah hai ye sab ash kar wa rahi hai but i hope salman khan jaldi bahar aye ga i love u salman i pray 4 u

I believe the case wasn’t justified. I agree with Sudhir and it was executed on Salman as probably some politics was involved.

jonny

jonny

hottest tranny sex

naked news zpasswords

male slave farm piercing

how to make love and sex with 69

[url=http://hometown.aol.com/woman65102013/cheerleader-high-school-sex.htm]cheerleader high school sex[/url]

HOORAY FOR YET ANOTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONVICTION:

For crying out loud! Five years confinement for poaching sounds excessive even to the ultra conservatives among us. Seems like the judges are on a roll. Here again we see our independent, impartial judiciary flexing its muscle and ramming it deep into errant transgressors; more especially our involuntary “role models”, The Celebrities!

Extreme punitive decrees have historically never been a practical, working inducement to force compliance with intrinsically prejudicial legislation which shields and absolves governmental misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance and shifts the blame exclusively on individual violators. The Constitution is very clear in ascribing and defining rights and responsibilities incumbent upon individual citizens versus obligations placed upon individual States. Yet, historically, our courts demonstrate the tendency to limit the scope of their deliberations exclusively on the errant individual, whether or not the error relates to or is a direct consequence of the government’s dereliction of its statutory duties. Dispositions from such lopsided reasoning, where ascription of blame is predetermined to be a faltering act of the individual and overlooking the government’s vicarious or direct criminal involvement, is morally and ethically wrong. In fact, it is unconstitutional. It violates the “equal protection under the law” clause, is inconsistent with expectations of equity and fairness, and serves no public interest but to demoralize, and weaken faith in our criminal justice system.

Prohibition, Street-side gambling, flesh trade, Protection rackets, etc., thrived better during politically restrictive climates. If stiffer punishment were a generally acceptable panacea for such crimes, they never worked in the past because of our tendency to overlook the root cause. In Salman’s and of other similar cases, it typifies our government’s myopic response to addressing the core issue, i.e., that of gross mismanagement of our wildlife and habitat that falls within the exclusive purview of our government, and in which Salman’s role is miniscule.

Consider this scenario:

When traffic is “bumper-to-bumper”, constricted, backed up for miles during rush-hour, it’s a common sight to see drivers risk fines and throw driving laws (and good manners) to the curbside, maneuvering aggressively toward their destination even though this involves making dangerous, illegal U-turns/detours that would further inconvenience (and/or infuriate) other, more disciplined and patient drivers. Granted, here, the inconsiderate drivers may be “criminally” culpable, but the stage was set by a sub-standard, inadequate traffic control environment, the sole responsibility of the government. Such drivers were merely accessing an alternate, less congestive route in the public domain, which they have every right to limited easement.

[Of course I am oversimplifying things as there are compelling arguments in aggravation as well as in mitigation, but the bottom line is (traffic) laws were deliberately broken to affect a favorable change in the “violator’s” traffic scenario, viz: from the uncontrolled, restricting traffic jam into a more “free-flowing” traffic diversion (without adversely detracting from the Rights of others). Out of the 4,000 or so road accidents that occur each day, such maneuvers normally wouldn’t even bring about a slap on the wrist, if that! But not so if you were a Bollywood icon! In the true spirit of celebrity bashing, a rash driving accusation would quickly mushroom into IPC 304 (A), the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and it has in Salman’s case!].

Article 51-A (g) of our Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect & improve wildlife in the country. In fact, the Constitution’s 42nd Amendment Act 1976, directs individual States to “endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country …”. Much legislation has been directed toward wildlife “conservation”, which, in effect, is really geared toward wildlife PRESERVATION: an impossible dream and yet another short-term Band-Aid for a long-term ailment.

Safeguarding the habitat is integral to the conservation of any species. It has been estimated that Indian forests supply timber, firewood, bamboo, medicinal plants, and other produce to the tune of 400 billion rupees a year. Absent even a bare minimal, notional re-forestation, this vast National treasure we’ve been entrusted with remains sapped, eroded, degraded and barren for our future generations to salvage! So, is there any truth in the claim that the States have been diligent in complying with Constitutional mandates directed exclusively toward the government? Or have they historically been remiss, and should also be held to answer?

Article 51-A (f) of our Constitution is equally commanding as Article 51-A (g), discussed above, and directly relates to it. Yet, we and our chosen representatives, turned away from our fundamental duty “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture”. Lest we forget, Hunting is not a remnant of the erstwhile British India but an integral part of our indigenous culture going back earlier than the 9th Century Dharmasastra commentaries, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and other ancient records that contain accounts of sport hunting, and butchering animals, including the sacred cow, for consumption, sacrifice and sport. Modern principles and practices of conservation also include scientific game management which includes lawful, licensed, controlled hunting. Licensed hunters elsewhere have proven themselves to be effective partners in conservation programs and venerable deterrents against poachers.

The solution to any civil problem has never been more laws and stiffer punishment. An “independent” judiciary should be capable of some independent, objective, rational thinking: You don’t treat a headache by severing the head. There exists no law that provides an automatic protective umbrella of “qualified immunity” to Indian government servants remiss in their duties. Yet our judiciary has historically been unfairly selective when deliberating on laws inconsistent with or in derogation of constitutional mandates placed upon individuals vs. obligation on States, and in ascribing culpability for its breaches solely upon the individual.

Salman Khan was convicted by circumstantial evidence, which, in a 76-page judgment, Judge R. V. Singhvi said, “no court could ignore … Circumstantial evidence is important in this case (Why? Because Salman is a celebrity? There was vested political pressure?) as it constitutes a chain that ‘loudly says a crime was committed’.” But, in all fairness, let us examine REAL, VISIBLE, TANGEABLE EVIDENCE all around us that “loudly says a crime was committed”, and is continuing to be committed, by those whose hands have been statutorily empowered to manage habitat, eco-systems, upon which we as well as our wildlife depend for survival.

Despite the existence of numerous legislation and amendments thereto, including The Environment Protection Act of 1986, Indian Forest Act of 1927, the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1981, the Arms Act of 1959, and the progressively more punitive sanctions of the Wild Life Act, several reliable studies have shown that wildlife has dwindled, not so much because of illegal hunting and trade of wildlife products, but because of shifting cultivation, encroachment, mining, forest fire, scarcity of water during dry season, increase in human population, man-wildlife conflict, mortality due to diseases, electrocution, poisoning, commercial trawling, roads and railways, legal and administrative inadequacies, accedence to needs of people dependent upon forests, and chronic mismanagement of ecological habitat. In Salman Khan’s case, the government is equally culpable, if fact more so, as prime contributors to the rapid extinction of our wildlife.

Judges have the power to punish. But they also are empowered to exercise compassion, clemency, and tremendous discretion in influencing the disposition of cases. They have the wisdom to distinguish between the “Letter of the Law” and the “Spirit of the Law” and make decisions that are worthy of the Bench. Otherwise who needs judges? We could equip courts with pre-programmed “impartial” robots as the punishing arm of our government. If this were to be so, who would hold our government to answer?