The Supreme Court of India is hearing arguments from child protection organizations after the Madras High Court ruled that downloading and watching child pornography is not a criminal offense. In January, the High Court dismissed charges against 28-year-old S. Harish, who was caught in possession of two pieces of child sexual abuse material on his
The person was not convicted because the laws on child protection and internet crime that exist do not cover posessing CP while not producing it. If a law has holes, it can be ammended, it doesnt mean the hole was intentionally written to enable this crime.
Deciding to call an entire country a backwater because of the mistake some lawmakers made is just silly. Also the Supreme court thats handling the appeal in said backwater:
Funny how you just ignored OPs mention of rape that also played into them calling it a backwater country.
I’d be surprised if conservative India with its many poor regions didn’t have a bad rate of rape, but why think India is particularly bad, enough to call it a backwater? Need some sources on that.
And that user using absolute numbers instead of the rate of rape really gives away them being clueless about this.
Rate of rape is very hard to accurately measure in countries that have issues with reporting numbers. If your country still has several ‘acid burns for declined marriage’ stories per year, I’m not inclined to believe the numbers you’ve reported.
The holes have been apparent for ages and they are being kept open. If they fixed their laws, great, but it is a country full of sexual violence because those laws are kept broken. I will absolutely judge India on its sexual violence problem that has existed in the global spotlight for decades without improvement. It would be silly not to.
The country that passed a new law on child protection to cover holes like the penal code not covering male child sexual abuse, is trying to keep the holes open?
The same one that overturned a case where a hole in the child protection law allowed abusing minors so long as there was no skin-to-skin contact. And instead now the law is interpreted to cover that case? Source
Cherry picking the one example in a sea of extreme sexual violence isn’t helping. India has a rape problem and it’s laws are to blame, new ones and old ones alike.
That wasn’t cherry-picking, it was to show how there have been holes in the child protection law and they have been fixed. There isn’t some evil attempt at keeping these issues open.
Also if law is all there is to preventing rape, why does India have a lower recorded rate of rape than many developed european countries and the united states? Because there is a lot more to it, like social factors. E.g would you report a rape if it would bring shame and no longer being a virgin would make it difficult to get married?
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics under “by country” then sort by decreasing order the tab for “Rate per 100,000 population”.
I agree social issues are a primary factor and I’m famiar with its rape statistics compared to other nations, I am just not someone who can comment on the social issues as I am not a member of any of Indian cultures I don’t feel qualified to comment on them. But my thoughts on the legal side of the issue aren’t unfounded. The Last few years has seen some improvement in rape legislation, but it is not like they are fixing everything and all is well on the legal side. India just had an opportunity to define marital rape as rape but didn’t. This is the most common form of rape. There absolutely are attempts to keep some laws open and in this case, maybe the most potentially impactful, those regressive voices won. That stastic is low because of the narrow definition of rape, not just social attitudes preventing reporting. Enforcement and judicial systems are both negligent in solving the rape problem too.
So things are getting better, but they still have a long way to go before it I’ll be convinced the legal system is up to the task of easing the rape problem in good faith.
You replied to my comment on this case of CP so I thought you were referring to the child protection law. I made a snarky reply because it looked like you were obviously wrong, sorry about that.