INTERNATIONAL MENS RIGHTS ACTIVIST India's Sec.498A Divorce Law as Criminal Law + Divorce Articles

Food Court Proposal Gone Bad

2013-09-02T05:25:00.003+05:30

This is not fake this women wakes away and humiliates her man. Why do Men always fall prey to such women and take such behavior? Women say they believe in equality, so when will they get on one knee and propose to their Man?

Marriage Proposal Ends Terribly!

2013-09-02T05:11:00.003+05:30

Whether this is real or fake this is not the way a women should treat a man, this is abusive behavior. That is an assault and battery.
This just shows how Violence against Men is on the rise and women and society in general think this its just a Joke.

My wife wants to destroy me, says Om Puri

2013-08-31T06:49:00.003+05:30

Om Puri, who has been accused of physical abuse by wife Nandita Puri, says he is the victim
Wednesday, Aug 28, 2013

Actor OM Puri’s wife Nandita Puri has filed a complaint alleging domestic violence against her husband.

She has also alleged that Om is “absconding”. However on Monday night he was as accessible and

forthright as ever.

Sounding deeply wounded but unvanquished by the serious allegation he said, “I’ve been shooting

the entire day. If Nandita says I am absconding then I am afraid she is speaking of a situation I am

not aware of. I have nothing to hide. I don’t need to run away.”

Shocked and embarrassed by the latest in the series of allegations levelled at him by his wife, Om says,

“I don’t even know what domestic violence means. Because I’ve never indulged in it. If anyone, I am

the victim here, not she.

Only I know how I’ve suffered all these years just to safeguard and protect my son Ishaan from the

consequences of my broken marriage.”

But enough, says Om, now. “I’ve taken enough. I can’t any more. My wife wants to destroy me.

I can’t let her. I’ve responsibilities towards myself, my son and others who are dependent on me.

She thinks she can accuse me of anything and gain sympathy because the laws in this country

are heavily weighed in favour of women, and rightly so considering the rise in incidents of violence

against women in our society.

But the same laws are also misused by privileged vengeful wives who want to destroy their husband’s

career and life.”

Om says he won’t allow Nandita to mess with his reputation anymore. “She accuses me of violence.

I don’t even stay in our flat together anymore. I’ve been living in a humble flat while she lives like a queen

in the terrace flat, the first home that I bought with my hard-earned money.”

Here, Om’s voice gives way and he breaks down. “I’ve toiled incessantly for 40 years, given my wife and

son the best life possible. And this is what I get in return?”

He concludes, “I’ve taken all the pain and humiliation for our son’s sake. But now I’ve reached

breaking point. I am shortly calling a press conference to clear my name. I am supposed to travel to

Europe in a few days to shoot for my next international project. If this ugly allegation prevents me from

travelling for my work then I promise you, there will be hell to pay.”

Marriage law: The 'Inter Continental Ballistic Missile' of a Bill

2013-08-29T07:27:00.001+05:30

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, approved by the Rajya Sabha on Monday, has long been pegged the 'Intercontinental Continental Ballistic Missile' (ICBM) Bill by protesting men's groups, for its inclusion of the 'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IBM)' clause as a valid condition for divorce.

Virag Dhulia, a men's rights activist and head of gender studies at the Bangalore-based Confidare Research says, "The Rajya Sabha has betrayed us. We now hope the Lok Sabha MPs will not let us down." Men's groups like Dhulia's partnered with Men's Rights Association, Pune and have been protesting the Bill for months now. In December 2012 they led a rally to Jantar Mantar and courted detention on May 1, 2013 en route the Prime Minister's residence. Their objections to the Bill are that it will blindly give away property in the name of marriage, that men will stop marrying to prevent this, thus destabilizing the institution of marriage.

"Whichever country has these clauses also has supportive laws like a legalization of pre-nuptial agreements, which India doesn't have. India is cherry picking laws that suit them, which can prove disastrous. In 2011, China rolled back a law like this because men had stopped marrying and stopped buying property" Dhulia warns.

But the Bill is in fact far reaching and thought out over a period of decades. The first proposals for amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act came from the Law Commission in 1978. Two more Law Commission reports, several Supreme Court Judgements and after much debate among invested parties led by women's groups like Majlis, the Bill has been tabled.

Chakshu Roy, head of technology initiatives at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi says, "The Law Commission and the Supreme Court have on a number of occasions recommended the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The Law Commission suggested that before a divorce is granted on this ground, the court should ensure adequate financial arrangements have been made for the parties and children. The Bill incorporates these suggestions and introduces this ground for divorce and makes financial provision for the wife and children."

What the Bill essentially says is that there are certain conditions based on which either the husband or wife can apply for divorce. These are cruelty, medical reasons such as communicable diseases, mental illnesses, desertion. The Bill essentially sought to correct the lacuna that arose from the need to dissolve the marriage in the eventuality that none of these stand i.e. the dissolution of marriage due to an organic breakdown.

The Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause allows a woman or a man to exit on the premise that she is unfulfilled or unhappy in a marriage after a three year period of separation. The wife also bears the right to block a divorce thrust upon her if she can prove she will be in grave financial hardship. The Bill will also allow the court to consider a waiver of the 6-18 month lock-in period for couples who file by mutual consent.

A huge triumph, points out activist and head of women's group Majlis, Flavia Agnes, is the Bill's determination of the compensation due to the wife. In doing so, the Bill now allows the court to take into account inherited and inheritable properties. This becomes a crucial factor in cases where husbands are able to sell off properties in their name and prove they have no assets, leaving the wife without compensation.

Men's groups protest this clause saying it allows women to divorce a man after five days and "clean him out". Agnes dismisses concerns stating that women have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long.

A lot of the debate has been ill-informed. Advocates state that the court will consider many factors while making such a decision. As any nuclear armed country knows, setting off a missile isn't so simple, there are many check points.

Bombay High Court asks sessions court to decide on bail plea of former Miss World Yukta Mookhey's hubby!

2013-08-29T07:23:00.000+05:30

What will the average women learn from this? Former Miss World puts false 498a on her husband, this women is worst then a beast. What should society do with such women?

Observing that harassment and cruelty cannot be a one off incident and has to be a continuous offence, Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the sessions court to take appropriate decision on anticipatory bail plea filed by Prince Tuli, estranged husband of former Miss World Yukta Mookhey .

Yukta had on July 3 filed a case against her husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in-law under sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust). She had also levelled allegations under section 377 (unnatural sex) against Prince.

Prince and his family had then approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail. The sessions court had granted them interim protection from arrest and posted the matter for hearing on August 30.

Aggrieved by this, Yukta approached the High Court. "The sessions court while granting him interim relief observed that the probe is at a preliminary stage and hence it would not go into the merits of the case but in its order the court said that after perusing the complaint it feels harassment case is not made out," Yukta's advocate Pradeep Havnur said.

Justice S S Jadhav today directed the sessions court to finally hear and decide the anticipatory bail plea on August 30. "It appears that the sessions court judge has not taken into consideration that 498 (a) (harassment) is a continuous offence," the court said disposing of the petition.

The court also took note of the fact that before filing an FIR under section 498(A), Mookhey had filed 15 NC (non cognisable) offence with the suburban Amboli police.

"When no investigation was done on her NCs she was constrained to file an FIR," Justice Jadhav said.

The court also queries as to why Havnur did not point this out to the sessions court. "You could have pointed out that this is not the first time and she has been suffering like this since long. It is a continuous offence," the court said.

Havnur said Yukta had been threatened both prior and after lodging of FIR.

In 2008, Yukta married Prince, whose family has a transport and hospitality business in Nagpur. She has been staying with her parents and three-year-old son since a year.

What A Wonderful World!: Get Raped In Dubai And You'll Serve 16 Months In Prison

2013-07-22T04:30:00.002+05:30

July 21, 2013

A court in Dubai has sentenced a young Norwegian woman, Marte Deborah Dalelv, to 16 months in jail after she brought charges of rape against a colleague. Dismissing her allegations, the court saw fit instead to find her guilty of drinking alcohol and wanting the sex that she alleged was forced upon her. Meanwhile she was fired by her Qatar-born employer, the interior designer Wissam al Mana, who is otherwise known as Janet Jackson’s latest husband. (See postscript below for a statement from al Mana’s company.)

The circumstances are complicated but, after listening to an interview Dalelv has given to Ritula Shah of the Media Service, I haven’t the slightest doubt she is the victim of a grotesque miscarriage of justice: not only is she telling the truth but the Dubai court knows it. As for her colleague, he is probably a local man though he seems not to have been named in English-language accounts. You can listen to the podcast here (the interview is about 9 minutes into the program). Here and here are some other useful links. Why would the victim of a terrible crime receive a jail sentence? Asia is not America, and for me, as someone who has spent 27 years watching the world from a vantage point in East Asia, the episode illustrates in microcosm an obvious and profoundly troubling fact: globalism is a one-word oxymoron. It has never made sense and probably never will. Cultures are different and, in their attitude to truth and human rights, the many brands of Asian culture are particularly remote from Western expectations.

Certainly, all American wishful thinking to the contrary, the world is NOT converging to American values. Yes, of course, more and more consumers around the world are drinking Coca-Cola and eating Big Macs. But this is a superficial observation that says nothing about any values worth the name.

Of course, Dubai, which is the most populous constituent of the United Arab Emirates, seems on a superficial view to be highly Westernized. A more accurate description is that Dubai is highlyeconomically advanced. It is home, for instance, to major regional operations of such U.S. corporations as Hewlett-Packard, EMC Corporation, Oracle Corporation, Microsoft, and IBM. It also boasts the world’s tallest building, the 163-floor Burj Khalifa. Meanwhile the Emirates airline, which is based in Dubai, counts, on some measures, not only as the world’s largest international carrier but the world’s best (it was so designated a few months ago by the British consultancy, Skytrax).

But Dubai’s official religion is Islam — and not a particularly liberal brand. This means that Westerners are tolerated only under sufferance. Western women in particular are not always welcome. This despite the fact that Dubai features one of the most disturbingly imbalanced male-female ratios in world history: in the overall population, males outnumber females more than three to one. The ratio for adults is probably even more imbalanced. The only foreign women who seem to be welcome are prostitutes, particularly Russian and Indian ones. Other foreign women enter Dubai at their own risk and woe betide them if they rock the boat. The status of ordinary decent local women in Dubai is powerfully symbolized by the fact that wives can be beaten with impunity so long as no marks are left.

Justice in an American sense does not exist. For me the characteristically Asian aspect of Marte Deborah Dalelv’s fate is that she has been indicted on a “crime” – drinking alcohol – that is widely tolerated among other foreign residents of Dubai. Basically she is a victim of a principle I call “selective enforcement.” It is a principle that is observable in many parts of Asia (see my books on Japan and China for a fuller account). The idea is that though a lot of things are nominally illegal, they are widely tolerated – provided only you don’t rock the boat on issues that matter more to the authorities. The tax system in many East Asian nations provides an example. Although taxes are ostensibly high, the authorities turn a blind eye to some types of evasion – provided only taxpayers show “discretion” on what really matters. One example that can be succinctly described is the South Korean government’s policy (one learned from Japan in a previous era) on foreign cars. There are no import barriers – absolutely none, except that the tax authorities make a policy of auditing anyone who buys a foreign car. In a nation where much of the tax code is considerable “optional,” this elegantly end-runs American pressure to open the market.

The larger point here is that Eastern and Western cultures are mutually incompatible. Rudyard Kipling made the point more than a century ago: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”

My bet is that, on appeal, Marte Deborah Dalelv will be shown some leniency. But for globalism, the Asians will never cut much slack. This applies in spades to the naïve American view that globalization and Americanization are somehow the same thing (thank you George H. W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and, of course, Thomas L. Friedman). Asians are incandescent with rage at such casual cultural imperialsm but, being Asians, rarely give any explicit indication of their anger. They expect people to read between the lines.

Postscript

I have now received an official statement from Al Mana’s company. See below.

(July 20, 2013) – “We are sympathetic to Marte Dalelv during this very difficult situation. Al Mana Interiors has repeatedly offered Marte support and company representatives were by her side throughout the initial investigation and police interviews, and spent days at both the police station and the prosecutor’s office to help win her release.

“Company representatives have been supportive and in communication with Marte throughout her ordeal. Only when Ms. Dalelv declined to have positive and constructive discussions about her employment status, and ceased communication with her employer, was the company forced to end our relationship with her. The decision had nothing to do with the rape allegation, and unfortunately neither Ms. Dalelv nor her attorneys have chosen to contact the company to discuss her employment status.

“We continue to be open to helping Ms. Dalelv and extending her resources during the Dubai legal process. We are hopeful that we can resume a positive discussion about the assistance she needs during this difficult time.”

Prince and his entire family have a psychological problem: Yukta Mookhey

2013-07-09T22:24:00.002+05:30

Jul 9, 2013
Yukta Mookhey got married to Prince Tuli from Nagpur in November 2008. She had visited Nagpur during the promotion of her film Memsaab during June-July 2008 when she stayed at his family-owned hotel, Tuli International.

They met each other via people at their hotel and did not exchange numbers initially, but he got her number and they spoke and met a couple of times, met her parents in Mumbai and they agreed to marry soon thereafter. Four years into their marriage, she moved back to Mumbai into her parents' house and filed a case of domestic violence against Prince and his family on July 4th, 2012. On May 16, 2013 he filed an application for divorce. She has subsequently registered an FIR for domestic violence and unnatural sex against him. She exclusively spoke to the Media about what led her to take this drastic step. Excerpts from the conversation:

When did you first realise there was a problem in your marriage?
Initially when I met him, I obviously had no reason to doubt him. But problems started within the first month of our marriage. Now when I look back, there are things that seem obvious, but at that stage they did not seem odd. For instance, my sister-in-law interrogated me in a hotel till 3 am about how much I earned, what I planned to do with my life, what kind of marriage I would give, what I would do with my money after marriage, whether or not I would give it to my husband or my in-laws, whose name both my Mumbai flats were in, etc. There is a healthy way of asking, but this was covertly done. Usually when the boy and girl are compatible, this does not happen. While Prince is 31, his sister and I are the same age and are 34. She lives in Mumbai with her kids and was probably therefore given the task of interviewing me. Meeting a family person when you are contemplating marriage is fine, but it was different interviewing someone till 3 in the morning in the way it was done. Prince had once asked me, 'How does it feel to get married into a family where everyone has mistresses?' I had dismissed it, thinking it to be ridiculous.

They are wealthy people. Why would they be interested in your money?
So it seems, but I had different experiences. They may have disposable income, but if you can't make use of your culture, education and values, what's the point ? I never asked him how much money he makes or the details of his family business. In contrast, I was asked why my husband has not been given control of my flats and never even had a joint account with him.

What do you think was his problem with you?
The more I am away from the situation, I have instropected and calmed down and believe that not just Prince, but his whole family have a psycological problem. He lost his older brother to drugs and alcoholism about two years back. Prince, of course, has a very violent streak. If he gets angry for a certain thing, then he doesn't know what he is doing and you can't reason with him. It's difficult for a wife to create understanding with a man who, at the drop of a hat, will lose his temper. And if you don't get intimidated by his threats, then he will sexually and physically assault you. I lived in Nagpur for about four years during which time, I tried my best to adjust into the new family, a new city and a new way of life. I was not allowed to work and therefore, stayed at home. But the more I was adjusting to be a devoting caring wife and being a dedicated mother, the more and more acrimonious the environment seemed to be getting.

Being from the glamour world, I thought I was well-dressed, but if I was not dressed to his taste when we went out for evening get-togethers, he would denigrate me. I accepted it as my husband's critical view and tried to look better. If you denegrate your wife before she steps out of the house and physically assaultd her in the car and then expect her to have a smiling and happy face outside, how long can it work out? My in-laws would accuse me of not smiling in front of their relatives. I have been spiritual from the age of 13 and would visit my guru's ashram in Ganeshpuri, an hour-and-a-half from Mumbai. I started reading up books on relationships, did my meditation and gave it my best shot. They are Sikhs and even accused me of wanting to convert everyone into a Hindu.

Why did you resort to separation?
It reached a point where he was threatening to take my child away from me, was threatening me for life, and for money.

Why would he want money from you?
He would often travel to Mumbai on the pretext of work. I had seen messages from girls to him and had seen him behave in a certain way with girls at parties. So, to avoid my mind getting disturbed, I stopped questioning him about his work in Mumbai. I would tell my father-in-law that my friends in Mumbai had seen him in Mumbai with girls till five in the morning, drunk. He got socially involved with Amit Mehra (son of late Prakash Mehra) who offered him to be a co-producer in Zanjeer for a sum of `1 crore. I did not know much about the film business, but strongly advised him against it even though my father-in-law thought that I was the one instigating him to invest. There was a big spat between Prince and his father where Prince got shooters in civil clothes and had a huge fight with his father. Prince pressurised me to give him one of my flats for raising the money which I refused. Apparently, he had access to one of his father's accounts from where he did transfer some money to Amit's account. (Reportedly, Amit Mehra too ran into trouble with his brothers as he was unable to pay up the money for the title of Zanjeer). My husband went berserk threatening me, my parents and his father to give him the money. I had no choice but to leave my matrimonial home and come back to Mumbai to my parents. But Prince continued his threats to me and many of my relatives.

He would say, 'We are powerful people and know how to buy out the judiciary. All the ministers are in our pockets, I will get your entire family killed in accidents.' Inspite of his threats, we tried to reason with his parents if he could sit down and discuss it. I always tried to calm him down and find a way to deal with it. I remember his parents also thought that due to his drugs and alcohol problem, he too, had a psychological problem and also went to a counsellor. The only strength that kept me going is my guru's teachings, which helped me let go and forgive.

Is he attached to your son?
He was not involved as a father. Neither during my pregnancy nor after Ahhreyn was born. He physically traumatised and manhandled the child, which is never in favour of the welfare of a kid. He has abused me mentally, socially and emotionally and would yell at me in front of the kid throwing him around. He calls even now from different numbers abusing me and my parents and threatening me but has not once asked about him.

Were your parents supportive of you?
Initially, they were not and always pushed me to adjust. But he would say to my parents, 'If your daughter does not please me, then I will go out and do what I want to'. Their family has a tradition of having mistresses. My parents were summoned to Nagpur several times and were told about how they did not give adequate gifts during my marriage. They have a fleet of cars, but still I was accused of not bringing my car from Mumbai. It's never about the money, it was about the control and making me lose my independence. Once my parents were also with me, that too bothered them. Even though my sister-in-law had two maids, I was not given a maid for four years and would do everything for my son myself.

Where do you stand today emotionally?
I wish I had found this one moment of courage during those four years. You go through so much abuse. In every profile of an abuser you will find that the woman is always made to feel guilty and she is told that she deserves the treatment she has received. You feel psychologically paralysed. My spirituality and my son are the only two things that have helped me keep my sanity. In Nagpur, I was always gripped by fear and would fear seeing the watch turn 12 knowing that he would get up and start misbehaving. I want my son to see me strong and will fight for my son's rights and mine against people who think that they can buy off the judiciary and the ministry in this country and can intimidate a woman who has a public image by trying to defame her. I have faith in the judiciary and stand as a spiritually strong woman with no malice, anger or resentment against Prince or his family. I have threats to my life and the life of my son. Being a mother has transformed me from being a headstrong person to a loving person. We recently received an application that my mother-in-law is going through chemotherapy. I have reached a state of forgiveness and compassion and have told the cops that given that she is an elderly person, I don't want to inconvenience her in any way. Prince is an MBA and has worked at JP Morgan in New York and lived in the US for 10 years. Yet inspite of his education and the restraining orders from the High Court on July 4th, 2012, restraining him from talking to the media against my image, we continue to live in the fear of his threats on our lives.

7 Mistakes Clorox Made in Taking a Swipe at New Dads

2013-07-02T00:47:00.000+05:30

Clorox, makers of bleach and many other consumer products, just came out with a clever article called “6 Mistakes New Dads Make.” The article gleefully tells us that “Like dogs or other house pets, new Dads are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well.” And that’s just in the first paragraph. The rest of the article is so condescending and insulting that it’s hard to know where to start tearing it apart. So, in no particular order, here are 7 colossal mistakes Clorox made by publishing that article.

They’re alienating potential consumers. With $5.5 billion in annual sales, you’d think that Clorox would have noticed that men–especially dads–are accounting for a growing share of household purchases. That’s true in traditional households (whatever that means), but it’s doubly true in households where at-home dads are making the majority of day-to-day purchasing decisions, and in single-dad-headed households–a fast-growing demographic–where dads are making 100% of the purchases. Even if Clorox used the ridiculously outdated statistic that women account for 80% of purchasing, that still leaves 20%–a whopping $1.1 billion worth of Clorox products that men are buying. $1.1 billion that Clorox is apparently willing to walk away from. I’m sure Clorox shareholders aren’t going to be too happy that the company just played Russian Roulette with a fifth of its annual sales. And lost.
They’re alienating existing customers. I’ve done a lot of research and writing about the portrayals of fathers in the media. And a number of advertising execs told me that they ridiculed dads because women don’t like to be ridiculed and would never stand for it. There’s another factor at work here, too. Fatherhood is a women’s issue. Moms want their partners to be more involved and they want to see images of involved men. Women, probably more than any other group, understand the power of media messages and advertising to shape our consciousness. Many countries have banned ultra-thin models because there’s a direct connection between images of the “ideal” woman and eating disorders. the words “mailmen” and “policemen” have been replaced by “mail carriers.” We talk about “the men and women of the armed forces,” despite the fact that women account for less than 20% of military. We do all this because we want our daughters to grow up knowing they can be and do anything that boys can. Bottom line, women are going to be pretty ticked that Clorox is telling everyone that dads are useless and stupid. Useless, stupid dads aren’t involved dads. And women want involved dads.
They’re falling back on old, old, old (and never accurate) stereotypes about men. According to Clorox, we’re too dumb to take their babies in from the rain. We’re so out of touch with life that we can’t tell whether our children’s clothes fit. We’re so blind that we won’t notice “the caked-on layer of dried yellowish crust (applesauce? sweet potato? Play-Doh?) surrounding Baby’s mouth and spattered baby food onto her bib.” And we’re so irresponsible that we’ll pop open a cold one, plop the baby down to eat dinner off the floor, and watch endless hours of inappropriate TV. (We’re also apparently so illiterate that we’d never think to “embrace parental sacrifice and crack open a book”).
They’re incredibly sexist. Imagine an article on a major financial services company’s website that spent a few hundred words talking about how girls aren’t good at math, how women can’t park cars or balance their checkbooks, that diamonds are a girl’s best friend and how all they want in life is to marry a rich guy, and how life was so much better when females were in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
They don’t understand irony. The idiot who wrote that article–and the team of even bigger idiots who signed off on it–clearly understand the power of media messages: Dads, they say, “have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings. None of these places are healthy for baby.” Okay, let’s assume that’s true. Wouldn’t it follow that those same dads might be so disturbed by how they’re being portrayed on the company’s website that they’d never want to buy a Clorox product again? Hmm.
They assume that all dads behave the same way and that all readers of their web content will find humor where there really isn’t any. It doesn’t take a marketing genius to tell you that treating a group as large as fathers or mothers or men or women as a single demographic is incredibly naive–and incredibly bad for the bottom line.
They underestimated how offended people would be. And by “people” I mean everyone except employees of Clorox.

Thanks for the memories, Clorox, because as of right now, any of your products I might have around the house are going to be exactly that. Tossed out and replaced with the Costco brand.

http://www.mrdad.com/blog-2/7-mistakes-clorox-made-insulting-dads/#comment-886

Clorox hate-speech ad smears fathers as clueless dogs; boycott Burt's Bees products

2013-07-02T00:08:00.002+05:30

July 01, 2013

Have you had enough yet of the dad bashing frequently seen in the media? According to sitcoms and TV commercials, men are complete idiots who wouldn't even know how to put their own underwear on straight if it weren't for their wives telling them how to do things.

Clorox jumped on the man-bashing bandwagon this week with an online advertising campaign so highly offensive that if it had targeted blacks instead of dads, it would have been called the most extreme example of corporate racism ever witnessed.

The ad begins by claiming dads "lack the judgment and fine motor skills" to take care of children, and it compares dads to dogs and other house pets in their sheer stupidity.

The ad then goes on to identify the "6 mistakes new dads make," each of which is an outrageous slur against all men. It claims, for example, that dads will put their baby's clothes on backwards and not be able to figure out why they don't fit.

The ad goes on to explain that dads allow their babies to "eat off the floor," and then they plop them down on the couch to "watch reality TV shows."

Even worse, Clorox somehow believed it was entirely appropriate for its marketing campaign to include this: "Some new dads have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings."

Here's also a screen shot of the online ad, before it was pulled by Clorox without explanation:

"So, to summarize," says a media editorial, "new dads give our kids dirty food and Play-Doh to spread all over their faces while watching 'Kardashians,' then put them in backward summer clothes in freezing weather, oblivious to their cries en route to a poetry slam. But you can't blame us, because of our perpetually beer-soaked state and canine-level motor skills."

Yep, dads are stupid morons, says Clorox. And they think it's hilarious to shove that message in your face. It's all part of the man-bashing bandwagon we're witnessing across the mainstream media.

Clorox customers outraged

Actual comments on the Clorox website:

What the heck are you THINKING, Clorox?

As a woman, a single mother, and a feminist, I find this "article" disturbing on so many levels. Perpetuating unfounded gender stereotypes is deplorable and insulting. Always.

Me want to comment but me two dum. Me MUST be male may bE evn noo dad.

Has the Clorox marketing department been in a bomb shelter since the 50s or something?

What in the almighty hell were you thinking by making fathers out to be giant dummies who can't figure out which end of the baby a diaper goes on? It's 2013, for pete's sake - do you really not realize that marginalizing 50% of a household ISN'T okay anymore?

Insulting on so many levels. I agree with the other responses and dads who have all weighed in. It wasn't even the slightest bit funny and as a stay at home dad who makes all the household purchases I will be more inclined to go with another brand since you think so little of my ability to make sound decisions. How is that for good judgment?

Message to Clorox: Your advertising and marketing team members are a bunch of @sshats

Can you imagine the outcry if this ad had been about WOMEN?

Or BLACKS?

Or MEXICANS?

Or GAYS?

Here's how it would have read, using the exact words from Clorox:

"Like dogs or other house pets, BLACKS are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well." - Clorox.

"Prudence won't stop MEXICANS from relaxing with a brew and blaring inappropriate shows while baby stares in horror/awe/wonder at the colorful moving yell-box." - Clorox.

"Some GAYS have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings." - Clorox.

Suddenly the offensiveness of it all seems obvious, doesn't it? Now you see that the Clorox advertisement is classic hate speech against men.

These Clorox people are so clueless and hateful, they will probably soon run "Clorox n----r jokes" and laugh it up at the expense of innocent African Americans, too. I can already see the racist ads from the Clorox marketing team: "Hey n----rs, here's how to get your WHITES more WHITE!" (Because they're selling bleach, of course.)

If you find that last paragraph highly offensive, that's my whole point: Clorox did this to fathers of all colors, including blacks! And the company is so completely disconnected from reality that it somehow thought its hate speech was not just acceptable, but even entertaining. How sick is this, really?

Personally, I denounce racism, sexism, man bashing and corporate hate speech. I am never buying Clorox products again, and I recommend you join me in this boycott against corporate hate speech targeting men. I would take exactly the same position if Clorox attacked women, African Americans or anyone who is gay, too.

Boycott Burt's Bees, now owned by Clorox

Burt's Bees was purchased by Clorox in 2007. (Yes, it's true. Look it up.)

Media is announcing a boycott of all Clorox products, including Burt's Bees, for the remainder of 2013.

Stop rewarding this company with your dollars when they turn around and use that money to run hate speech ad campaigns that depict all dads as stupid morons.

Boycott Burt's Bees and Clorox beginning immediately.

Unless, of course, you support hate speech. Because while Clorox only targeted men in this ad campaign, tomorrow they may target women, or blacks, or short people, gays, or God forbid... undocumented immigrants!

Message to Clorox: Grow up! Get a clue! Targeting dads for hate speech is not acceptable, and it's not going to be tolerated in our society. Didn't you ever hear of something called the Civil Rights Movement?

Men are fed up with white males being the brunt of racist, gender-phobic insults like the one you recently publicized. Shame on you and may your upcoming financial losses remind you to think twice before attacking ANY group of human beings in future advertisements.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041027_Clorox_Burts_Bees_boycott.html#ixzz2XovMRqg9

The Law 498a (Part 2)

2013-06-28T22:52:00.002+05:30

The Law 498a (Part 1)

2013-06-28T22:51:00.002+05:30

Why this Judiciary (Kolaveri) Di

2013-06-28T22:38:00.002+05:30

Very cool video, good music.

GoAir opts for female crew to save fuel

2013-06-28T22:24:00.002+05:30

NEW DELHI: The falling rupee has claimed a new victim — the male cabin crew. Low cost carrier GoAir has decided to recruit only air hostesses from now on instead of the 'heavier' male flight pursers. The idea is to lighten the aircraft to reduce fuel burn because of increased operating costs.

GoAir currently has 330 cabin crew members, 40% of whom are males. Every additional kg on board costs Rs 3 per flight hour. With an air hostess weighing about 15-20 kg less than a male flight purser, Go expects to save about Rs 2.5 crore to Rs 3 crore annually.

The airline's 130-odd male flight pursers will keep flying but future cabin crew recruitment's will be all air hostesses Go plans to induct about 80 aircraft over next seven years, for which it will recruit about 2,000 air hostesses and pilots.

"The rupee's fall has hurt the industry badly. All major expenses — aircraft leasing, spare parts and fuel costs — are linked to the dollar. The fall in exchange rate of a rupee costs us Rs 30 crore on an annual basis. We are looking at every possible way of cost-cutting to remain profitable," GoAir CEO Giorgio De Roni said.

With the rupee's free fall hiking operating costs, the airline has taken other steps to lighten its aircraft and improve fuel efficiency.

"We are reducing the weight on board our aircraft. The size of in flight magazines has been reduced. The potable water tanks are no longer being filled to capacity as only 35% to 40% of that water is actually used. Now the water tanks are filled 60%," De Roni said. Operational procedures have been revised with aircraft now doing single engine taxi to save fuel.

"Our new aircraft will have sharklets (wingtip devices) that will help in reducing fuel burn by 5%. From next year onward's we will have sharklets installed in five of our existing planes as the remaining 10 will be phased out to have a young fleet," he said.

Woman, 36, bears child of 11-year-old boy

2013-06-25T21:41:00.001+05:30

Case of 36 year old women raping a 11 year old boy, this shows the bias against men in society, women cannot be charged with Rape only Men.

An 11-year-old boy fathered a child after sex with a school friend's 36-year-old mother.

Both the father and child are now understood to be in care after the principal at the boy's school raised the alarm.

The case has caused counsellors working in the area of child sexual abuse to highlight the lack of attention given to women as potential offenders.

It has prompted Justice Minister to step in saying she will seek more information on the law. "This case raises an important point. I will seek advice from officials on whether or not a law change is required."

And it has also highlighted disparity in the law of rape, which makes it impossible for a woman to be accused of the crime.

Present legislation stipulates the crime of rape applies only when men force sex. In contrast, women who force an unwilling partner to have sex face charges of sexual violation. Both carry a maximum sentence of 20 years but only men can be charged with rape.

The media has chosen not to name the South Auckland school to protect the privacy of the children - the baby and the father.

Child Youth and Family confirmed it was dealing with a case at the school and that it was before the courts. It refused to make further comment, as did police.

The principal said he was shocked when the child revealed the details.

The boy approached him in his office about two-thirds of the way through the 2012 school year and told the principal he had a disclosure to make.

"You won't be very happy with me," he recalled the boy saying. He said he had been having sex with his friend's mother "and it needs to stop".

The principal said the boy was "very aware" of the situation he was in and determined he wanted the contact to end.

The media was told that the contact between the boy and the woman began about April last year, when the boy was aged 11. The woman's son took a day off school and encouraged his friend to do likewise, spending the day at his home.

During the course of the day, the woman gave the boy beer to drink and then later took part in a sexual encounter with him.

The sexual contact continued for a number of months after the initial encounter, the media was told. The boy had turned 12 by the time the child was born. CYF took a baby into care about two months ago.

The principal confirmed the details. "We got CYF involved the minute we found out about it."

Emails exchanged with a Child Youth and Family social worker, since retired, confirm the agency was involved. The CYF worker said police would be investigating - but also said the woman denied the sexual contact.

Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse manager Ken Clearwater said if the case were proved, the woman should be held accountable for her actions. Making charges able to be brought dependent on the gender of the offender was wrong and the law should be changed. "It is a huge issue for us."

He said male victims of sex abuse carried out by women were equally as damaged as any other victim of rape.

"As a male you're supposed to enjoy it but we don't say that about young girls. Males are not seen as victims. The psychological damage is huge - and they carry extra shale because it's a woman and you're supposed to enjoy it."

Mr Clearwater said most abuse of the sort in this case was not reported. He said the way the boy disclosed to the principal underscored the way in which the abuse was perceived. By saying "you won't be very happy with me", Mr Clearwater said the boy appeared to believe he was the one who had acted wrongly.

Mr Clearwater said the psychological impact would expose the boy to added risk of alcohol and drug abuse, relationship problems, anger and other mental health issues.

The executive director of Rape Prevention Education, Dr Kim McGregor, said male survivors of sexual offending by women often felt the abuse they suffered was minimised by society. "Just because sexual violence has been perpetrated by a female doesn't make it any less violent."

Manukau-based family lawyer Jeremy Sutton said under the law the boy would not have rights to the child unless he was present at the birth. He said he would have to make a case for access. He also said there were exemptions from child support for victims of sexual offending.

Liggins Institute director Professor Wayne Cutfield, an expert in the development of children, said boys became fertile about halfway through puberty, which could begin as early as age nine. "The onset of puberty is a lot younger than people think."

Statistics New Zealand does not hold data on the ages of fatherhood, only of motherhood.

Delhi ex-Mayor's nephew sent to 14-day police custody for raping a foreign national

2013-06-25T21:14:00.000+05:30

Former Delhi Mayor's nephew, arrested for allegedly raping a Russian woman and molesting a US national, has been remanded in 14-day judicial custody by a Delhi court.

Rajeev Panwar, nephew of former mayor Jayshree Panwar, was arrested on June 24 for the alleged offence committed in his flat rented to the foreigners. Rajeev, whose father is a government employee, was sent to Tihar jail till July 8 after he was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Ankit Singla.

Rajeev, whose grandfather was a Member of Parliament and President Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee, was arrested on the complaint lodged by the American woman.

According to the complaint, on June 24 night Rajeev, after partying with the two alleged victims and husband of the US woman, raped the Russian woman and then trespassed in to the US woman's flat and molested her while she was sleeping.

Police sources said the two women were staying in the same building, but in different flats, owned by Rajeev. It further stated that Rajeev was invited by the trio on the night of the incident as he was a friend with the Russian woman.

Men who hold open doors for women are SEXIST not chivalrous, feminists claim

2013-06-24T05:00:00.003+05:30

Men who open doors for women are guilty of 'benevolent sexism' according to a new study by feminist psychologists.

Helping the ladies choose the right computer as well as carrying their shopping are also signs of 'unseen' sexism in society, according to the report.

Referring to a group of men and women as 'guys' is also a no-no, says the research, meaning that even men who seem enlightened could be unknowingly committing daily acts of sexism.

It could also mean that women, too, are unaware of it but are unwittingly affected because it helps to create a culture of women being seen as the vulnerable sex who need a man's help.

Other examples of unseen sexism include calling women 'girls' but not referring to men as 'boys' and a man offering to do the driving on a long journey instead of a female partner.

Researchers from the Society for the Psychology of Women conducted a study among workers of both genders in America and Germany.

The volunteers were asked to keep diaries in which they were asked to note examples from a long list of both sexist and non-sexist incidents - without being told what the study was for.

The list included blatant acts of sexism such as referring to women as 'b****' or 'chick' or unwanted attention from men.

But it also included acts of 'benevolent sexism', even romantic statements from men about how they cannot live without a woman or how much they 'cherish' women, said the study.

The research comes just two days after a celebrity lawyer sparked outrage by accusing women of victimising men by dressing in a sexually provocative way.

And last week, scores of women took to the streets in London, marching on a 'slut walk' to challenge commonly-held attitudes that provocative dressing in women were linked with rape and sexual assaults.

Writing about the sexism research for the Psychology of Women Quarterly, described as a 'feminist, scientific peer reviewed' journal, authors Julia Becker and Janet Swim said men and women were to blame.

They wrote: 'Women endorse sexist beliefs, at least in part, because they do not attend to subtle, aggregate forms of sexism in their personal lives.

'Many men not only lack attention to such incidents but also are less likely to perceive sexist incidents as being discriminatory and potentially harmful for women.'

The study claims that both men and women are 'not aware of the overall prevalence and extent of sexism in their personal lives.'

But even though they are not aware of it, such regular and daily sexism only reinforces inequality and injustice, it is argued.

After keeping a diary, the volunteers were asked to look back at their records and decide which incidents they thought were very, moderately or not at all sexist.

Having done that both men and women were then much more aware of subtle forms of sexism that occurred on a daily basis.

It is only by being aware that such 'unseen' and benevolent sexism can be tackled, said the report.

PATERNITY FRAUD RAMPANT IN U.S.

2013-06-24T04:00:00.000+05:30

WASHINGTON – More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn’t his.

But that didn’t stop the state from revoking Fisher’s driver’s license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn’t the father of the child in question.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as “fathers,” for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It’s called “paternity fraud,” and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

“Paternity fraud is a growing concern for men and children everywhere,” concluded the commission in a report completed in November. “It can spawn considerable grief for the men who may or may not be emotionally attached to a child they later discover was fathered by another; and possibly unsettling for children who may discover the false nature of their paternity.”

The New Hampshire commission took note of the case of Geoffrey Fisher.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the “deadbeat dad” law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn’t the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn’t the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn’t have a driver’s license because he was the father.

Fisher thought the matter resolved when a judge ruled he no longer had to pay child support in January 2002.

But then last spring, the Maine attorney general’s office claimed Fisher still owed support payments for the time from the child’s birth until she reached 3 years old, when tests proved Fisher was not the father.

“Paternity fraud is a growing problem for both men, who should have a higher level of confidence on the paternity of their children, and for the children who need a reliable history of both parents for the maintenance of their physical and emotional health,” concluded the New Hampshire commission.

A paternity fraud expert, says that 30 percent of the cases he sampled proved negative.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he’s not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child’s 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

But there is also a problem with the way some DNA tests are conducted and analyzed, say experts.

For instance, one physician reported that two unrelated men – one black, the other white – both tested with a probability of paternity at 99 percent for the same child.

“Despite testing facility claims of a 99 percent accuracy rate, all men are at risk, whether it’s through a wrong paternity judgment or paternity fraud,” says Darrin Bush. “There is a chance that a man can be determined to be the father of a child even if he never had relations with the mother. The deck appears to be stacked against men.”

Mary Kellett must go VAMA

2013-06-24T02:58:00.000+05:30

When Children Are Better Off Fatherless

2013-06-24T02:34:00.001+05:30

The 24 million American sons and daughters growing up without fathers are not all doomed. Nor are the children of lesbian parents. Nor the children whose fathers were killed in the line of duty as policemen, firemen, soldiers. Nor the children who have lost fathers to disease, accidents or suicide. Our society must be careful not to assume these sons and daughters are damned.

In the cases where the father is far from heroic – even abusive – his absence is also the absence of the chaos, anger, pain and disruption he would bring to his family. Americans encourage women to leave abusive partners, but mothers who do this end up in a class we shame and pity. The government itself sends the message that children are better off with a father. The reality is, many children are better off without their fathers.

Michael Lamb, a Cambridge psychologist, wrote in 2010, “We think it is misguided to see increased paternal involvement as a universally desirable goal.” Certainly it is optimal to have two parents who love and nurture their children, but rather than insist that all men can be good fathers, we should fill the lives of children with love and support from untraditional directions.

In the 2013 book “Fathers in Cultural Context,” Joseph Pleck of the University of Illinois writes: “The notion that fathering is essential to children’s social and personality development seems to be a uniquely American preoccupation. Current research actually provides little support for … this popular conception of paternal essentiality.”

The myth is personal to my family, because I raised my sons as a single mother. And they are not doomed because of that. Now men at 24, 22 and 19, I talk to them about successful men who have grown up without a father: President Obama and Bill Clinton, for two easy examples. I could also mention Aristotle, John Hancock, Gerald Ford, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglas, Stephen King and a fraternity of other historical heroes … but I don’t want to overdo it.

In time for Father’s Day movie bonding, Will Smith stars in “After Earth” with his real-life son, Jaden. But a 1994 episode of “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” shows a much younger Will Smith in a scene that is more real to many American boys. The Smith character’s father runs out on a promise to take his son on a trip, and Smith shouts: “I’m gonna get through college without him. I’m gonna get a great job without him and marry me a beautiful honey and have me a whole bunch of kids. And I’m gonna be a better father than he ever was.” And then he chokes, “How come he don’t want me, man?”

I know there is no possible answer to that question. But I also know it is time to stop damning the children who need to ask.

8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want To Get Married

2013-06-24T00:37:00.004+05:30

It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested. Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago. "According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent." Why?

In the course of researching my new book, I talked with men all over America about why they're avoiding marriage. It turns out that the problem isn't that men are immature, or lazy. Instead, they're responding rationally to the incentives in today's society. Here are some of the answers I found.

1. You'll lose respect. A couple of generations ago, a man wasn't considered fully adult until he was married with kids. But today, fathers are figures of fun more than figures of respect: The schlubby guy with the flowered diaper bag at the mall, or one of the endless array of buffoonish TV dads in sitcoms and commercials. In today's culture, father never knows best. It's no better in the news media. As communications professor James Macnamara reports, "by volume, 69 percent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavorable, compared with just 12 percent favorable and 19 percent neutral or balanced."

2. You'll lose out on sex. Married men have more sex than single men, on average - but much less than men who are cohabiting with their partners outside of marriage, especially as time goes on. Research even suggests that married women are more likely to gain weight than women who are cohabiting without marriage. A article mentioned one study that followed 2,737 people for six years and found that cohabiters said they were happier and more confident than married couples and singles.

3. You'll lose friends. "Those wedding bells are breaking up that old gang of mine." That's an old song, but it's true. When married, men's ties with friends from school and work tend to fade. Although both men and women lose friends after marriage, it tends to affect men's self-esteem more, perhaps because men tend to be less social in general.

4. You'll lose space. We hear a lot about men retreating to their "man caves," but why do they retreat? Because they've lost the battle for the rest of the house. The Art of Manliness blog mourns "The Decline of Male Space," and notes that the development of suburban lifestyles, intended to bring the family together, resulted in the elimination of male spaces in the main part of the house, and the exile of men to attics, garages, basements - the least desirable part of the home. As a commenter to the post observes: "There was no sadder scene to a movie than in 'Juno' when married guy Jason Bateman realized that in his entire huge, house, he had only a large closet to keep all the stuff he loved in. That hit me like a punch in the face."

5. You could lose your kids, and your money. And they may not even be your kids. Lots of men I spoke with were keenly aware of the dangers of divorce, and worried that if they were married and it went sour, the woman might take everything, including the kids. Other men were concerned that they might wind up paying child support for kids who aren't even theirs - a very real possibility in many states. I polled over 3200 men to ask how they would react to finding out that a child wasn't theirs after all. 32 percent said they would feel "anger and fury at the mother," 6 percent said they would feel "depression," 18 percent said "anger and depression," 2 percent said "none of the above," 32 percent said "angry at the system that forced them to pay," and only 2 percent "didn't care." One man commented that his ex-wife had taunted him with the knowledge that his 11-year old son wasn't actually his: "I was angry at the mother...I severed all ties to the boy. Some may see this as a failing. I see it as self-preservation, and to those that ask the question of whether or not the courts will make a non-biological parent pay child support, pay attention: YES THEY WILL! They see you as nothing more than a source of cash for the child. It seems that a person in these situations should be able to sue the real father for child support."

6. You'll lose in court. Men often complain that the family court legal system is stacked against them, and in fact it seems to be. Women gain custody and child support the majority of the time, as pointed out in this News article: "Despite the increases in men seeking and receiving alimony, advocates warn against linking the trend to equality in the courtroom. Family court judges still tend to favor women, said Ned Holstein, the founder of Fathers & Families, a group advocating family court reform. "'Family court still gives custody overwhelmingly to mothers, child support overwhelmingly to mothers, and courts still give almony overwhelmingly to mothers and women,' he said. 'The family courts came into existence years ago in order to give things to mothers that mothers needed," he said. 'The times have changed and the courts have not.'"

7. You'll lose your freedom. At least, if you're charged with child support that you can't pay, you can be put in jail - and if you can't afford a lawyer, you don't have the right to have one appointed because, according to the Supreme Court, it's technically a civil matter, never mind the jail time. Fathers and Families found that it's the men who are jailed rather than women: "A new report concludes that between 95% and 98.5% of all incarcerations in Massachusetts sentenced from the Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts from 2001 through 2011 have been men. Moreover, this percentage may be increasing, with an average of 94.5% from 2001 to 2008, and 96.2% from 2009 through 2011. It is likely that most of these incarcerations are for incomplete payment of child support. Further analysis suggests that women who fail to pay all of their child support are incarcerated only one-eighth as often as men with similar violations."

8. Single life is better than ever. While the value of marriage to men has declined, the quality of single life has improved. Single men were once looked on with suspicion, passed over for promotion for important jobs, which usually valued "stable family men," and often subjected to social opprobrium. It was hard to have a love life that wasn't aimed at marriage, and premarital sex was risky and frowned upon. Now, no one looks askance at the single lifestyle, dating is easy, and employers probably prefer employees with no conflicting family responsibilities. Plus, video games, cable TV, and the Internet provide entertainment that didn't used to be available. Is this good for society? Probably not, as falling birth rates and increasing single-motherhood demonstrate. But people respond to incentives. If you want more men to marry, it needs to be a more attractive proposition.

3/3 Sex with women on false promise of marriage is considered as Rape

2013-06-22T00:09:00.001+05:30

2/3 Sex with women on false promise of marriage is considered as Rape

2013-06-22T00:06:00.000+05:30

1/3 Consensual Sex with women on false promise of marriage considered as Rape

2013-06-22T00:04:00.000+05:30

Forest department slaps criminal case against woman for ‘false’ sexual harassment complaint

2013-06-21T12:13:00.002+05:30

Prey turns predator? If a departmental inquiry by the forest department is the last word in a sexual harassment case, the woman, a receptionist at the government-run Jungle Lodges and Resorts (JLR) who made the allegations against her immediate boss, had cooked up the entire story.
The tables have turned in such a way that the managing director of JLR has now filed a criminal complaint which could land her in the slammer.

The incident occurred in September 2012, and the woman lodged a complaint with the city police commissioner on January 1, 2013. A copy of her complaint was sent to the secretary, forest, environment and ecology department, who in turn forwarded it to the MD of JLR.

In her petition, the woman had levelled serious charges of sexual harassment against Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) and well-known wildlife photographer K M B Prasad. Taking serious note of the complaint, the JLR management instituted an internal inquiry by a divisional manager in February. The inquiry was conducted over four months and 17 witnesses were examined. It gave a clean chit to the DCF and concluded that the complainant had tried to tarnish the image of her male colleague by making false allegations.

Following the report, the JLR management lodged a criminal complaint against the receptionist at High Grounds police station on June 5, accusing her of forgery and defamation. If the charges against her are proved, the woman, who quit her job on January 31, will have to spend a minimum of three years in prison.

“The truth has come out in the 8departmental inquiry,” Prasad told Bangalore Mirror . “This should not happen to any government official. I am thankful to the department which ordered a probe to check the veracity of the complaint before acting on it.”

In her complaint, the woman had stated: “Around 4.30 pm on September 8, 2012, I went to the table of Sri Murali, accountant of our office, to get his signature on a conveyance voucher. K M B Prasad was also present. When I was talking to Sri Murali and getting his signature on the voucher, K M B Prasad patted me on the lower back and gave me an embarrassing (sic) look. I scolded him and being 8frightened, I ran with the file to my place of work, but before that I told him I would complain to the police. K M B Prasad said he would finish me if I did so.”

The JLR MD, on receiving a copy of her petition, asked divisional manager Khaleel Ahmed to probe the allegations. Ahmed is said to have spoken to 17 witnesses, as well as examined mobile calls and the mobile locations (when the incident was said to have occurred).

The probe found that the allegations did not hold water. Firstly, September 8, the day of the alleged incident, was a second Saturday, and the complainant was not present at the workplace. This was backed by attendance records. Three employees too told the probe panel that the complainant was not present at the Khanija Bhavan headquarters at Race Course Road. Besides, it was found that Prasad had worked at the M G Road office on that day.

Also, as per official records no voucher was signed by the employee — Murali — named in the petition. Cellphone records also went against the complainant. Going by her mobile’s signals, she was at Srinagar that day. And Prasad's mobile showed he was located near the Museum Road tower.

Over 10 witnesses either said they had not seen the DCF at the HQ or that no such incident took place on September 8. Two staffers also provided an alibi for Prasad, saying they were present with him at his M G Road office and he had dropped them at Malleshwaram in his car.

During the course of the probe, the complainant is said to have changed the date of the incident and said it actually took place on September 7.
The departmental inquiry took this factor into consideration and found that though she had worked in the office for extra hours on September 7, she had presented the conveyance voucher on September 10. It was passed on September 12. The investigation officer concluded that as the receptionist had worked between 5.30 pm and 6.30 pm on September 7, the question of presenting the voucher around 4.30 pm, two hours prior to completion of work, did not arise.

It was found that she had changed the dates in her voucher — from September 8, to September 7 and , later, September 10 — raising doubts of voucher-tampering.

Another six witnesses said they had not seen the DCF at the head office on September 7 either. It was found that the DCF had gone to the forensic laboratory. He later went to the M G Road office. In his report submitted on May 15, Ahmed gave a clean chit to the DCF and concluded that the allegations of sexual harassment were false.

“The inquiry found that no such incident took place either on September 8 or September 7. The charges made are far from the truth. Further, it was found that the woman had tampered the vouchers. This amounts to a criminal act. Hence, legal action against her is recommended,” Khaleel Ahmed said in his report.

The JLR then lodged a criminal case under various sections of Indian Penal Code which include sections 182 (giving false information), 465, 469 and 471 (forgery to tarnish image). A senior police officer told Bangalore Mirror that probe into the case was on.

‘They can now twist the story’

“I left the job on January 31 itself. They can now twist the story however they want. I will not know whatever happens within the office. They did not conduct an inquiry till the day I was there. They are doing everything only after I left. If you are in front of me I can talk,” the complainant told the media.

Now, Shankar Rao in dowry row

2013-06-20T13:14:00.000+05:30

June 19, 2013

HYDERABAD: Former minister andSecunderabad Cantonment legislator PShankarRao's daughter-in-law VamsiPriya on Tuesday approached the AP High Court with a writ petition seeking the arrest of her her husbandShashank, father-in-law ShankarRao, mother-in-law VishwaShanti and sister-in-law Sushmita.

Charging them with harassing her and treating her in an inhuman way and the police with inaction, Vamsi Priya sought a direction to the police to act on her complaint forthwith. Earlier, a criminal court directed the accused legislator, his wife, daughter and son to surrender before the police and surrender the passports to avail bail. But that did not happen. Police too did not act because they are scared of acting against a bigwig like Shankar Rao, the petitioner said.

According to the complaint, Shankar Rao's daughter-in-law returned to her parents house after parting ways with her husband and it was only from then the problems for Vamsi Priya started. She sought the immediate arrest of Shankar Rao and his family members.