As news coverage, including multiple episodes of Keith and Rachel, are dominated by Michael Jackson and sex scandals, various things get less attention. It is bad enough that inside political stuff dominates the news, pushing aside any number of issues (criminal justice, labor, health news, etc.) generally. More so when some major pop star with a high weird component dies. Anyways, as this goes on, other things occur here and abroad:
In India, our Constitution does not contain a specific provision as to privacy but the right to privacy has, as we shall presently show, been spelt out by our Supreme Court from the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) dealing with freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(1)(d) dealing with right to freedom of movement and from Article 21, which deals with right to life and liberty. We shall first refer to the caselaw in US relating to the development of the right to privacy as these cases have been adverted to in the decisions of our Supreme Court. ....
In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.
The ruling only applies to the territory of India's capital, but it is a major precedent in the nation all the same. And, as in Lawrence v. Texas, it sets forth broad principles even if the immediate effect is somewhat limited. The opinion is notable on various fronts, though rulings in places like South Africa suggest more so for those not familiar with what is by now fairly standard practice. For instance, the "no specific" language reflects Griswold v. Connecticut: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." One such being privacy rights.
And, that is a telling point given the opinion cites various U.S. court decisions in the privacy area. But, as here, it is ultimately guided by Indian law and practice. The article notes that as a whole homosexuality is disfavored in the country, but the reference to "LGBT" is telling. The hajra, referenced in the opinion, are a specific transgender group known to the culture. And, as with Lawrence, even if the anti-sodomy laws are not generally prosecuted, they are used to "harass, blackmail and jail people." Thus, hopefully this appellate ruling will hold up to the test of time, and help the overall cause of equality and liberty in the nation as a whole.
Meanwhile, a couple quickies about this country's courts. The pro-business record of this Supreme Court term in the environmental area (5-0) with the usual suspects involved in each though some of the others joined it at times is discussed here. This adds to the "more conservative with help from Kennedy" Supreme Court message of some end of term commentary. Meanwhile, a lower court judge held against someone who used the character in Catcher in the Rye that seems to me of a quite legitimate transformative/critical nature. More here.
This sort of copyright suit seems so ridiculous to me, putting aside the damn book was written decades ago.
---
* Biel is probably best known for her role on 7th Heaven, though is starting to get some movie roles too -- this is a chance for her to shine.
On that front, I caught a well acted (and generally well written) Touched by an Angel episode involving the birth of a new angel (Valerie Bertinelli) who immediately has to care for a girl whose mother (along with many others) was killed in a bomb explosion. Monica, looking if anything more sexy all serious and adult, has a crisis of faith and is tempted by the devil (Mandy Patinkin, who sings a song from Into the Woods).
Never a gigantic fan of the show, including its theology (and again, apparently being a human is so great, even over being an angel ... see also, the old Cary Grant movie), but some of the episodes had dramatic weight. And, Roma Downey had presence. The striking thing about the episode is that it was aired in "2001," and its domestic terrorist plot made that topical ... but I now see that it was May 2001.