re: "the statement made by the Hon. Chief Justice of India, Justice K G Balakrishnan, that "due regard must be given to the wishes of a rape victim, if she wants to marry the rapist or give birth to a child conceived following the crime".
[1] Freddy Fernandes wrote: "as a concerned citizen of India, I am much perturbed by this statement." I am sure Venantius J Pinto was referring to the 'statute of limitation' - though I am not so sure such a thing exists in many common law countries wrt rape, however, I had difficulty comprehending what Venantius specifically meant by [2] the term 'nonchalance IN one of our Executive branches. [3] the rest of the post. I do ask: (a): Did we really read what the good Chief Justice said (at a seminar)? (b) Do we have a view on the paradigm shift which is presently taking place from the (previous) diktats of paternalism to the (modern) principle of autonomy? (c) What would Venantius and Freddy suggest - the CJ have said ....i.e. differently? (d) Would they have (say) forcibly aborted / recommended the aborting of the fetus against the mother's wishes? (e) Would they have (say) forcibly prevented the marriage of the two? (f) Are we all not autonomous enough to make our own mistakes ...and learn/not learn from them? (g) Who is the CJ (or we) to tell anybody ....what they can or cannot do .....IF what they do is legal? jc
