" Mathura, a 16-year-old tribal girl, was raped by two policemen inside a police station.
The courts set free the accused - they said she did not raise an alarm, she was not injured, and since she was sexually active, she would have "voluntarily" consented to sex." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20907755 ----------- Dears, By an interesting coincidence, and definitely NO 'accident of history', the topics of Rape, Consent and Self Determination have been " running hot " on GN for the past several days. I hope that, by now, most of us have come to accept that, in court, the odds are stacked against the victim. And while, there surely are trumped up allegations, this nonsensical demand for 'evidence' 50 years post de facto, is both sexist and bewildering. I invite us to review how the above referenced Indian court concluded that the young lady had consented. Would "we" not call this revisionist nonsense? Now, please advise about the Non-Asking of Goans as to what they wanted. My personal guess is that a majority of Goans would have opted to join India . After all, India under Nehru was relatively peaceful and stable. Goans never liked too much ghuspott. But that is only a guess. The only way to know ... would have been to ask (as in East Timor) Still do not know WHY the question was not asked. Anybody really knows? A review of history indicates that People whose CONSENT is not asked, always remain troubled. Is that possibly the reason why 1961 keeps popping up even 50 years post de facto. jc I will take this opportunity to 'assume' that Ole_Xac feels similarly of 'T. Bert' I somehow believe that he will be agitating for his people to to the needful. My hunch is that he will do the Peking duck on that issue.
