Ebay
I am really thankful to E-bay customer service for returning my money which was debited from my account in 2 days.
I am really thankful to E-bay customer service for returning my money which was debited from my account in 2 days.
A site were you can find a little humour ,politics ,bollywood etc all mixed for a spicy treat for your reading
Thursday 2 July 2015
Wednesday 7 January 2015
Does Consent in a contract really matter ? Some insights for law students .....
The meaning of the term
consent according to Webster’s II New College Dictionary is “voluntary
allowance of what is planned or done by another”[1].The
dictionary further defines voluntary as “arising from ones own free will” [2].
Firstly.the definition
raises questions like the meaning of autonomous choices before the decision
counts as a consent?.Secondly, what does “voluntary” mean if the necessary
information to make the decision is not there? .In order to what has been
identified as “informed consent” which means the consent that reflects an
individual’s free will certain conditions have to be fulfilled .
In Indian contract act,
Section 10 defines free consent an essential requirement of a contract. Section
14 of Indian contract act says that consent is said to be free when it is not
caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake. The
contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
Here coercion may be referred to as when
a person threatens another person in order to gain consent.Undue influence is
unlawful control by one person over another in order to obtain compliance.The
wilfull misrepresentation or concealment of material facts of a contract
leading to persuasion of a party to enter a contract leads to a fraud .Misrepresentation
of certain facts pertaining to a
material matter on which one party relied leads to a void contract .A mistake
leading to a significant change in the subject matter of the contract leads to
a void contract.But clerical errors or mistakes in computation leading to an
error in judgement will not lead to a void contract.
Currently consent
centric approach to contract has led to problems despite courts enforcing them
.Which again questions the existence of a truly voluntary consent?. Contract
laws have relied on consent to justify its choices with one party over another
.Courts rely on observable evidences to ascertain whether parties consented to
it or not .The courts in order to ascertain the existence of consent has
adopted certain objective approaches to help them in their task as the
consenters mind cannot be read.Under this objective approach it is seen whether
a reasonable man looking at the disclosure would have understood the intent to
be[3] .The reason behind the objectivity is to
protect certainity in contracts and other party’s reliance on the promosors’s
disclosure[4].
The objective approach
helps in two different ways first certainity in a contract and secondly
predictability of contract.It leads to certainity in contracts as the parties
can rely on contractual agreements .It encourages individual responsibility as
one has to think carefully before signing a contract since one will be held
responsible for ones actions .However due to its importance on outward
disclosure it may lead to consent even though there was no meaningful
consent.Market manipulation of information has led to consent without any
meaningful consent[5]
.
Contract law’s focus on
the consent based approach has frequently led to enforcing agreements without
meaningful consent .The concept of consent can be easily manipulated ,which
leads to its complexity .The signature on a written document cannot be presumed
to reflect the will when the other party has manipulated the
information.Marketplace manipulation targeting human biases is strongly
reflected in todays times.
Traditional concept of
consent based approach is not feasible in todays situation where there is an
increasing use of standard form of contracts and cyberspace contracts .Current
Contract law defences with its consent centric approach has been unable to
solve the fundamental problems of power imbalance helps .Current contract law
defences helps in sustaining this imbalance.
Todays cyberspace
transactions where a user has to just click on “Ok” button to adhere to the
agreement without reading the terms indicating acceptance of the terms .In this
scenario it is difficult to understand whether informed consent exists or not.
The consent based approach has clearly come into conflict with practises that
don’t seem consensual [6].
But cyberspace
contracts are here to stay[7].If
a court is true to the consent based approach it has to strike down the cyberspace
contracts due to the lack of consent.This would lead to large number of cyber
space contracts not to be upheld .Cyberspace commerce which relies on this
contracts would not be able to progress.
Todays contract law
defenses are partly able to address the defects of consent based approach.Consent
is detrimental to Contract law goals as identified by various scholars which
are reducing opportunistic behaviour,reducing transactional costs and promoting efficient exchanges[8] .But
consent based approach actually increases the opportunistic behaviour.Till the
time the parties know that a contract can be enforced as long as the other
party signs the contract ,parties are motivated to manipulate the information to
gain consent.
Increased transactional
causes may also occur due to lack on trust between people where multiple
contingencies have to be provided .It happened to after the subprime mortgage
in USA where contractual parties sued each other.
Contract law’s goal of efficiency is seriously undermined by the consent based approach as
enforceability of contracts without informed decision making leading to problems.
Thus consent centric
approach is unfair on people who are in not a good position to help themselves
,well informed or endowed with resources and not much educated specially in
India.So there should be an alternative to a consent centric approach.
A totality of
circumstances test based approach may be very useful and flexible than consent
based approach .Intead of trying to ascertain whether individual consented or
not it is better to examine the multiple circumstances surrounding the entire
transaction before enforcing a
contract.This has been applied in multiple circumstances by the court also utilizing
its strength in fact finding.
Courts have often used
the totality of circumstances in issues of criminal law where consent of the
accused is in question.But the question here is can the totality of
circumstances test work in contract law .The answer is simple instead of
searching for the validity of an inviduals consent the court will look into
multiple factors to determine whether a contract is enforceable or not .In
short consent will become a factor for analysis.for example whether a
reasonable man would have consented to the contract if he had understood the
terms of the contract under the given circumstances.Whether the terms of the
contract were reasonable?.It is a very logical and honest test helping in
finding the legitimacy of the contract in question.
One of the goals of
contract law is to reduce exploitation.The consent centric approach opposes
this goals which further increases the perception that government is helping
and giving undue advantage to the rich and powerful.
Another approach from
consent centric approach may be no retraction principle.Normally in contract
law a parties willingness to enter an agreement can freely retract till the
other party has not accepted the terms offered free without any cost . Under no
retraction principle retraction is not
free most importantly when the other party relied on the proposal .The offeror
who revokes the offer has to reimburse the offeree certain amount incurred
after the offer was made.Under this principle the negotiating partners have greater
security incase someone walk out of it .Also helps in increasing the trust
level between the negotiating parties.Also helps in avoding concurrent bids
from multiple parties.
Lastly ,under
non-retraction rule non-conforming communications like counter offers or concurrent proposals
do not cancel out instead are baselines for other each party that sets for the
other part to accept[9] .Leading
to a contionous process in essence and justifying a converging liability
regime.Thus for example a counter offer is not deemed as a rejection but as a
basis for a reverse option.
Thus the consent
centric approach suffers from too many disadvantages in todays world as
economic relationships have become complex and there is much manipulation in
the market. Consent has become very elusive and difficult to define therefore
consent centric approach no longer serves the purpose .If consent based
approach is continued exploitation of less powerful parties will continue in an
economic relationship which will only further the notion that government and
law in India are for the rich and powerful. In simple terms those who can
afford it.
[1] Webster’s
II New College Dictionary 245 (3d edition 2005).
[2] Id
at 1267.
[3]
Mautner,Supra note 4, at 551
[4]
Perillo , Supra note 67, at 442-43
[5]
Radin, supra note 10 , at 1128
[6]
Radin, Supra note 10, at 1128
[7]
ProCD,86 F.3d at 1451
[8]
TREBILCOCK,Supra note 7,at 16-17
[9]
CONTRACTS WITHOUT CONSENT ,OMRI BEN SAHAR,VOL 52 ,PAGE -1870
Wednesday 3 September 2014
Indian judiciary .A basic introduction
Indian
judiciary .A basic introduction
Indian judiciary is one of the oldest legal systems , a continuation of the
British legal system established by British at mid-19th century
based on Common Law system. The constitution of India is the supreme legal
document of the country.
In India, we
have an independent and integrated judicial system. Unlike other federations,
India has a single and unified judicial system for the entire country. There is
Supreme Court at the apex level, High Courts at the State level and further
below are subordinate courts.
There are
different levels and different norms for appointment to different levels of
Judiciary . According to constitution of India, Chapter VI of Section VI deals
with the Subordinate Judiciary.
Article 233 of
the Constitution of India states that-
Appointment of district judges
(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and
promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the
State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation
to such State.
(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of
the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has
been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended
by the High Court for appointment.
In matters of
recruitment of other persons to judicial service other than District Judges
,the power to make appointments is conferred on the Governor in accordance with
State Public Service Commission and High court of that particular state
According to Article 234 of the Constitution of India.
In 1993, in what is popularly known as the
“Advocates On Record” case, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme
Court ruled that the statute had given the power and primacy of appointments of
judges to the judiciary to insulate it from executive or legislative control
and to ensure its absolute independence. The bench had given the ruling on a
petition filed by the Advocates on Record Association, relating to disputes on
transfer and appointments of judges.
Which till now
was known as the collegium system in India.The process under which Judges were
choose till now was In the high courts, the process is initiated by the
respective chief justices. In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India
(CJI) takes the initiative. The final decision is taken by five Supreme Court
judges, including the CJI.
A person should
have practised at least 10 years as a lawyer to become a high court judge. The
chief justice of the high court, with the help of two other senior-most judges,
draws up a panel of prospective candidates. There is no system of public
intimation or advertisements eliciting applications for the posts. After
examining the credentials of the judges on factors such as competence and
integrity and state intelligence inputs, the high court chief justice forwards
the names of the prospective judges to the CJI for confirmation.
The CJI consults
the collegium of four other senior-most judges of the apex court. The CJI and
the collegium can approve or reject the names.
If the collegium
approves the names, they are sent to the President of India through the Union
government for appointments.
Supreme Court
judges are appointed from among the chief justices of the various high courts
or the senior-most presiding judges of the high courts.
The Supreme
Court has the prerogative of appointing prominent lawyers with over 10 years’
experience as a judge of the apex court. Justice Santosh Hegde and Justice
Kuldeep Singh (both have retired) were appointed to the Supreme Court directly
from the bar where they were practising.
The Judicial
Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 passed in the Lok Sabha on 13-8-2014
provides for setting up of a six-member National Judicial Commission to select
and recommend judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court removing the
collegium system in India.
The training of
newly inducted judicial officers of subordinate courts generally happens in
their respective state Judicial Academies for a period comprising of 9 to 12
months varies from state to state. They have institutional training, practical
training and field training respectively.
India also has
National judicial Academy situated in Bhopal established on August 17 ,1993. The
National Judicial Education Strategy (NJES) was established by the Institute in
September, 2006, as a national level system for judicial education, with which
it hopes to achieve its objectives in technical education. The
institute offers 6 types of programmes to its three categories of candidates,
High Court Justices, District Judiciaries and State Judicial Academics.
The vision of
NJES is "Judicial education enhances the delivery of Timely Justice”.As
stated in the National Judicial Training Strategy the national judicial
education system includes (i) common aims, objects and methodologies as set out
in the National Judicial Education Strategy; (ii) a System for Needs Assessment
and Coordinated Calendar Development; (iii) System for Coordination and
Cooperation amongst SJAs inter-se and NJA in Curriculum Development, Knowledge
generation/knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Management; Sharing of Materials and
Resource persons; and Library and Web Resources; (iv) Coordination of Delivery
of Judicial Education and Impact/Quality evaluation; (v) Institutional
Framework for Coordination Amongst State and National Judicial Academies; and
(vi) A Framework for Discussing and Addressing Common Institutional and
Financial Issues.
The Promotion of
Judicial officers in subordinate courts
depends upon A.C.R (Confidential Report)
given by their respective District Judge to the High Courts. Merit cum
seniority is also seen .Integrity is also seen as an important criteria for
promotion of judicial officers .
Regarding
elevation of High court Justice to Chief Justice of High Court or to Supreme
court is totally taken by Supreme Court Collegium which is then approved by the
Central Government. Any dissent note submitted by any Judge to the Centre
regarding the elevation of a judge is returned by the Centre for further
consideration.
Friday 18 April 2014
5 Terrifying Ways Police Can Legally Screw You Over
Although Hollywood likes to tell us otherwise, being a cop is far from Lethal Weapon-style no-holds-barred crime solving. Real police officers operate under a thick book full of rules and regulations intended to protect the rights of people like you.
It would be easy, then, to assume that you're safe from getting screwed over as long as you obey the law, or at least keep your crimes minor and private. You'd be wrong. In America, the courts have again and again given the police all sorts of leeway to royally screw up your life for almost no reason at all. It's just that most of you haven't been unlucky enough to find out that the police can legally ...
Strip searching is not in vogue these days. Ten states have made strip searching prisoners downright illegal, and even the federal government -- the people who are generally cool with stuff like Guantanamo -- looks down on it. This is because strip searches are a slippery slope at best: They are both humiliating and a potentially massive violation of human rights, to the point where they can cause diplomatic scandals. And they can be done to you at any time, for the tiniest misdemeanors that may or may not have happened at all. And there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.
Take the case of Albert Florence, the last guy you'd imagine getting shit from the cops: As a happily married family man with a spotless record, he was the definition of an average, non-threatening middle-class dude. This did little to save him from the long, overly grabby hand of justice when a cop pulled him and his wife (who was driving) over for speeding ... and promptly arrested Florence. Their computer said he had an unpaid fine from seven years ago, and thus he had an arrest warrant on his ass. So, off to jail he went, where they kept him locked away for a full week.
Florence's only entertainment in the strange pit of despair his life had suddenly become were the two full-on strip searches he had to go through, complete with the whole "lift your balls in front of observers and cough" experience. Keep in mind that this was just a dude with an unpaid ticket. He wasn't a violent offender or a likely connoisseur in the fine art of rectal smuggling. There was literally no reason to put him through a strip search or, for that matter, throw him in jail, because in reality Albert Florence had no unpaid fines whatsoever. He had totally paid that shit years ago, and he had a receipt to prove it. It was just an administrative error.
Jail time interspersed with liberal stripping and nut sack-swinging search action did not make a fan out of Florence, who took that shit to court the second he was released. However, as the Supreme Court was happy to point out, the judicial system is completely cool with fondling minor offenders, even ones that turn out not to be offenders at all.
Think about all the stuff you have on your cellphone: your text messages, a complete list of everyone you know, a complete log of every time you contacted them, photos of yourself and everyone you know ... hell, just glance at a person's phone and every last speck of their privacy is gone. You know everything. Law enforcement is well aware of this, and as such treats your phone with the utmost respect, by which we mean they're totally allowed to grab your phone mid-sexting and start browsing through your impressive collection of dick pics any time they feel like it.
"Plus, what's that, a video of this very arrest? Whoops, deleted."
Like everything in today's America -- from quality television to ridiculous dentist bills -- it all started with a meth dealer. Abel Flores-Lopez was your everyday wannabe Heisenberg, pushing methamphetamine to the hardworking souls of Indiana. Only he wasn't too subtle about his work -- a police informant heard him gossiping on his phone about where he was going to sell his latest batch. The informant went straight to the cops, who swooped right in, arresting Flores-Lopez and a customer. For evidence, they took his phone and, with no search warrant whatsoever, rifled through its contents, checking the call history to make sure the time matched the informant's testimony, which it did.
Flores-Lopez appealed his arrest, arguing that the cops had no right to rummage through his private phone and thus had obtained the evidence illegally. After all, in the pre-cellphone era, the police would certainly need a warrant to search your phone records or look through your mail. Why would that change now that all of the same information happened to be stored in electronic form on one handy pocket device? The fact that this personal information is easier to access means it needs more legal protection, not less.
"But your honor, the government has already stolen all that information anyway!"
But Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed -- he promptly shot down the appeal and ruled that "containers" found on someone can be searched during arrest, comparing a cellphone to a diary. In other news, the cops can apparently snatch your diary whenever they feel like it.
The Obama administration has since sided with the judge, specifically recommending that the Supreme Court rule in favor of warrantless cellphone searches in future proceedings. But hey, you don't have anything on your phone you don't want strangers to see, right?
"Just a couple spam texts and my Snake score."
"Not me!" you say, "I keep that stuff on my laptop at home!" Well, guess what else the cops don't need a warrant to do ...
#3. Confiscate Your Laptop
If there's one piece of personal property that law enforcement absolutely cannot touch without a ton of paperwork, it's got to be your computer. Movies confirm that the bad guys' mainframe can only be accessed through cunning plans involving a full team of agents and one eccentric computer geek. Even if you're running a drug cartel or actively researching weird shit about the leaders of the free world, the government can't go searching through your personal files without a shitload of probable cause.
Unless you attempt to cross a border. In that case, your laptop is now theirs, if they want it.
No normal rules apply at the border.
Pascal Abidor, a major in Islamic studies, was traveling between New York and Canada when the Border Patrol yanked him off the train, locked him up, and interrogated him about why he felt the need to be so Muslimy about everything. While this was going on, his laptop was taken and searched, and they found something so filthy and un-American that they needed 11 more days to comb through it. The compromising material that gave them this right was a bunch of Islamic pictures, something clearly only a terrorist would possess. Or, you know, a grad student majoring in Islamic studies.
Abidor was eventually released, and he showed his appreciation by immediately suing the government, because come on. He had some unexpected backup, too: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Press Photographers Association also filed suit, recognizing that both professions would be royally fucked if a policy of "let's confiscate every laptop with weird pictures when their owners cross borders" took hold. Mutual interests make for weird orgies sometimes.
Sadly, none of that swayed Judge Edward R. Korman of New York's Eastern District Federal Court, who squashed the suit. According to him, the federal government doesn't need a reason to search our computers at the border, and we shouldn't worry about it because those searches are, like, totally super rare anyway. And surely they'll stay rare, now that the courts have said that government agents can do it whenever they want, with impunity. That's how it works, right?
Sadly, none of that swayed Judge Edward R. Korman of New York's Eastern District Federal Court, who squashed the suit. According to him, the federal government doesn't need a reason to search our computers at the border, and we shouldn't worry about it because those searches are, like, totally super rare anyway. And surely they'll stay rare, now that the courts have said that government agents can do it whenever they want, with impunity. That's how it works, right?
Sadly, none of that swayed Judge Edward R. Korman of New York's Eastern District Federal Court, who squashed the suit. According to him, the federal government doesn't need a reason to search our computers at the border, and we shouldn't worry about it because those searches are, like, totally super rare anyway. And surely they'll stay rare, now that the courts have said that government agents can do it whenever they want, with impunity. That's how it works, right?
2.Search your boats
The greatest thing about boats is a distinct feeling of invincibility. You're free to sail the seas to wherever your vices are tolerated. You're Boat-Man, master of the universe! Hahaha! Aaaahahahahaha! Wait, hold on. Is that a Coast Guard ship rolling up on your starboard side and yelling something about a boarding? They'd better have one of those waterproof sea warrants, baby!
Or at least a kickass pirate bounty hunter license.
As free as you might be in international waters, good luck getting there if the officials feel they don't like your stupid face. It turns out that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in America's waters. As far as the law is concerned, authorities can freely swoop down, search your ship, and (possibly) keelhaul your drunken guests at any time they damn well feel like it, without any reason or obligation to explain why.
This little legal curiosity came to light back in 1980, when the Coast Guard stopped a sailboat called the Henry Morgan II because it had been shaken up by a passing ship's wake, and they wanted to make sure everyone was all right. There was no suspicion of any crime, no probable cause -- it was purely a safety check. However, they were greeted by an overwhelming smell of marijuana, and further investigation indeed revealed a couple of bales of the stuff. The people on board were arrested and charged with smuggling drugs.
"If only there was some way to mask scents on a boat with something equally smelly ..."
The culprits took it to court, going as far as the Supreme Court, and claimed that there was no reasonable suspicion for the Coast Guard to search the boat. The Supreme Court listened politely and laughed the smuggler out of the building to the tune of a 6-3 vote, citing a ruling that goes all the way back to the very first Congress as precedent. Yes, although we'll probably never know what America's founders thought about universal health care, they've made themselves pretty damn clear when it comes to privacy on boats: There's no such thing. Hey, if you didn't want the authorities watching you do it, you should have done it on land!
The only problem is, on land it's still pretty easy for police to ...
#1. Barge into Your House
Let's say you find the police at your door. Maybe the neighbors called them because of the strange sounds from your house, or maybe they just popped by to marvel at your glorious abs. Regardless of the reason, you feel safe. Countless TV shows have taught you that cops are like vampires in this particular regard: Unless you invite them in, they're powerless. Without a warrant, the doorstep is where they stop.
"How about just a peek? Come on, don't be a dick."
This makes it all the more surprising to you when the officers on your porch look at each other with a "Hey, did you hear that?" expression on their faces and walk right in without a second thought. "But where's your warrgblblblaargh," you inquire, your voice slightly muffled by the carpet that is suddenly in your mouth as they cuff you.
The officers who just mistook the sounds of your Looney Tunes/Cthulhu Rule 34 cartoon for a war zone were legally allowed to barge in because they invoked exigent circumstances, an emergency regulation that permits law enforcement officers to enter a building without a warrant. They're allowed to do it as long as they think evidence is about to be destroyed, someone's in danger, or a suspect is fleeing. And please note that the key phrase is "if they think" here: Although exigent circumstances are only meant to eliminate inconvenient "Hold on, I'll go get a warrant so I can come inside and stop that dude from stabbing you" situations, there's a lot of wiggle room for the arrest-minded officer.
For example, a police dog may detect that you're smuggling cats.
Just ask Hollis King, a Kentucky resident who ended up with a 10-year prison sentence for smoking pot in 2005. The police were chasing a coke dealer in King's neighborhood when they randomly passed his place and noticed the smell of weed wafting out. King had been enjoying a quiet 420 with a few friends, which prompted the officers -- who had missed their original culprit and were in full "We'll take any damned drug arrest we can get" mode -- to start banging on his door, yelling "Police!"
When the people inside made a ruckus (as drug-smoking people interrupted by cops banging at the door are wont to do), the officers immediately assumed evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door right the fuck in, arresting Hollis and his friends for possession of marijuana and, ironically enough, cocaine.
There were also three murders and 15 robberies in town that night, but the Lexington police clearly had their hands full.
Unsurprisingly, King appealed, claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Although the Kentucky Supreme Court did agree with him, the U.S. Supreme Court overwhelmingly disagreed, ruling 8-1 in favor of the Kentucky cops and calling the search entirely lawful. But really, isn't it worth it so that you can rest easy knowing that none of your neighbors are quietly smoking weed in their living rooms? This is just the price we have to pay.
Saturday 5 April 2014
Top 3 Ridiculously Common Science Myths
The Myth: Evolution causes something to go from “lower” to “higher”
While it is a fact that natural selection weeds out unhealthy genes from the gene pool, there are many cases where an imperfect organism has survived. Some examples of this are fungi, sharks, crayfish, and mosses – these have all remained essentially the same over a great period of time. These organisms are all sufficiently adapted to their environment to survive without improvement.
Other taxa have changed a lot, but not necessarily for the better. Some creatures have had their environments changed and their adaptations may not be as well suited to their new situation. Fitness is linked to their environment, not to progress.
Humans Pop In Space
The Myth: When exposed to the vacuum of space, the human body pops
This myth is the result of science fiction movies which use it to add excitement or drama to the plot. In fact, a human can survive for 15 – 30 seconds in outer space as long as they breathe out before the exposure (this prevents the lungs from bursting and sending air into the bloodstream). After 15 or so seconds, the lack of oxygen causes unconsciousness which eventually leads to death by asphyxiation.
Wednesday 2 April 2014
The Terrible Sci-Fi Novels That Started A Worldwide Sex Cult
Around 25,000 people worldwide live a lifestyle based on the badly written series of fantasy novels known as The Gor Chronicles. In the books, women are treated as “lowly beasts for men to do with as they see fit,” and followers do the same. Women live as slaves, and go so far as to be branded like cattle. One English Master was arrested when his neighbors believed his slaves had been genuinely kidnapped. While many Goreans claim their lifestyle is safe and consensual, it’s been linked to cases of kidnapping and torture. As for the author, he claims to “know nothing” about the thousands of people that based their entire existence on his work.
John Norman’s Gor novels are set on a planet not dissimilar to Earth. The books tell of an insectoid race of super-intelligent beings that control the planet and have created a society of human beings they transplanted from Earth. There, they have formed a society that most people would consider highly distasteful.
While the books began as adventure stories, they soon became “extremely sexist, sadomasochistic pornography involving the ritual humiliation of women” as described by the Encyclopedia of Fantasy. In Gorean society, women are kept as slaves and are whipped, chained, and beaten accordingly. This is portrayed as an ideal society, and any feminist Earth women that end up on Gor soon realize that being a slave owned by men is the role they truly desire in life.
The women slaves are known as kajira, a moniker that has been adopted by the thousands of women that have submitted to be “lowly beasts for men to do with as they see fit,” as the books describe them. Kajira are branded in the books, and many women follow suit in real life.
This wince-inducing photo series shows a Gorean slave named Khaos Wolfcat having a stylized “K” burned into her leg (the letter can be seen in the photo above, part of Marcus J. Ranum’s “The Gor Project”). The process uses metal that’s been heated with a blowtorch being pressed into the skin, 18 times. It’s also possible see the slave collar around her neck, and the slave bells around her ankle that jingle as a constant, soothing reminder of her place.
While adherents claim their lifestyle is entirely consensual, they’ve attracted plenty of controversy. A man named John Hauff Jr. kidnapped a woman, and claimed he was a Gorean master. The woman was a sex worker, and Hauff had agreed to pay her $100 to let him use a sex toy on her. On the way to his house he told her all about the Gor books, and when they arrived Hauff put a collar on her before beginning torturing her with electrodes for several hours. When he was arrested, police found the Gor books in Hauff’s house, and the detective included a quote from the first Gor novel in his report: “The Perfect Bondage is said to be one man and one woman, the complete master, the complete slave, ideal and perfect for each other’s needs.”
In 2006, a Gorean slave master named Lee Thompson came to the attention of police in Teesside, England. Relatives of a 29-year-old Canadian woman advised that she was being held against her will. The father of an 18-year-old also contacted police, but they found the young man was there of his own will and they could do nothing. He gained notoriety and press attention after parading his slaves around town on a leash.
At the time, Thompson said “We don’t hurt anyone, we don’t damage anyone, everyone’s consensual.” The press coverage, however, caught the attention of one of Thompson’s former slaves, and in 2013 he confessed to forcing her to have sex with other men against her will in order to make money.
John Norman himself has little to do with the subculture he created. “I know nothing about ‘real-life Gorean slavery among some people in the BDSM community,’ ” he said in an interview, “BDSM is not Gorean. If something is not beautiful, it is not Gorean.” He adds, “women are wonderful, and precious. It is a delight to own one; why would one hurt her?”
Of course, a slave should be aware that she will be disciplined physically if she is “not pleasing.” To avoid this, “she need only be obedient, submissive, and found pleasing, wholly, and in all ways.” This ownership should be done out of love, and not be confused with cruelty, which is a different thing altogether.
Sunday 23 March 2014
ANARCHY
Recent leaks by Edward Snowden has shown us how our every move is being watched .This is not particular to U.S.A but all the countries .Putting a blame on U.S.A is wrong .As every country does that , the fact is they have not been caught red handed .
We are drugged to believe in a false sense of security ,patriotism ,liberty and so called freedom .From our childhood we are programmed to go into the straight road and less toward deviant thinking .The soldiers who fight a war for their nation are forgotten people though films are made and much accolade is given to the stars but what about the real ones.The purpose of what we do really is not what we want rather what some want us to do .We are conditioned to believe it.
Lastly, we need an awakening not in the spiritual sense but to see the reality behind all the crap we take everyday.We should remember Governments should fear people , not vice-versa otherwise it is the end of democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)