5 ms·

I do kind of get the argument that this creates a category of crime that only indians can be convicted (or even accused) of. At least, nobody is openly saying

I do kind of get the argument that this creates a category of crime that only indians can be convicted (or even accused) of. At least, nobody is openly saying that they're opposing the law because they want to do caste discrimination but if someone wants to be taken seriously they need to give a good answer for how they'll be addressing it.

mkoubaa 3y ago
I get that argument but have no sympathy for it whatsoever
superfrank 3y ago
Does it? I couldn't find details in the article (I just skimmed it though), but what if a non-Indian with almost no understanding of the caste system wakes up and decides they want to take their bigotry to the next level and starts discriminating based on caste just for the hell of it? Wouldn't they still be guilty under this law?
- borski 3y ago
  Of course; but that’s a pretty big leap. It is very unlikely that some non-Indian bigot decides to study up on castes and begin discriminating on their basis. On the other hand, it is a very short leap that someone who is Indian might. Thus, in reality Indians are much more likely to break this law.
  - superfrank 3y ago
    1. There are plenty of laws that, in practice, only affect certain groups. There are plenty of laws around reproductive rights and sexual assault that are written in a way that they effectively target only one gender. Certain professions such as doctors and lawyers have regulations around what they can and cannot do because of their professions. Certain taxes effectively target only certain socio-economic classes. 2. Opponents of this say that it only targets a certain group of people, but for the exact same reasons, it also only protects one group of people.
    - borski 3y ago
      To be clear, I agree with you. I just disagree with the idea that it doesn't target a specific group / help a specific group. It does. I also don't see anything wrong with that.
amluto 3y ago
You could absolutely accuse or convict a non-Indian of caste discrimination. It might be unlikely, but not impossible. For example, I doubt most non-Indian Americans could competently discriminate on the basis of caste, but there is moderately compelling evidence that quite a few Californian companies do so.
boxed 3y ago
Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and Nepalese.
- catlover76 3y ago
  Not really; the argument would be that it creates a crime only Hindus can be accused of. A Muslim or Christian or Sikh Indian, Pakistani, etc., would not be targets for caste discrimination lawsuits, under the logic. Of course, as a legal matter, that's not true; anyone could be accused of caste discrimination if the law passes, whatever their religion, race, or national origin.
  - catgary 3y ago
    I wonder if they’re going to challenge it based on freedom of religion (similar to Christianity and discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation).
    - catlover76 3y ago
      That would certainly be interesting. Having left law to once again be a software engineer, I almost never find myself curious about the development of caselaw, but I think I'd follow that case lol
  - eldaisfish 3y ago
    This is wrong and is a flawed understanding of how caste works in the indian subcontinent. Every single brown person has a caste. They may be unaware of it (in which case they are likely not lower caste) or not acknowledge it but it definitely exists. It certainly exists among muslims, sikhs and christians in the indian subcontinent. In those cases, religion is the perceived identity to the outsider but caste is right there, under the surface. Hinduism codified and forms the basis for the caste system but every other religion evolved later or was forced upon people who already had caste.
    - catlover76 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
astrobe_ 3y ago
If as a right-handed person I discriminate against left-handed persons, I also both create yet another silly criteria for discrimination and a crime ex nihilo, and I am the only one to blame for that - not the cop that arrests me, nor the judge that correctly finds me guilty, nor the law itself as it follows the principles the universal declaration of human rights (which was both voted by the US and India, BTW). The argument is fallacious.
Shawnj2 3y ago
Banning discrimination based on ancestry, ethnicity, and religion should ban the type of thing caste discrimination is.

mkoubaa 3y ago

I get that argument but have no sympathy for it whatsoever

superfrank 3y ago

Does it? I couldn't find details in the article (I just skimmed it though), but what if a non-Indian with almost no understanding of the caste system wakes up and decides they want to take their bigotry to the next level and starts discriminating based on caste just for the hell of it? Wouldn't they still be guilty under this law?

borski 3y ago
Of course; but that’s a pretty big leap. It is very unlikely that some non-Indian bigot decides to study up on castes and begin discriminating on their basis. On the other hand, it is a very short leap that someone who is Indian might. Thus, in reality Indians are much more likely to break this law.
- superfrank 3y ago
  1. There are plenty of laws that, in practice, only affect certain groups. There are plenty of laws around reproductive rights and sexual assault that are written in a way that they effectively target only one gender. Certain professions such as doctors and lawyers have regulations around what they can and cannot do because of their professions. Certain taxes effectively target only certain socio-economic classes. 2. Opponents of this say that it only targets a certain group of people, but for the exact same reasons, it also only protects one group of people.
  - borski 3y ago
    To be clear, I agree with you. I just disagree with the idea that it doesn't target a specific group / help a specific group. It does. I also don't see anything wrong with that.

amluto 3y ago

You could absolutely accuse or convict a non-Indian of caste discrimination. It might be unlikely, but not impossible. For example, I doubt most non-Indian Americans could competently discriminate on the basis of caste, but there is moderately compelling evidence that quite a few Californian companies do so.

boxed 3y ago

Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and Nepalese.

catlover76 3y ago
Not really; the argument would be that it creates a crime only Hindus can be accused of. A Muslim or Christian or Sikh Indian, Pakistani, etc., would not be targets for caste discrimination lawsuits, under the logic. Of course, as a legal matter, that's not true; anyone could be accused of caste discrimination if the law passes, whatever their religion, race, or national origin.
- catgary 3y ago
  I wonder if they’re going to challenge it based on freedom of religion (similar to Christianity and discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation).
  - catlover76 3y ago
    That would certainly be interesting. Having left law to once again be a software engineer, I almost never find myself curious about the development of caselaw, but I think I'd follow that case lol
- eldaisfish 3y ago
  This is wrong and is a flawed understanding of how caste works in the indian subcontinent. Every single brown person has a caste. They may be unaware of it (in which case they are likely not lower caste) or not acknowledge it but it definitely exists. It certainly exists among muslims, sikhs and christians in the indian subcontinent. In those cases, religion is the perceived identity to the outsider but caste is right there, under the surface. Hinduism codified and forms the basis for the caste system but every other religion evolved later or was forced upon people who already had caste.
  - catlover76 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

astrobe_ 3y ago

If as a right-handed person I discriminate against left-handed persons, I also both create yet another silly criteria for discrimination and a crime ex nihilo, and I am the only one to blame for that - not the cop that arrests me, nor the judge that correctly finds me guilty, nor the law itself as it follows the principles the universal declaration of human rights (which was both voted by the US and India, BTW). The argument is fallacious.

Shawnj2 3y ago

Banning discrimination based on ancestry, ethnicity, and religion should ban the type of thing caste discrimination is.