Comment by middleclick | Hacker News Reader

Comment by middleclick | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why should they? If they had done basic research, they wouldn't even have come up something as asinine as this. Fact: women contribute to farm work as much as men in Punjab: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/in-punjab-women-take-c.... So women are a part of the protest because they are also affected by this. Why even bring this up at all?

> We are talking about areas around Delhi where women and children have much less liberty when compared to other regions of India.

The fact that you wrote this shows how little you know about this. The majority of the farmers protesting are Punjabi farmers. Do you know that in a Punjabi household, women participate in the work equally? This is not like UP or Bihar. Even in religious ceremonies, women participate equally. Don't bring up your own discriminatory customs and think they apply to every other community in India.

Coming back to the Supreme Court, this is the same court that has got its tiny feelings upset over a political satire:

https://scroll.in/latest/985456/contempt-case-against-rachit...

Should I point out the relation between the ex Chief Justice and the ruling party?

You are pretty terrible at this.

There's no need for personal attacks. You have conviniently ignored the link I shared that indicates coercion. While it's great that women actively participate in events in Punjab, a quick glance at the difference between male and female litery rates shows there's some distance to cover. Being better than UP and Bihar isn't exactly an achievement. My comment didn't even specially talk about Punjab. The protests also include people from other states and one of those has a really bad reputation for treatment of household women.

As for the SC, that's what we will get when there are strong rules around Contempt of Court.

I could have done better at the personal attacks but it's hard to tow the line when genuine grievances of peacefully protesting farmers are ignored for months and one negative attack is suddenly all that is talked about. That to me indicates malice and I cannot respond in good faith when that is done.

> a quick glance at the difference between male and female litery rates shows there's some distance to cover.

How is that relevant? You are pulling at straws here. Women work in the fields along with men. Anti-farmer laws affect both men and women, young and old. Supreme Court of India brings it up as if it matters, when it doesn't and clearly ignore the demographics at play, hinting at something without saying it. The literacy rate needs to be worked on but that's not the concern here.

How many people can you coerce to attend protests? Hundreds, probably at most. Not thousands. Some of the people have been protesting in frigid temperatures for months. Do you mean to say they are all paid? That doesn't even make sense and is logistically infeasible.

The Supreme Court allows seems to consider freedom of expression differently though, when it comes to granting bails to journalists in favour of the government versus cartoons that suggest contempt of court.

So no, I don't trust them to make the right call. Farmers should continue peacefully protesting, as is their fundamental right.

Notice in all this, you haven't said anything about: the right of farmers to protest and what they are protesting about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com