info
Google Группы больше не поддерживают новые публикации и подписки в сети Usenet. Опубликованный ранее контент останется доступен.
Dismiss
'Rape is a global issue, then why is only India in the spotlight' - by Meenakshi Lekhi
1 просмотр
Перейти к первому непрочитанному сообщению
Dr. Jai Maharaj
10 мар. 2015 г., 14:16:4710.03.2015
–
Rape is a global issue, then why is only India in the
spotlight: BJP's Meenakshi Lekhi
By Meenakshi Lekhi
The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
[Caption] BJP's Meenakshi Lekhi reacts to the controversy
over the ban on the Nirbhaya documentary.
The Nirbhaya incident was a heinous and utterly
condemnable crime. We, as a society, have anything but
shied away from talking about it, protesting against it,
writing about it and acting on it. We have been working
so hard to make sure that the 'mindset change' that our
society has spoken of innumerable times is actually put
into action. I have personally invested a lot to fight
for the rights of women over the span of my professional
career. I had worked hard with my party to draft robust
recommendations, more than seventy percent of which were
accepted and incorporated, to ensure change and empower
women. Our MPs stood shoulder to shoulder across party
lines in Parliament, at a time of political uncertainty,
to ensure that this important change was brought about in
our system after the Nirbhaya incident.
Given this, I ask you to stop and think why an objection
should have been raised against this documentary. We have
several documentaries and films depicting the status of
women in India, incidents of violence and the post-
Nirbhaya scenario but none of these documentaries needed
to be stalled.
But here is why this particular documentary has been
nothing but a deceitful exercise from the very start.
Instead of sticking to its stated objective of a social
purpose, this documentary has taken on an underhand
commercial sheen. The filmmakers had expressly taken
permission for social research but eventually took it for
broadcast on BBC 4 which by no stretch of imagination can
be called a social research platform. Why did the
filmmakers hesitate to reveal these intentions when they
took permission from the Indian government if their
motive was not to be deceitful?
Secondly, the filmmakers had signed a legal undertaking
to submit their unedited footage to the authorities but
this was not done. Despite the same being conveyed by the
Government and the jail authorities, they further flouted
and disrespected our law by releasing the documentary to
the Indian audience, without so much so as a warning of
the explicit and adult nature of the content, and not
even to a targeted audience for 'social research', as
they had claimed. Was your intention truly to posit a
social agenda or was it only a sick manipulation for
commercial gain?
A restraining order was issued pending investigation of
the issue and instead of respecting the Government that
gave you permission, you go against this order, prepone
the release and use the ban to further malign the
reputation of the country! The law also prevents you from
taking the name of the victim but, like every other
count, you chose to ignore and disrespect our law.
Somewhere a line had to be drawn against such deceit and
manipulation. With such obvious commercial tactics, I
fail to see when this self-proclaimed 'social purpose'
will kick in.
The Government had given you the liberty to film here and
you return this favour by utterly misusing this liberty
and show absolute contempt for the law of the land. What
choice was there but to ban the film eventually in light
of the above? The same laws would have applied to anyone
who made a documentary here and there is no reason why it
should be any different for a foreigner who agreed to
submit to our jurisdiction and laws, albeit deceitfully.
If this documentary was supposed to be fair, shouldn't
the action taken by our society have also been shown as a
'mirror' to who we are? If you come here with pre-
conceived notions of a sick society, it becomes hard to
look beyond those coloured thoughts to notice that our
law is so progressive and protective that a woman's
statement in a rape case is sufficient for prosecution
under rape. This is how far we have advanced in tackling
this problem unlike many other countries where this level
of indignation is not raised in society for sexual
violence against women. In other countries, rape
incidences do not even make it to the local or national
news. However, in the past two years, India has seen
unusual international coverage of every single incident.
In other countries, not even a handful of people have
turned around, like we did, to gain justice in the case
of Nirbhaya.
While we froth about the rapes happening in India, I
would like to point out that rape and violence against
women is a deep-rooted issue from Washington to Bogota to
London. India has a conviction rate of 41.5% whereas in
other 'progressive' countries such as the UK it is as low
as 26.5%. What this shows is that not enough is being
done for the protection of women against abuses across
the world. It is all the more surprising then why
international media outlets have not reported this skew
and higher incidence of rapes closer to their own home.
Why are they shying away from reporting the brutal rapes,
abuse of women and serial killings that are happening in
the western countries at the same time and with much
greater frequency than in India?
The hypocrisy in all this is that the BBC does not have
to go very far from its homestead to find a story of
sexual abuse. Its former host Jimmy Savile has been
accused of hideous sexual crimes but shockingly with all
its tall claims of a high-handed moral agenda, it would
appear that BBC has made no such documentary explaining
the mind of Jimmy Savile despite having had him so close
at hand for so many years. In fact, when BBC's competitor
ITV finally did air an exposure documentary on Savile
they chose to do it at a late night 11.15 pm slot with
caution and responsibility.
If BBC was so intent on showing the film, why is it that
they could not at least show the same responsibility in
broadcasting it to the Indian masses? It has only been
impertinent, defiant of Indian law and absolutely
insistent on showing a rape that occurred in India. This
gives all the more reason to think that this is not about
respect and good intentions but the exact opposite - the
only intention is to show a growing India in a bad light.
Has BBC also forgotten about the more recent Rotherham
case involving the brutal sexual exploitation of 1,400
children who suffered for many long years? What has
stopped the righteous BBC or the director of the Nirbhaya
documentary from covering this with as much panache and
holding up a 'mirror' to society in this case? Or was it
that the director did not receive permission in her own
society to cover it? The director was quick to call our
society 'sick'. But I fail to understand how this
discriminatory attitude can continue when there are more
sexual crimes happening in her own country and with a
much lower conviction rate.
I had invested personally in ensuring that the high court
allowed the press to cover the Nirbhaya trial and need
not be told twice about how important it is to get the
message out to society. Rest assured, I know that this
can be done without contravening the law if it is done
with the right intention. But you cannot do it with
suspect intentions that do not pass the test in your own
home. It is with complete understanding that we are in
the internet age where the material could have been
accessed despite a ban that the Parliament still stood
its ground to show its sense of morality and contempt for
such violation of the Indian law and journalistic ethics.
There is no moral high ground to be taken when you cross
that line.
This documentary has created a false impression of
demonising the Indian man and dishing us out as a
perverted society. That is not who we are. Who we are is
a society that came out in unprecedented numbers to
protest the commission of a brutal rape - unprecedented
because one will be hard-pressed to find a situation of
outrage as vociferous and as vast as the one that
happened in India in any other part of the world for a
case of rape. Who we are is a society that pushed a
lacklustre government to enact and implement a criminal
amendment law in 2013 to award the most stringent
punishment of the land - the death penalty.
Who we are is a society that celebrates the courage and
strength of the woman each year on December 16 to remind
ourselves of the promise that we have made to fight
against violence against women. We are growing as a
country and recognise that it is not only women who are
in this fight but that men also hold an equally important
place in campaigning alongside us. We don't need to
invoke our mothers, sisters and wives or even daughters
to engender that respect. BBC should consider making use
of such a campaign on its home ground where the problem
is more acute than setting out to paint India in a bad
light.
This has become like the ubiquitous Che Guevara t-shirt
you find in markets everywhere - the seller does not know
what he is selling, the buyer does not know what he is
buying and the producer does not know what he is
producing. But everybody must continue on unthinkingly.
It appears that this film is also supposed to be like a
Che Guevara t-shirt. But no matter, one pertinent
question will still be raised - when the problem of rape
is of the world at large, why is only India being covered
globally?
(Meenakshi Lekhi is BJP spokesperson)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rape-is-a-global-issue-then-why-is-only-India-in-the-spotlight-BJPs-Meenakshi-Lekhi/articleshow/46513189.cms
More at:
The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
spotlight: BJP's Meenakshi Lekhi
By Meenakshi Lekhi
The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
[Caption] BJP's Meenakshi Lekhi reacts to the controversy
over the ban on the Nirbhaya documentary.
The Nirbhaya incident was a heinous and utterly
condemnable crime. We, as a society, have anything but
shied away from talking about it, protesting against it,
writing about it and acting on it. We have been working
so hard to make sure that the 'mindset change' that our
society has spoken of innumerable times is actually put
into action. I have personally invested a lot to fight
for the rights of women over the span of my professional
career. I had worked hard with my party to draft robust
recommendations, more than seventy percent of which were
accepted and incorporated, to ensure change and empower
women. Our MPs stood shoulder to shoulder across party
lines in Parliament, at a time of political uncertainty,
to ensure that this important change was brought about in
our system after the Nirbhaya incident.
Given this, I ask you to stop and think why an objection
should have been raised against this documentary. We have
several documentaries and films depicting the status of
women in India, incidents of violence and the post-
Nirbhaya scenario but none of these documentaries needed
to be stalled.
But here is why this particular documentary has been
nothing but a deceitful exercise from the very start.
Instead of sticking to its stated objective of a social
purpose, this documentary has taken on an underhand
commercial sheen. The filmmakers had expressly taken
permission for social research but eventually took it for
broadcast on BBC 4 which by no stretch of imagination can
be called a social research platform. Why did the
filmmakers hesitate to reveal these intentions when they
took permission from the Indian government if their
motive was not to be deceitful?
Secondly, the filmmakers had signed a legal undertaking
to submit their unedited footage to the authorities but
this was not done. Despite the same being conveyed by the
Government and the jail authorities, they further flouted
and disrespected our law by releasing the documentary to
the Indian audience, without so much so as a warning of
the explicit and adult nature of the content, and not
even to a targeted audience for 'social research', as
they had claimed. Was your intention truly to posit a
social agenda or was it only a sick manipulation for
commercial gain?
A restraining order was issued pending investigation of
the issue and instead of respecting the Government that
gave you permission, you go against this order, prepone
the release and use the ban to further malign the
reputation of the country! The law also prevents you from
taking the name of the victim but, like every other
count, you chose to ignore and disrespect our law.
Somewhere a line had to be drawn against such deceit and
manipulation. With such obvious commercial tactics, I
fail to see when this self-proclaimed 'social purpose'
will kick in.
The Government had given you the liberty to film here and
you return this favour by utterly misusing this liberty
and show absolute contempt for the law of the land. What
choice was there but to ban the film eventually in light
of the above? The same laws would have applied to anyone
who made a documentary here and there is no reason why it
should be any different for a foreigner who agreed to
submit to our jurisdiction and laws, albeit deceitfully.
If this documentary was supposed to be fair, shouldn't
the action taken by our society have also been shown as a
'mirror' to who we are? If you come here with pre-
conceived notions of a sick society, it becomes hard to
look beyond those coloured thoughts to notice that our
law is so progressive and protective that a woman's
statement in a rape case is sufficient for prosecution
under rape. This is how far we have advanced in tackling
this problem unlike many other countries where this level
of indignation is not raised in society for sexual
violence against women. In other countries, rape
incidences do not even make it to the local or national
news. However, in the past two years, India has seen
unusual international coverage of every single incident.
In other countries, not even a handful of people have
turned around, like we did, to gain justice in the case
of Nirbhaya.
While we froth about the rapes happening in India, I
would like to point out that rape and violence against
women is a deep-rooted issue from Washington to Bogota to
London. India has a conviction rate of 41.5% whereas in
other 'progressive' countries such as the UK it is as low
as 26.5%. What this shows is that not enough is being
done for the protection of women against abuses across
the world. It is all the more surprising then why
international media outlets have not reported this skew
and higher incidence of rapes closer to their own home.
Why are they shying away from reporting the brutal rapes,
abuse of women and serial killings that are happening in
the western countries at the same time and with much
greater frequency than in India?
The hypocrisy in all this is that the BBC does not have
to go very far from its homestead to find a story of
sexual abuse. Its former host Jimmy Savile has been
accused of hideous sexual crimes but shockingly with all
its tall claims of a high-handed moral agenda, it would
appear that BBC has made no such documentary explaining
the mind of Jimmy Savile despite having had him so close
at hand for so many years. In fact, when BBC's competitor
ITV finally did air an exposure documentary on Savile
they chose to do it at a late night 11.15 pm slot with
caution and responsibility.
If BBC was so intent on showing the film, why is it that
they could not at least show the same responsibility in
broadcasting it to the Indian masses? It has only been
impertinent, defiant of Indian law and absolutely
insistent on showing a rape that occurred in India. This
gives all the more reason to think that this is not about
respect and good intentions but the exact opposite - the
only intention is to show a growing India in a bad light.
Has BBC also forgotten about the more recent Rotherham
case involving the brutal sexual exploitation of 1,400
children who suffered for many long years? What has
stopped the righteous BBC or the director of the Nirbhaya
documentary from covering this with as much panache and
holding up a 'mirror' to society in this case? Or was it
that the director did not receive permission in her own
society to cover it? The director was quick to call our
society 'sick'. But I fail to understand how this
discriminatory attitude can continue when there are more
sexual crimes happening in her own country and with a
much lower conviction rate.
I had invested personally in ensuring that the high court
allowed the press to cover the Nirbhaya trial and need
not be told twice about how important it is to get the
message out to society. Rest assured, I know that this
can be done without contravening the law if it is done
with the right intention. But you cannot do it with
suspect intentions that do not pass the test in your own
home. It is with complete understanding that we are in
the internet age where the material could have been
accessed despite a ban that the Parliament still stood
its ground to show its sense of morality and contempt for
such violation of the Indian law and journalistic ethics.
There is no moral high ground to be taken when you cross
that line.
This documentary has created a false impression of
demonising the Indian man and dishing us out as a
perverted society. That is not who we are. Who we are is
a society that came out in unprecedented numbers to
protest the commission of a brutal rape - unprecedented
because one will be hard-pressed to find a situation of
outrage as vociferous and as vast as the one that
happened in India in any other part of the world for a
case of rape. Who we are is a society that pushed a
lacklustre government to enact and implement a criminal
amendment law in 2013 to award the most stringent
punishment of the land - the death penalty.
Who we are is a society that celebrates the courage and
strength of the woman each year on December 16 to remind
ourselves of the promise that we have made to fight
against violence against women. We are growing as a
country and recognise that it is not only women who are
in this fight but that men also hold an equally important
place in campaigning alongside us. We don't need to
invoke our mothers, sisters and wives or even daughters
to engender that respect. BBC should consider making use
of such a campaign on its home ground where the problem
is more acute than setting out to paint India in a bad
light.
This has become like the ubiquitous Che Guevara t-shirt
you find in markets everywhere - the seller does not know
what he is selling, the buyer does not know what he is
buying and the producer does not know what he is
producing. But everybody must continue on unthinkingly.
It appears that this film is also supposed to be like a
Che Guevara t-shirt. But no matter, one pertinent
question will still be raised - when the problem of rape
is of the world at large, why is only India being covered
globally?
(Meenakshi Lekhi is BJP spokesperson)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rape-is-a-global-issue-then-why-is-only-India-in-the-spotlight-BJPs-Meenakshi-Lekhi/articleshow/46513189.cms
More at:
The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
10 мар. 2015 г., 14:52:1810.03.2015
–
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Rape in India - Why it becomes a worldwide story
By Sankrant Sanu, Niti Central, niticentral.com
December 23, 2014
http://www.niticentral.com/2014/12/23/rape-india-becomes-worldwide-story-292683.html?utm_content=buffer94f04&utm_medium=social&utm _source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
By Sankrant Sanu, Niti Central, niticentral.com
December 23, 2014
http://www.niticentral.com/2014/12/23/rape-india-becomes-worldwide-story-292683.html?utm_content=buffer94f04&utm_medium=social&utm _source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Adam Kubias
11 мар. 2015 г., 07:17:5011.03.2015
–
On 2015-03-10 2:16 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Rape is a global issue, then why is only India in the
> spotlight: BJP's Meenakshi Lekhi
Part of it is that it reflects societal acceptance not shared by the
> Rape is a global issue, then why is only India in the
> spotlight: BJP's Meenakshi Lekhi
Western world. In the West, we expect Muslims to beat and rape women,
but India is supposed to be a rising economy. That creates certain
cultural and moral expectations, which are shocking to Western countries.
To me, the fascinating thing about India is how many criminals hold
political office. I don't mean that in the Western sense, but in the
real sense of both real and accused murderers, rapists, etc.
Dex
11 мар. 2015 г., 08:01:4211.03.2015
–
BBC's India's Daughter from airing over there.
On the other hand Hillary Clinton is in the spotlight for using a
personal email account in the Whitehouse, it's possible her presidential
campaign is over because of it. What a silly country America is.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
11 мар. 2015 г., 13:29:1611.03.2015
–
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate
Definition: Number of rape incidents per 100,000 citizens
in different countries. Figures do not take into account
rape incidents that go unreported to the police.
1 - South Africa - 132.4 - 2010
2 - Botswana - 92.9 - 2010
3 - Lesotho - 82.7 - 2009
4 - Swaziland - 77.5 - 2004
5 - Bermuda - 67.3 - 2004
6 - Sweden - 63.5 - 2010
7 - Suriname - 45.2 - 2004
8 - Costa Rica - 36.7 - 2009
9 - Nicaragua - 31.6 - 2010
10 - Grenada - 30.6 - 2010
11 - Australia - 28.6 - 2010
11 - Saint Kitts and Nevis - 28.6 - 2010
13 - Belgium - 27.9 - 2010
14 - United States - 27.3 - 2010
15 - Bolivia - 26.1 - 2010
16 - New Zealand - 25.8 - 2010
17 - Zimbabwe - 25.6 - 2008
17 - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - 25.6 - 2010
19 - Barbados - 24.9 - 2009
20 - Iceland - 24.7 - 2009
21 - Jamaica - 24.4 - 2010
22 - Peru - 23.5 - 2009
23 - The Bahamas - 22.7 - 2010
24 - Norway - 19.2 - 2010
25 - Trinidad and Tobago - 18.5 - 2009
26 - Israel - 17.6 - 2009
27 - France - 16.2 - 2009
28 - Guyana - 15.5 - 2010
29 - Finland - 15.2 - 2010
30 - South Korea - 13.5 - 2004
31 - Chile - 13.3 - 2009
32 - Mexico - 13.2 - 2010
33 - Mongolia - 12.4 - 2010
34 - Luxembourg - 11.9 - 2009
35 - El Salvador - 11 - 2010
35 - Solomon Islands - 11 - 2009
37 - Ecuador - 10.9 - 2006
38 - Ireland - 10.7 - 2010
39 - Austria - 10.4 - 2010
40 - Moldova - 10.3 - 2010
European Union average - 10.19 - 2009
41 - Bangladesh - 9.82 - 2006
42 - Uruguay - 9.8 - 2004
43 - Germany - 9.4 - 2010
44 - Netherlands - 9.2 - 2010
45 - Argentina - 8.5 - 2008
46 - Kazakhstan - 8.4 - 2009
47 - Italy - 7.6 - 2006
47 - Brunei - 7.6 - 2006
49 - Sri Lanka - 7.3 - 2004
50 - Colombia - 6.8 - 2010
51 - Thailand - 6.7 - 2010
51 - Belize - 6.7 - 2010
53 - Oman - 6.6 - 2009
54 - Denmark - 6.4 - 2009
55 - Philippines - 6.3 - 2009
55 - Lithuania - 6.3 - 2010
57 - Estonia - 6 - 2010
57 - Paraguay - 6 - 2006
59 - Kyrgyzstan - 5.9 - 2010
60 - Monaco - 5.7 - 2006
61 - Senegal - 5.6 - 2010
62 - Republic of Macedonia - 5 - 2006
63 - Morocco - 4.8 - 2009
64 - Romania - 4.7 - 2009
64 - Malta - 4.7 - 2009
66 - Bahrain - 4.6 - 2009
66 - Czech Republic - 4.6 - 2009
68 - Kuwait - 4.5 - 2009
69 - Poland - 4.1 - 2010
70 - Portugal - 4 - 2010
71 - Mauritius - 3.9 - 2010
72 - Latvia - 3.5 - 2010
73 - Spain - 3.4 - 2010
73 - Russia - 3.4 - 2010
75 - Croatia - 3.2 - 2010
76 - Slovenia - 3.1 - 2010
77 - Palestine - 3 - 2005
77 - Maldives - 3 - 2009
79 - Sudan - 2.9 - 2009
79 - Guatemala - 2.9 - 2009
81 - Bulgaria - 2.8 - 2010
82 - Singapore - 2.7 - 2006
83 - Slovakia - 2.6 - 2009
84 - Hungary - 2.5 - 2010
84 - Cyprus - 2.5 - 2009
86 - Cameroon - 2.4 - 2008
86 - Algeria - 2.4 - 2008
88 - Belarus - 2.3 - 2009
89 - Kenya - 2.1 - 2009
89 - Uganda - 2.1 - 2010
91 - Jordan - 2 - 2006
92 - Georgia - 1.9 - 2010
92 - Greece - 1.9 - 2010
94 - Montenegro - 1.8 - 2006
94 - Qatar - 1.8 - 2004
94 - India - 1.8 - 2010
97 - Canada - 1.7 - 2010
98 - Hong Kong - 1.6 - 2010
99 - Turkey - 1.5 - 2008
99 - United Arab Emirates - 1.5 - 2006
101 - Sierra Leone - 1.4 - 2009
101 - Ukraine - 1.4 - 2010
103 - Bosnia and Herzegovina - 1.2 - 2010
103 - Andorra - 1.2 - 2010
105 - Guinea - 1 - 2008
105 - Japan - 1 - 2010
107 - Nepal - 0.8 - 2006
107 - Syria - 0.8 - 2008
107 - Yemen - 0.8 - 2009
110 - Serbia - 0.7 - 2010
110 - Albania - 0.7 - 2010
112 - Turkmenistan - 0.6 - 2006
113 - Tajikistan - 0.5 - 2009
113 - Lebanon - 0.5 - 2006
115 - Armenia - 0.4 - 2010
116 - Azerbaijan - 0.2 - 2010
116 - Mozambique - 0.2 - 2009
118 - Egypt - 0.1 - 2009
119 - Liechtenstein - 0.0 - 2010
Citation
"Countries Compared by Crime - Rape rate. International
Statistics at NationMaster.com", UN Crime Stats.
Aggregates compiled by NationMaster. Retrieved from
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate
More at:
NationMaster.com
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
0 новых сообщений