info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of freedom of speech - Harvard Law Review
0 views
Skip to first unread message
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jan 7, 2012, 3:09:48 AM1/7/12
to
Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
Friday, January 6, 2012
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/harvard-faculty-1-free-speech-0.html
6.1.12
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
December 10, 2011
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
By Charlotte Allen
[image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
Summer School courses
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-controversial-summer-school-instructor
taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
teach in the university's summer school.
The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/6e0cda48154d74f6cf97b0f73d058de1.pdf?direct
that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
, that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
meeting.
Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
association with the University." The university issued a statement
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449#CurDomainURL%23/blog.cfm
declaring that it is "central to the mission of a university to
protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those who
disagree with him." The statement continued: "We are ultimately
stronger as a university when we maintain our commitment to the most
basic freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas." Harvard's
economics professors voiced no objection to Swamy's continued
presence on the faculty of the summer school, where the two courses
he was to teach covered elementary economics and the economics of the
Indian subcontinent. No students had complained about political bias
in Swamy's classrooms.
An Op-Ed That Would Not Allow All Hindus to Convert
Nonetheless, even the most committed free-speech advocates would
likely find Swamy's op-ed, published in India's Daily News and
Analysis, disturbing to say the least. It is a call for India to
rename itself "Hindustan." In Swamy's blueprint not only would
hundreds of mosques be closed, but non-Hindus would be stripped of
their voting rights unless they acknowledged "that their ancestors
were Hindus," as Swamy wrote. Those who refused, as well as "those
foreigners who become Indian citizens," could remain in India, but
without the right either to vote or to hold elective office. Swamy's
op-ed also argued that India "[e]nact a national law prohibiting
conversion from Hinduism to any other religion," and that non-Hindus
who "re-convert" to Hinduism be required to belong to a Hindu caste.
Swamy's outrage at Islamic terrorists was understandable. The July 13
bombings had been preceded by another series of Muslim-linked
bombings in Mumbai
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jul/13/mumbai-blasts
in 2008 that had left 173 people dead. Muslims had conquered and
ruled large sections of India beginning in the twelfth century, and
from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century the Muslim Mughul empire
covered most of the subcontinent. The 300 mosques that Swamy slated
for destruction in his op-ed were apparently built on the sites of
Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims during their long reign over
India. Although the overwhelming majority of today's Indians practice
Hinduism, Muslims have made significant demographic inroads during
recent decades, at Hinduism's expense. In 1961 about 83 percent of
India's population was Hindu, compared with 80 percent right now.
Islam's share of India's population has grown from 11 percent to more
than 13 percent during the same period, thanks to high birthrates and
illegal immigration from neighboring Bangladesh. India shares a
border with Pakistan, refuge of the slain Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden. Although technically a U.S. ally, Pakistan is currently in
peace negotiations with the terrorist Taliban. With militancy on the
rise among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, it is not surprising that
India's Hindus fear becoming the targets of escalating violence in
the future. In his op-ed Swami wrote: "Islamic terrorism is India's
number one problem of national security."
Still, the "Hindustan" that Swamy envisioned in his op-ed is
essentially a Hindu mirror image of the Muslim Brotherhood's
blueprint to replace secular-democratic societies in Muslim countries
with an all-Islamic societies to be governed by the Koran and sharia
law. Radical Hindu nationalism is now a major force in Indian
political life. A Hindu-nationalist political party, Bharatiya
Janata, has swiftly grown to become the second-largest in India.
(Swamy is president of a different party, Janata, from which
Bharatiya Janata split off in 1981). Some Indian states already
forbid conversions from Hinduism. Hindu-nationalist mobs have bashed
mosques and killed hundreds of Muslims. They have also targeted
India's 24 million Christians, since Hindu nationalists regard
Christianity as a foreign colonialist import--even though some of
India's Christian communities date back to Christianity's earliest
centuries. There have been murders of Christian missionaries,
burnings of churches and Christian-owned stores, and waves of anti-
Christian violence in 2007 and 2008 that included an attack on Mother
Teresa's religious order, the Missionaries of Charity. India's 17
million Sikhs have also been sporadic targets of Hindu-nationalist
bloodletting.
Despite Swamy's strong support for the Hindu-nationalist agenda, his
July 16 op-ed did not endorse attacks against non-Hindus or their
places of worship, Diana Eck's reference to inciting "violence" at
the Harvard FAS meeting notwithstanding. Nor did Swamy call for
future violence against Muslims by India's Hindus. His op-ed was
instead a call for radical political changes in India to be brought
about by democratic processes, in which mosque removal would be
carried out by the government. Those contemplated political changes
might be controversial (as they were, even in India) and repugnant to
those who believe in religious freedom, but Swamy had as much right
to make them as the communists who have joined forces with the Occupy
movement in America to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government.
One might hope that India never turns into "Hindustan," while
refraining from penalizing a Harvard professor for hoping that it
will, in a newspaper opinion piece
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/12/occupy-harvard-subramanian-swamy-
teaching-debated
published thousands of miles away from his Cambridge classroom in the
aftermath of a series of fatal bombings.
No Censorship of Obnoxious Views
It was for this reason that Faust and other top Harvard
administrators apparently supported Swamy's right
http://thefire.org/article/13581.html
to continue teaching at Harvard after the initial effort in July to
have him removed. They might have been spurred to steadfastness by a
July 27 letter to Faust from Adam Kissel, a 1994 Harvard graduate and
vice president of programs at the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education (FIRE). Harvard FAS had written, "We assume that the long-
term benefits to our community will outweigh the short-term
unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious views. Because we are a
community united by a commitment to rational processes, we do not
permit censorship of noxious views."
But that was the Harvard administration, and Harvard's FAS seems to
have a way, as it did with Lawrence Summers's presidency in 2005, of
having the last word. There was, as might be expected, an element of
selectivity in the FAS's righteous indignation. Diana Eck's remarks
focused entirely on the "demonization" of India's Muslims, while
pointedly ignoring the consequences for India's Christians under
Swamy's blueprint -- even though Swamy's op-ed had included a
disparaging reference to India's Christian president, Sonia Gandhi,
as "semi-literate." Muslims are a fashionable victim group in today's
academia, while Christians are not. Contrast the FAS's harsh
treatment of Swamy to the reluctance of faculty and administrators at
the University of Colorado-Boulder to take any action against former
ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill for blaming the U.S. for the
9/11 Muslim terrorist massacre, and for calling the thousands of 9/11
victims who worked at the World Trade Center towers "little
Eichmanns." Churchill was fired from the university in 2006--but for
scholarly plagiarism (he subsequently sued the university, and his
appeal is pending before the Colorado Supreme Court).
Regarding the Swamy matter, it is tempting to say, "A plague on both
your houses," and focus sympathy on a more appealing victim of an
ideological witch hunt. But one must remember that Swamy was
effectively fired from Harvard because some people didn't like
something he said outside his classroom -- and that ought to chill
the bones of anyone who regards freedom of expression as an important
academic value. *
**One quote of Charlotte Allen's article was misattributed: "Kissel
had written, 'We assume that the long-term benefits to our community
will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious
views. Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational
processes, we do not permit censorship of noxious views.'" Those were
the words of the Harvard FAS, not Adam Kissel." The mistake has been
corrected. --Ed*
COMMENTS (2)
As I point out in my blog (link below) on this subject, advocates of
censorship generally proclaim their dedication to freedom of speech,
as long as the speech doesn't "go too far." But beyond the usual
problems of academic censorship is the additional question of whether
the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, as an institution, should
be taking an official position on what is appropriate or
inappropriate for Indian citizens to write about Indian political and
social issues in a newspaper in India.
http://cantheseboneslive.blogspot.com/
Posted by Carl Bankston
http://cantheseboneslive.blogspot.com/
December 12, 2011 3:44 PM
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html#comment-766878
This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
office.
They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html
6.1.12
Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech - Harvard Law Review
Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech
COMMENT BY KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN
By holding that corporations may make independent expenditures from
their general treasuries advocating the election or defeat of
political candidates, Citizens United v. FEC unleashed a torrent of
popular criticism, a pointed attack by the President in the State of
the Union address, a flurry of proposed corrective legislation in
Congress, and various calls to overturn the decision by
constitutional amendment. Political uproar over a 5–4 Supreme Court
decision upholding a controversial free speech right is not new; the
Court's two 5–4 decisions upholding a right to engage in symbolic
flag burning, for example, elicited widespread public condemnation
and efforts in Congress to overturn the Court by statute and by
constitutional amendment. But Citizens United surely marks the first
time a controversial victory for free speech rights emanated from a
majority of Justices conventionally viewed as conservative, over the
dissent of four Justices conventionally viewed as liberal, with
virtually all political criticism arising from the political left.
Does Citizens United mark a reversal in the political valence of free
speech? Have liberals grown weary of First Amendment values they once
celebrated? Have conservatives flip-flopped and now become free
speech devotees? This Comment argues that support for First Amendment
values in fact cuts across conventional political allegiances, and
that both sides in Citizens United are committed to free speech, but
to two very different visions of free speech. Where the two visions
align, lopsided victories for free speech claims are still possible.
For example, last Term in United States v. Stevens, the Court voted
8–1 to invalidate the criminal conviction of a purveyor of dogfight
videos, reasoning that a federal criminal ban on depictions of animal
cruelty was overbroad. But where the two visions diverge, divisions
like that in Citizens United become sharp.
In the first vision, discussed in Part I, free speech rights serve an
overarching interest in political equality. Free speech as equality
embraces first an antidiscrimination principle: in upholding the
speech rights of anarchists, syndicalists, communists, civil rights
marchers, Maoist flag burners, and other marginal, dissident, or
unorthodox speakers, the Court protects members of ideological
minorities who are likely to be the target of the majority's animus
or selective indifference. A vision of free speech as serving an
interest in political equality also endorses a kind of affirmative
action for marginal speech in the form of access to government
subsidies without speech-restrictive strings attached. By
invalidating conditions on speakers' use of public land, facilities,
and funds, a long line of speech cases in the free-speech-as-equality
tradition ensures public subvention of speech expressing "the poorly
financed causes of little people." On the equality-based view of free
speech, it follows that the well-financed causes of big people (or
big corporations) do not merit special judicial protection from
political regulation. And because, in this view, the value of
equality is prior to the value of speech, politically disadvantaged
speech prevails over regulation but regulation promoting political
equality prevails over speech.
The second vision of free speech, by contrast, sees free speech as
serving the interest of political liberty. On this view, discussed in
Part II, the First Amendment is a negative check on government
tyranny, and treats with skepticism all government efforts at speech
suppression that might skew the private ordering of ideas. And on
this view, members of the public are trusted to make their own
individual evaluations of speech, and government is forbidden to
intervene for paternalistic or redistributive reasons.
Government intervention might be warranted to correct certain
allocative inefficiencies in the way that speech transactions take
place, but otherwise, ideas are best left to a freely competitive
ideological market.
The outcome of Citizens United is best explained as representing a
triumph of the libertarian over the egalitarian vision of free
speech. Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court, joined by Chief
Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, articulates a
robust vision of free speech as serving political liberty; the
dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg,
Breyer, and Sotomayor, sets forth in depth the countervailing
egalitarian view. Neither vision, however, entirely eclipses the
other in Citizens United; each of the principal opinions pays lip
service to the other by invoking the other's theory in its own cause.
And, as Part III illustrates, neither side appears to have fully
thought through how its position in Citizens United fits with the
broader views its members have expressed about First Amendment rights
in other contexts, causing seeming inconsistencies with positions
taken in other First Amendment cases last Term. The upshot is that
each vision retains vitality for use in other First Amendment
contexts.
The tension between these two competing visions -- of free speech as
serving equality and of free speech as serving liberty -- is
illuminated by analysis of four possible political reforms that might
be considered in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision:
first, invalidating limits on political contributions directly to
candidates; second, allowing independent electoral expenditures by
nonprofit but not for-profit corporations; third, increasing
disclosure and disclaimer requirements for corporations making
expenditures in connection with political campaigns; and fourth,
conditioning receipt of various government benefits to corporations
on their limiting political campaign expenditures. The first seems
initially attractive to libertarians but not egalitarians; the second
to egalitarians but not libertarians; the third to both libertarians
and egalitarians; and the fourth to libertarians but not
egalitarians. As addressed in Part IV, however, a closer look at each
alternative reveals significant complexities.
The best view of freedom of speech would combine the free-speech-as-
liberty perspective with the egalitarian view's skepticism toward
speech-restrictive conditions on government benefits. Under such a
capacious approach, the first and third reforms are preferable to the
second and fourth, and any new regulation of political money in the
wake of Citizens United should abandon source and amount limits or
increase disclosure requirements, not distinguish among political
speakers or make speech restrictions a price of government largesse.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech.html
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
-----
About the terrorist Goon Squad:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
to do away with opposition.
"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluM...@gmail.com>
tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
Friday, January 6, 2012
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/harvard-faculty-1-free-speech-0.html
6.1.12
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
December 10, 2011
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
By Charlotte Allen
[image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
Summer School courses
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-controversial-summer-school-instructor
taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
teach in the university's summer school.
The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/6e0cda48154d74f6cf97b0f73d058de1.pdf?direct
that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
, that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
meeting.
Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
association with the University." The university issued a statement
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449#CurDomainURL%23/blog.cfm
declaring that it is "central to the mission of a university to
protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those who
disagree with him." The statement continued: "We are ultimately
stronger as a university when we maintain our commitment to the most
basic freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas." Harvard's
economics professors voiced no objection to Swamy's continued
presence on the faculty of the summer school, where the two courses
he was to teach covered elementary economics and the economics of the
Indian subcontinent. No students had complained about political bias
in Swamy's classrooms.
An Op-Ed That Would Not Allow All Hindus to Convert
Nonetheless, even the most committed free-speech advocates would
likely find Swamy's op-ed, published in India's Daily News and
Analysis, disturbing to say the least. It is a call for India to
rename itself "Hindustan." In Swamy's blueprint not only would
hundreds of mosques be closed, but non-Hindus would be stripped of
their voting rights unless they acknowledged "that their ancestors
were Hindus," as Swamy wrote. Those who refused, as well as "those
foreigners who become Indian citizens," could remain in India, but
without the right either to vote or to hold elective office. Swamy's
op-ed also argued that India "[e]nact a national law prohibiting
conversion from Hinduism to any other religion," and that non-Hindus
who "re-convert" to Hinduism be required to belong to a Hindu caste.
Swamy's outrage at Islamic terrorists was understandable. The July 13
bombings had been preceded by another series of Muslim-linked
bombings in Mumbai
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jul/13/mumbai-blasts
in 2008 that had left 173 people dead. Muslims had conquered and
ruled large sections of India beginning in the twelfth century, and
from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century the Muslim Mughul empire
covered most of the subcontinent. The 300 mosques that Swamy slated
for destruction in his op-ed were apparently built on the sites of
Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims during their long reign over
India. Although the overwhelming majority of today's Indians practice
Hinduism, Muslims have made significant demographic inroads during
recent decades, at Hinduism's expense. In 1961 about 83 percent of
India's population was Hindu, compared with 80 percent right now.
Islam's share of India's population has grown from 11 percent to more
than 13 percent during the same period, thanks to high birthrates and
illegal immigration from neighboring Bangladesh. India shares a
border with Pakistan, refuge of the slain Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden. Although technically a U.S. ally, Pakistan is currently in
peace negotiations with the terrorist Taliban. With militancy on the
rise among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, it is not surprising that
India's Hindus fear becoming the targets of escalating violence in
the future. In his op-ed Swami wrote: "Islamic terrorism is India's
number one problem of national security."
Still, the "Hindustan" that Swamy envisioned in his op-ed is
essentially a Hindu mirror image of the Muslim Brotherhood's
blueprint to replace secular-democratic societies in Muslim countries
with an all-Islamic societies to be governed by the Koran and sharia
law. Radical Hindu nationalism is now a major force in Indian
political life. A Hindu-nationalist political party, Bharatiya
Janata, has swiftly grown to become the second-largest in India.
(Swamy is president of a different party, Janata, from which
Bharatiya Janata split off in 1981). Some Indian states already
forbid conversions from Hinduism. Hindu-nationalist mobs have bashed
mosques and killed hundreds of Muslims. They have also targeted
India's 24 million Christians, since Hindu nationalists regard
Christianity as a foreign colonialist import--even though some of
India's Christian communities date back to Christianity's earliest
centuries. There have been murders of Christian missionaries,
burnings of churches and Christian-owned stores, and waves of anti-
Christian violence in 2007 and 2008 that included an attack on Mother
Teresa's religious order, the Missionaries of Charity. India's 17
million Sikhs have also been sporadic targets of Hindu-nationalist
bloodletting.
Despite Swamy's strong support for the Hindu-nationalist agenda, his
July 16 op-ed did not endorse attacks against non-Hindus or their
places of worship, Diana Eck's reference to inciting "violence" at
the Harvard FAS meeting notwithstanding. Nor did Swamy call for
future violence against Muslims by India's Hindus. His op-ed was
instead a call for radical political changes in India to be brought
about by democratic processes, in which mosque removal would be
carried out by the government. Those contemplated political changes
might be controversial (as they were, even in India) and repugnant to
those who believe in religious freedom, but Swamy had as much right
to make them as the communists who have joined forces with the Occupy
movement in America to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government.
One might hope that India never turns into "Hindustan," while
refraining from penalizing a Harvard professor for hoping that it
will, in a newspaper opinion piece
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/12/occupy-harvard-subramanian-swamy-
teaching-debated
published thousands of miles away from his Cambridge classroom in the
aftermath of a series of fatal bombings.
No Censorship of Obnoxious Views
It was for this reason that Faust and other top Harvard
administrators apparently supported Swamy's right
http://thefire.org/article/13581.html
to continue teaching at Harvard after the initial effort in July to
have him removed. They might have been spurred to steadfastness by a
July 27 letter to Faust from Adam Kissel, a 1994 Harvard graduate and
vice president of programs at the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education (FIRE). Harvard FAS had written, "We assume that the long-
term benefits to our community will outweigh the short-term
unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious views. Because we are a
community united by a commitment to rational processes, we do not
permit censorship of noxious views."
But that was the Harvard administration, and Harvard's FAS seems to
have a way, as it did with Lawrence Summers's presidency in 2005, of
having the last word. There was, as might be expected, an element of
selectivity in the FAS's righteous indignation. Diana Eck's remarks
focused entirely on the "demonization" of India's Muslims, while
pointedly ignoring the consequences for India's Christians under
Swamy's blueprint -- even though Swamy's op-ed had included a
disparaging reference to India's Christian president, Sonia Gandhi,
as "semi-literate." Muslims are a fashionable victim group in today's
academia, while Christians are not. Contrast the FAS's harsh
treatment of Swamy to the reluctance of faculty and administrators at
the University of Colorado-Boulder to take any action against former
ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill for blaming the U.S. for the
9/11 Muslim terrorist massacre, and for calling the thousands of 9/11
victims who worked at the World Trade Center towers "little
Eichmanns." Churchill was fired from the university in 2006--but for
scholarly plagiarism (he subsequently sued the university, and his
appeal is pending before the Colorado Supreme Court).
Regarding the Swamy matter, it is tempting to say, "A plague on both
your houses," and focus sympathy on a more appealing victim of an
ideological witch hunt. But one must remember that Swamy was
effectively fired from Harvard because some people didn't like
something he said outside his classroom -- and that ought to chill
the bones of anyone who regards freedom of expression as an important
academic value. *
**One quote of Charlotte Allen's article was misattributed: "Kissel
had written, 'We assume that the long-term benefits to our community
will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious
views. Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational
processes, we do not permit censorship of noxious views.'" Those were
the words of the Harvard FAS, not Adam Kissel." The mistake has been
corrected. --Ed*
COMMENTS (2)
As I point out in my blog (link below) on this subject, advocates of
censorship generally proclaim their dedication to freedom of speech,
as long as the speech doesn't "go too far." But beyond the usual
problems of academic censorship is the additional question of whether
the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, as an institution, should
be taking an official position on what is appropriate or
inappropriate for Indian citizens to write about Indian political and
social issues in a newspaper in India.
http://cantheseboneslive.blogspot.com/
Posted by Carl Bankston
http://cantheseboneslive.blogspot.com/
December 12, 2011 3:44 PM
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html#comment-766878
This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
office.
They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html
6.1.12
Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech - Harvard Law Review
Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech
COMMENT BY KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN
By holding that corporations may make independent expenditures from
their general treasuries advocating the election or defeat of
political candidates, Citizens United v. FEC unleashed a torrent of
popular criticism, a pointed attack by the President in the State of
the Union address, a flurry of proposed corrective legislation in
Congress, and various calls to overturn the decision by
constitutional amendment. Political uproar over a 5–4 Supreme Court
decision upholding a controversial free speech right is not new; the
Court's two 5–4 decisions upholding a right to engage in symbolic
flag burning, for example, elicited widespread public condemnation
and efforts in Congress to overturn the Court by statute and by
constitutional amendment. But Citizens United surely marks the first
time a controversial victory for free speech rights emanated from a
majority of Justices conventionally viewed as conservative, over the
dissent of four Justices conventionally viewed as liberal, with
virtually all political criticism arising from the political left.
Does Citizens United mark a reversal in the political valence of free
speech? Have liberals grown weary of First Amendment values they once
celebrated? Have conservatives flip-flopped and now become free
speech devotees? This Comment argues that support for First Amendment
values in fact cuts across conventional political allegiances, and
that both sides in Citizens United are committed to free speech, but
to two very different visions of free speech. Where the two visions
align, lopsided victories for free speech claims are still possible.
For example, last Term in United States v. Stevens, the Court voted
8–1 to invalidate the criminal conviction of a purveyor of dogfight
videos, reasoning that a federal criminal ban on depictions of animal
cruelty was overbroad. But where the two visions diverge, divisions
like that in Citizens United become sharp.
In the first vision, discussed in Part I, free speech rights serve an
overarching interest in political equality. Free speech as equality
embraces first an antidiscrimination principle: in upholding the
speech rights of anarchists, syndicalists, communists, civil rights
marchers, Maoist flag burners, and other marginal, dissident, or
unorthodox speakers, the Court protects members of ideological
minorities who are likely to be the target of the majority's animus
or selective indifference. A vision of free speech as serving an
interest in political equality also endorses a kind of affirmative
action for marginal speech in the form of access to government
subsidies without speech-restrictive strings attached. By
invalidating conditions on speakers' use of public land, facilities,
and funds, a long line of speech cases in the free-speech-as-equality
tradition ensures public subvention of speech expressing "the poorly
financed causes of little people." On the equality-based view of free
speech, it follows that the well-financed causes of big people (or
big corporations) do not merit special judicial protection from
political regulation. And because, in this view, the value of
equality is prior to the value of speech, politically disadvantaged
speech prevails over regulation but regulation promoting political
equality prevails over speech.
The second vision of free speech, by contrast, sees free speech as
serving the interest of political liberty. On this view, discussed in
Part II, the First Amendment is a negative check on government
tyranny, and treats with skepticism all government efforts at speech
suppression that might skew the private ordering of ideas. And on
this view, members of the public are trusted to make their own
individual evaluations of speech, and government is forbidden to
intervene for paternalistic or redistributive reasons.
Government intervention might be warranted to correct certain
allocative inefficiencies in the way that speech transactions take
place, but otherwise, ideas are best left to a freely competitive
ideological market.
The outcome of Citizens United is best explained as representing a
triumph of the libertarian over the egalitarian vision of free
speech. Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court, joined by Chief
Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, articulates a
robust vision of free speech as serving political liberty; the
dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg,
Breyer, and Sotomayor, sets forth in depth the countervailing
egalitarian view. Neither vision, however, entirely eclipses the
other in Citizens United; each of the principal opinions pays lip
service to the other by invoking the other's theory in its own cause.
And, as Part III illustrates, neither side appears to have fully
thought through how its position in Citizens United fits with the
broader views its members have expressed about First Amendment rights
in other contexts, causing seeming inconsistencies with positions
taken in other First Amendment cases last Term. The upshot is that
each vision retains vitality for use in other First Amendment
contexts.
The tension between these two competing visions -- of free speech as
serving equality and of free speech as serving liberty -- is
illuminated by analysis of four possible political reforms that might
be considered in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision:
first, invalidating limits on political contributions directly to
candidates; second, allowing independent electoral expenditures by
nonprofit but not for-profit corporations; third, increasing
disclosure and disclaimer requirements for corporations making
expenditures in connection with political campaigns; and fourth,
conditioning receipt of various government benefits to corporations
on their limiting political campaign expenditures. The first seems
initially attractive to libertarians but not egalitarians; the second
to egalitarians but not libertarians; the third to both libertarians
and egalitarians; and the fourth to libertarians but not
egalitarians. As addressed in Part IV, however, a closer look at each
alternative reveals significant complexities.
The best view of freedom of speech would combine the free-speech-as-
liberty perspective with the egalitarian view's skepticism toward
speech-restrictive conditions on government benefits. Under such a
capacious approach, the first and third reforms are preferable to the
second and fourth, and any new regulation of political money in the
wake of Citizens United should abandon source and amount limits or
increase disclosure requirements, not distinguish among political
speakers or make speech restrictions a price of government largesse.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech.html
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
-----
About the terrorist Goon Squad:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
to do away with opposition.
"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluM...@gmail.com>
tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
fanabba
Jan 7, 2012, 10:05:36 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 3:09 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
> http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_F...
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/two-concepts-of-freedom-of...
Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
> freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
>
> Friday, January 6, 2012
>
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/harvard-faculty-1-free-spe...
> Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
> freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
>
> Friday, January 6, 2012
>
>
> 6.1.12
>
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
>
> December 10, 2011
>
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
>
> By Charlotte Allen
>
> [image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
>
> The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
>
> http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
>
> This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
> Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
> possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
> hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
> of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
> resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
> departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
> Summer School courses
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-c...
> 6.1.12
>
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
>
> December 10, 2011
>
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
>
> By Charlotte Allen
>
> [image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
>
> The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
>
> http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
>
> This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
> Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
> possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
> hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
> of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
> resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
> departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
> Summer School courses
>
>
> taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
> who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
> teach in the university's summer school.
>
> The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
>
> http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/6e0cda48154d74f6cf97b0f73d058de1.pdf?d...
> taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
> who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
> teach in the university's summer school.
>
> The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
>
>
> that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
> bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
> Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
>
> http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
>
> , that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
> university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
> Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
> Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
> community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
> the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
> proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
> meeting.
>
> Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
>
> http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
>
> on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
> Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
> to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
> passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
> closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
> Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
> until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
> least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
> on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
> association with the University." The university issued a statement
>
> http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449#CurDom...
> that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
> bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
> Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
>
> http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
>
> , that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
> university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
> Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
> Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
> community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
> the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
> proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
> meeting.
>
> Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
>
> http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
>
> on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
> Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
> to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
> passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
> closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
> Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
> until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
> least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
> on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
> association with the University." The university issued a statement
>
>
> This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
> office.
>
> They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
> implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
> say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
> from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
> internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
> down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
> worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
> liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
> who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
>
> http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_F...
> This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
> office.
>
> They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
> implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
> say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
> from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
> internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
> down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
> worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
> liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
> who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
>
>
> End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> -----
>
> About the terrorist Goon Squad:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
> to do away with opposition.
>
> "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluMallu...@gmail.com>
> End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> -----
>
> About the terrorist Goon Squad:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
> to do away with opposition.
>
> tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
> where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
> about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
> miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
> Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
> to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> heart disease.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dhanyavaad for your post !
> where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
> about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
> miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
> Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
> to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> heart disease.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars
Jan 7, 2012, 10:08:59 AM1/7/12
to
> Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
Harvard's free speech or yours? Which one?
Myself Mallu, Yourself?
Jan 7, 2012, 11:05:37 AM1/7/12
to
On 1/7/2012 7:05 AM, fanabba wrote:
>
> Dhanyavaad for your post !
> Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
A "Marxist madrassah"? Whatever does that mean, O enlightened moron from
>
> Dhanyavaad for your post !
> Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
the Midwest? Or was that a weak attempt at humor? Or was that a pang of
envy because you are stuck in some no name second-tier school, and other
than spouting something in a local daily, you get no coverage?
--
VB, Ubetjotushy
'ome=shanty
-----
About the Jihadi Loon Squad:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A jihadi loon is someone like Jade Muckeraj.
"Jade Muckeraj" aka "The Old Cow of Hawaii" <char...@fraudsrus.com>
tries her best to pretend she is a Hindu -- cutting and pasting, and
even doctoring what others post/write about Hindus/Hinduism on the
internet, deliberately pidginizing Sanskrit and providing wrong
translations, inventing brand new books in the Mahabharat (reducing it
to Muckabharat), stalking and abusing people who disagree with her by
hijacking their posts, and then cuts and pastes about Hindu ethics and
moans self-righteously about honesty -- and succeeds spectacularly in
convincing all, except other jihadi loons, that she is not a Hindu.
She is in fact a creepy jihadi loon, who thinks she owns the newsgroup
s.c.indian, and has absolutely no problem slandering anyone. As a
Indian citizen supposedly, she meddles in US political issues, and
advocates civil war in India.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jan 7, 2012, 7:13:46 PM1/7/12
to
In article <07d7569d-b941-42b2...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html#comment-766878
> > http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech.html
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
> > freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
> >
> > Friday, January 6, 2012
> >
> > http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/harvard-faculty-1-free-speech-0.html
> > Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
> > freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
> >
> > Friday, January 6, 2012
> >
> >
> > 6.1.12
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
> >
> > December 10, 2011
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
> >
> > By Charlotte Allen
> >
> > [image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
> >
> > The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
> >
> > http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
> >
> > This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
> > Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
> > possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
> > hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
> > of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
> > resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
> > departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
> > Summer School courses
> >
> > http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-controversial-summer-school-instructor
> > 6.1.12
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
> >
> > December 10, 2011
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
> >
> > By Charlotte Allen
> >
> > [image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
> >
> > The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
> >
> > http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
> >
> > This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
> > Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
> > possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
> > hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
> > of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
> > resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
> > departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
> > Summer School courses
> >
> >
> > taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
> > who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
> > teach in the university's summer school.
> >
> > The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
> >
> > http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/6e0cda48154d74f6cf97b0f73d058de1.pdf?direct
> > taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
> > who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
> > teach in the university's summer school.
> >
> > The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
> >
> >
> > that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
> > bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
> > Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
> >
> > http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
> >
> > , that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
> > university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
> > Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
> > Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
> > community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
> > the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
> > proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
> > meeting.
> >
> > Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
> >
> > http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
> >
> > on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
> > Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
> > to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
> > passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
> > closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
> > Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
> > until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
> > least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
> > on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
> > association with the University." The university issued a statement
> >
> > http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449#CurDomainURL%23/blog.cfm
> > that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
> > bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
> > Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
> >
> > http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
> >
> > , that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
> > university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
> > Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
> > Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
> > community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
> > the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
> > proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
> > meeting.
> >
> > Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
> >
> > http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
> >
> > on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
> > Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
> > to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
> > passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
> > closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
> > Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
> > until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
> > least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
> > on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
> > association with the University." The university issued a statement
> >
> >
> > This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
> > office.
> >
> > They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
> > implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
> > say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
> > from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
> > internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
> > down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
> > worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
> > liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
> > who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
> >
> > http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html
> > This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
> > office.
> >
> > They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
> > implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
> > say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
> > from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
> > internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
> > down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
> > worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
> > liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
> > who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
> >
> >
> > End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
> >
> > -----
> >
> > About the terrorist Goon Squad:
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
> > to do away with opposition.
> >
> > "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluM...@gmail.com>
> > End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
> >
> > -----
> >
> > About the terrorist Goon Squad:
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
> > to do away with opposition.
> >
> > tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
> > where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
> > about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
> > miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
> > Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
> > to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> > heart disease.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dhanyavaad for your post !
> Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
That's the correct way way to look at it! Dhanyavaad.
> > where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
> > about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
> > miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
> > Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
> > to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
> > heart disease.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dhanyavaad for your post !
> Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jan 7, 2012, 7:16:10 PM1/7/12
to
In article <07d7569d-b941-42b2...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
> > freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
> >
> > Friday, January 6, 2012
> >
> > http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/harvard-faculty-1-free-speech-0.html
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 -- Charlotte Allen. Two concepts of
> > freedom of speech -- Harvard Law Review
> >
> > Friday, January 6, 2012
> >
> >
> > 6.1.12
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
> >
> > December 10, 2011
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
> >
> > By Charlotte Allen
> >
> > [image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
> >
> > The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
> >
> > http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
> >
> > This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
> > Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
> > possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
> > hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
> > of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
> > resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
> > departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
> > Summer School courses
> >
> > http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-controversial-summer-school-instructor
> > 6.1.12
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0 - Charlotte Allen
> >
> > December 10, 2011
> >
> > Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
> >
> > By Charlotte Allen
> >
> > [image: Subramanian Swamy .jpg]
> >
> > The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again
> >
> > http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
> >
> > This is the group that effectively drove former Harvard president
> > Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark of his about
> > possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with
> > hard-line feminists on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack
> > of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he tendered his
> > resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced
> > departure on political grounds. It voted toeliminate two Harvard
> > Summer School courses
> >
> >
> > taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
> > who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
> > teach in the university's summer school.
> >
> > The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
> >
> > http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/6e0cda48154d74f6cf97b0f73d058de1.pdf?direct
> > taught by Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard
> > who now lives in India but who has regularly traveled to Cambridge to
> > teach in the university's summer school.
> >
> > The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article
> >
> >
> > that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
> > bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
> > Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
> >
> > http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
> >
> > , that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
> > university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
> > Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
> > Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
> > community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
> > the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
> > proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
> > meeting.
> >
> > Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
> >
> > http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
> >
> > on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
> > Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
> > to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
> > passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
> > closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
> > Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
> > until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
> > least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
> > on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
> > association with the University." The university issued a statement
> >
> > http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449#CurDomainURL%23/blog.cfm
> > that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days after the July 13
> > bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in
> > Mumbai. Harvard has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990
> >
> > http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/738.html
> >
> > , that are supposed to protect the freedom of speech of the
> > university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that
> > Swamy's op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300
> > Indian mosques, "crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious
> > community and calling for violence against their sacred places," in
> > the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who
> > proposed the amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS
> > meeting.
> >
> > Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote
> >
> > http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
> >
> > on curriculum offerings is final and does not require the approval of
> > Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception
> > to an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and
> > passed by a reportedly overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are
> > closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard President Drew Gilpin
> > Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up
> > until now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at
> > least 457 signatures, 68 of them from Harvard undergraduates, called
> > on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
> > association with the University." The university issued a statement
> >
> >
> > This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
> > office.
> >
> > They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
> > implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
> > say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
> > from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
> > internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
> > down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
> > worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
> > liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
> > who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
> >
> > http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech_0.html
> > This is the same group that drove president Lawrence Summers out of
> > office.
> >
> > They are oppressive dictators who do not value freedoms. They try and
> > implement a world where we can only say what they want to allow us to
> > say. Luckily the internet at present prevents totalitarian oppression
> > from such traitors, but it may only be a matter of time before the
> > internet becomes controlled entirely as they already tried to shut
> > down websites that reveal unpalatable truths about Islam. I am
> > worried for our country if good people are being educated by this
> > liberal university. The sad thing is there are others on this campus
> > who think like Diana Eck, Bose & Company. That is very scary.
> >
> >
> > End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
>
> > End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
>
> Dhanyavaad for your post !
> Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
> Harvard : a Marxist Madrassah on the Charles!
That's the correct way way to look at it! Dhanyavaad.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
-----
About goon 'Myself, Mallu. Yourself?' (V. Bhattathiri)
Om Shanti
-----
<KalluM...@gmail.com> and the goon's flunky and sexual pervert
Dayashankar M. Joshi 'DMJoshi' <jos...@gmail.com>
[Rakesh Tiwari, Satish Kumar write]
About the terrorist Goon Squad:
opposition.
"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluM...@gmail.com>
tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease.
-----
Sexual pervert Dayashankar Joshi
where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah", and issues *death threats*
to people), is priming himself for conditions such as stroke and
heart disease.
-----
Take proven sexual pervert Dayashankar M. Joshi to see his
psychiatrist
In article <beaa3407-6b54-423d...@m5g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Rakesh <rtiwa...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> On Jul 21, 11:55=C2=A0am, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 2:01=C2=A0am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 9:33=C2=A0am, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 1:28=C2=A0am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 21, 9:24=C2=A0am, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 21, 12:52=C2=A0am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 8:44=C2=A0am, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> wrote=
> :
>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 12:25=C2=A0am, DMJoshi <dmjos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 8:15=C2=A0am, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> w=
> rote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 10:37=C2=A0pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wro=
> te:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 6:25=C2=A0pm, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.co=
> m> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 6:31=C2=A0am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> =
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 10:33=C2=A0pm, Rakesh <rtiwary...@yahoo.=
> com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joshijee, what is you relationship with Harrow's =
> Saeeda Khan?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I remember unless she is your mother.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> His Holeness Dayananda Joshi's memory wasn't notewort=
> hy even at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> best of times. Now at 73, it may have become worse un=
> less His Holeness
>>>>>>>>>>>> is indulging in subterfuge by feigning forgetfulness.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Saeeda Khan may have come to know His Holeness Dayash=
> ankar Joshi
>>>>>>>>>>>> through Hansaben. Saeeda Khan and Hansa Joshi were bo=
> th born and
>>>>>>>>>>>> brought up in East Africa.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How did your mother come to know me?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stop hallucinating. Nobody's mother or sister wants to kn=
> ow you.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yours are dripping sticky on their =E0=A4=AB=E0=A5=81=E0=A4=
> =A6=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A6=E0=A5=80s
>>
>>>>>>>> You are already 73
>>
>>>>>>> And yet it is my =E0=A4=B2=E0=A5=8C=E0=A4=A1=E0=A4=BE that is o=
> n your mind all your waking hours and
>>>>>>> in your dreams.
>>
>>>>>> Get a grip on yourself. Your catheter-ridden penis
>>
>>>>> How do you know of it if you did not suck it?
>>
>>>> Your male nurse at Nothwick Park Hospital has been bad-mouthing your
>>>> catheter-ridden penis.
>>
>>> You are sucking his =E0=A4=B2=E0=A5=8C=E0=A4=A1=E0=A4=BE as well.
>>
>> At 73, you do yourself no favor by indulging in such fantasies.
>> Without a course correction, you are certain to return to earth as a
>> cockroach in your next life.
>>
>> If you are not ready for vanaprastha, try reading the Geeta. If you
>> try sincerely, you might be able to shake your mind off such unholy
>> dreams.
>>
>> BTW, does Hansa Joshi know about your posts? Or do you do them behind
>> Hansaben's back? Be careful. If she ever comes to know of your dirty
>> posts, she might make you =C2=A0gulp down a bottle of drain cleaner to
>> cleanse you of filthy dreams.
>>
>
> This indeed is the real problem for DM Joshi - he is endangering not
> just his future in th next world but even his present in this world.
>
>
> Hansa Joshi is unlikely to take kindly to DM Joshi if she finds out
> what he has been posting behind her back. And, then, yes, Hansaben
> might very well force drain cleaner into DM Joshi to unclog the filthy
> dreams bottled inside him.
Take proven sexual pervert Dayashankar M. Joshi to see his psychiatrist
Dayashankar has proven himself to be quite vulgar of mind and
expression. He has also demonstrated that he publishes lies as well
as malicious defamataion based on lies.
One may wish to contact Deep Joshi, Hansaben Joshi, Vikesh Khakhar
and Rashmi Khakhar about making sure that sexual pervert Dayashankar
M. Joshi gets to see his psychiatrist regularly. Perhaps they can
help.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
[ of withdrawal pains
[ From: Rakesh <rtiwa...@yahoo.com>
[ Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian.gujarati,
[ soc.culture.indian.marathi,soc.culture.indian.delhi,
[ soc.culture.indian.kerala
[ Message-ID: <edef513e-1aa4-4e48-9ce2-
[ 10393e...@g3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
[ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
[
[
[ On Jul 19, 12:25 pm, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[[ On Jul 17, 12:05 am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
[[ On 7/18/2011 4:10 AM, DMJoshi wrote:
[[
[[[[ When Bhadve do Bhadwai what do they sell after they have
[[[[ oversold their own holes?
[[
[[[ You are hankering for that for your mother and sisters no doubt.
[[
[[ His Holeness Dayashankar M. Joshi's addiction and fear of withdrawal
[[ pains:
[[
[[ His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi is addicted to fantasies about
[[ committing "Back Hole Balaatkaar" upon fellow netizens, their mothers
[[ and their sisters. He needs psychiatric care. But so afraid is His
[[ Holeness Dayashankar Joshi about withdrawal pains from trying to kick
[[ his addiction that he would rather jump off the Kenton Bridge or gulp
[[ down a bottle of toilet bowl cleaner than seek psychiatric care.
[[
[[ If His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi is not comfortable with his court-
[[ appointed psychiatrist at Cygnet Hospital, he should heed Hansa
[[ Joshi's advice to go to another psychiatrist. Unfortunately, Hansa
[[ Joshi is yet to persuade His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi to pay a visit
[[ to a psychiatrist at the Northwick Park Hospital which has an
[[ excellent psychiatric ward.
[
[ What does Harrow woman Saeeda Khan have to do with DM Joshi? Is she
[ Joshijee's employer? Psychiatrist? Nurse? Landlord ?
[
[ Has Joshijee been day dreaming about "mounting" Saeeda Khan's "back
[ hole" as well?
[
[ Joshijee needs to overcome his fear of withdrawl pain in coping with
[ his mental addiction to "back holes". The sooner he seeks psychiatric
[ help the better.
[
[ Hansa Joshi is to be commended for her efforts to get Joshijee
[ admitted into Northwick Park Hospital. Good psychiatric care would
[ make a big difference to the quality of whaever is left of 73-year
[ Joshijee's life.
[
[ Hansaben has my sympathies. She is in my thoughts and prayers. May
[ her efforts make a difference in Joshijee' remaining life.
[
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[
[ Subject: Re: His Holeness Dayashankar M. Joshi's addiction and fear
[ of withdrawal pains
[ From: Satish Kumar <sk_...@yahoo.com>
[ Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian.gujarati,
[ soc.culture.indian.marathi,soc.culture.indian.delhi,
[ soc.culture.indian.kerala
[ Message-ID: <88d0e589-e837-4174-88b4-
[ 777dca...@j14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
[ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
[
[
[ On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, Rakesh <rtiwary...@yahoo.com[ wrote:
[[ On Jul 19, 12:25 pm, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com[ wrote:
[[
[[[ On Jul 17, 12:05 am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com[ wrote:
[[[ On 7/18/2011 4:10 AM, DMJoshi wrote:
[[
[[[[[ When Bhadve do Bhadwai what do they sell after they have
[[[[[ oversold their own holes?
[[
[[[[ You are hankering for that for your mother and sisters no doubt.
[[
[[[ His Holeness Dayashankar M. Joshi's addiction and fear of withdrawal
[[[ pains:
[[
[[[ His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi is addicted to fantasies about
[[[ committing "Back Hole Balaatkaar" upon fellow netizens, their mothers
[[[ and their sisters. He needs psychiatric care. But so afraid is His
[[[ Holeness Dayashankar Joshi about withdrawal pains from trying to kick
[[[ his addiction that he would rather jump off the Kenton Bridge or gulp
[[[ down a bottle of toilet bowl cleaner than seek psychiatric care.
[[
[[[ If His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi is not comfortable with his court-
[[[ appointed psychiatrist at Cygnet Hospital, he should heed Hansa
[[[ Joshi's advice to go to another psychiatrist. Unfortunately, Hansa
[[[ Joshi is yet to persuade His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi to pay a visit
[[[ to a psychiatrist at the Northwick Park Hospital which has an
[[[ excellent psychiatric ward.
[[
[[ What does Harrow woman Saeeda Khan have to do with DM Joshi? Is she
[[ Joshijee's employer? Psychiatrist? Nurse? Landlord ?
[[
[[ Has Joshijee been day dreaming about "mounting" Saeeda Khan's "back
[[ hole" as well?
[[
[[ Joshijee needs to overcome his fear of withdrawl pain in coping with
[[ his mental addiction to "back holes". The sooner he seeks psychiatric
[[ help the better.
[[
[[ Hansa Joshi is to be commended for her efforts to get Joshijee
[[ admitted into Northwick Park Hospital. Good psychiatric care would
[[ make a big difference to the quality of whaever is left of 73-year
[[ Joshijee's life.
[[
[[ Hansaben has my sympathies. She is in my thoughts and prayers. May
[[ her efforts make a difference in Joshijee' remaining life.
[
[ Saeeda Khan may have come to know His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi
[ through Hansaben. Saeeda Khan and Hansa Joshi were both born and
[ brought up in East Africa. Now Saeeda Khan and Dayashankar Joshi are
[ both in trouble with the law. Here's a post by His Holeness
[ Dayashankar Joshi on Saeeda Lhan:
[
[ On Oct 26 2010, 2:16 am, DMJoshi <dmjos...@gmail.com[ wrote:
[[ On Sep 14, 8:10 am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com[ wrote:
[[
[[[http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/8388381.Not_guilty_plea_in_first_mo...
[[
[[[ Wonder from where on Indian subcontinent her ancestors migrated to
[[[ Tanzania(Tangnika)
[[
[[ She is going to be prosecuted
[[
[[ http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/8473827.Harrow_woman_to_face_trial_...
[[
[[ There was a Gujarati Hindu woman very likey from Harow or Brent who
[[ was jailed for long period for the same crime.
[
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----
In article <c3ce4583-1855-4319...@p29g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Rakesh <rtiwa...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> On Jul 20, 2:00 am, Satish Kumar <sk_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 1:47 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"
>>
>> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2011 1:37 AM, Satish Kumar wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 20, 1:19 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"
>>>> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/18/2011 3:36 PM, Rakesh wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jul 18, 5:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"
>>>>>> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/18/2011 4:10 AM, DMJoshi wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 11:59 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"
>>>>>>>> <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Bhadave ho ya naheen, inki maa-behen se kya taalluq?
>>
>>>>>>>> When Bhadve do Bhadwai what do they sell after they have
>>>>>>>> oversold their own holes?
>>
>>>>>>> Namaaloom.
>>
>>>>>> crap deleted
>>
>>>>> Based on this rant of yours, all I can say is "pot-kettle-
>>>>> black." No one ever compelled you to reply to Joshiji's posts,
>>>>> esp. if you did not think highly of them in the first place.
>>
>>>> Tiwary might not care much for your "whiter than pot-kettle"
>>>> posturing either. But I suspect he might consider sympathizing
>>>> with you if His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi comments on "back
>>>> holes" that are closer to you than were in this case..
>>
>>> Bollocks! I do not give Joshiji the opportunity to make such
>>> comments to me. You write provocatively, you'll get your
>>> comeuppance. Spare me the crap.
>>
>> Not impressed with your rant. Look through His Holeness
>> Dayashankar Joshi's posts in this thread. If "writing
>> provocatively" is the excuse, then His Holeness Dayashankar
>> Joshi has nothing to complain about - he had asked for what
>> he got from Tiwary.
>>
>> Tiwary himself has commented on this in previous posts - by
>> selectively taking exception to posts by His Holeness dayashankar
>> Joshi's victims, you are either unwittingly or deliberately
>> encouraging him to make "such comments".
>
> Precisely.
>
> Satishjee, I can quite understand why you are unimpressed by Shriman
> Bhattahiri's show of indignant outrage.
>
> And, anyway, Shriman Bhattahiri lives in a glass house. His posts are
> seldom anything other than of the "provocative/patronizing" genre. But
> that should never be an acceptable excuse for anyone to indulge in
> fantasies about Shriman Bhattahiri's "back hole" or that of his mother
> and sisters. I can't quite fathom why Sriman Bhattahiri has taken to
> upholding His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi's penchant for sodomy-laced
> vulgar outbursts. Does he hope to get named in Joshijee's will ?!
>
> Shriman Bhattahiri may have his own reasons to harbor tender feelings
> for His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi. But he does His Holeness
> absolutely no good (and only harm) by selectively expressing distaste
> for posts by His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi's victims. It makes His
> Holeness conclude that it is cute to "react viscerally" to
> "provocations" and "patronizing replies" by indulging in vulgar
> outbursts about sodomizing the "enemy" and his mother and sisters as
> well. Unwittingly or deliberately, Shriman Bhattahiri is encouraging
> His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi to continue to indulge in his fantasies
> about "back holes".
>
> Shriman Bhattahiri's expression of indignant outrage is at best a case
> of naivety. At worst, Shriman Bhattahiri is acting agent provocateur
> egging on His Holeness beyond the "Hole-y Rekha" so that he can enjoy
> the show from the sideline. With friends like Shriman Bhattahiri, His
> Holeness Dayashankar Joshi has little hope of recovery from his mental
> disorder.
>
> Far better (and kinder) if His Holeness Dayashankar Joshi is told
> that he should never ever skip sessions with his psychiatrist. Far
> better (and kinder) to encourage His Holeness to heed Hansa Joshi's
> entreaties to seek treatment at the psychiatric ward at Northwick Park
> Hospital if he is really all that unhappy with his court appointed
> psychiatrist at Cygnet Hospital.
>
> Shriman Bhattahiri does His Holeness DM Joshi no favor but a great
> deal of harm by feeding into his illusion that he is cute when he
> spews "back holes,, mothers and sisters".
Which court appointed a psychiatrist for Dayashankar, why and when?
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
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 If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
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.
0 new messages