Punjab farmer at Singhu sends notice to BJP for using his image in ad promoting farm laws
This report was first published in theprint.in and has been posted here without any alterations or editing. To read the original report, CLICK HERE
New Delhi: A Punjab farmer protesting at Delhi’s Singhu border has sent a legal notice to the BJP, alleging that his photograph was used without his consent in an advertisement promoting the new farm laws.
Harpreet Singh, 36, a resident of Hoshiarpur, sent the notice Tuesday evening after spotting his photograph on the ad Monday. Singh has claimed that the BJP has now deleted the ad.
“A friend informed me Monday that my photograph has been used by the BJP for an ad that they had uploaded on the Punjab BJP’s Facebook page. The photo is from a shoot that I did for abstract art work in 2014 and was available on my Instagram and Facebook pages,” Singh, also an actor and filmmaker, told ThePrint Wednesday.
Singh said that while his photos have been used by the BJP and others for ads on other issues before, this time they used it at the wrong time and without his consent.
“They used the photograph without my consent in a bid to show that Punjab’s farmers are happy with the three laws by showing a happy farmer in the ad. But the truth is that Punjab’s farmers are not happy with the laws and are protesting,” said Singh.
The ad showed a smiling Singh alongside a message with the hashtags #MSPHaiAurRahega and #ModiWithFarmers. The ad in Punjabi read: “Crops are being bought at MSP this season. This season’s rice is being bought at MSP, 77,957.83 crore rice has been bought on MSP, of which 49 per cent was from Punjab. Some forces are misleading the farmers (sic).”
Punjab BJP ‘unaware’ of the matter
In his legal notice to the BJP, Singh has said due to the wrong and non-consensual usage of his photograph in support of the farm laws, he has “suffered huge defamation in the eyes of the farmers and others, which has resulted in mental harassment”.
“My client has been protesting against the laws both in Punjab and now at Singhu border, and the ad uses his photograph and shows that he’s supporting the laws. We sent the legal notice to the (BJP) high command Tuesday evening,” Hakam Singh, Harpreet’s lawyer, told ThePrint.
Singh, who has been protesting at Singhu for two weeks, said that while the ad has now been taken down, the damage has already been done.
“They have taken down the ad and are using a different ad since yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon. But the whole country has already seen the ad and people have taken screenshots and it has been widely shared as well. The ad tries to show that we are being misled, and farmers are actually happy with the laws, but this is not true as we are protesting and are not happy with the laws,” Singh said.
The Punjab BJP, meanwhile, denied any knowledge of the incident.
“I am not aware of the details of the matter. Since the matter has been raised, I will enquire into it if such an incident has happened at all,” Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Punjab BJP chief, told ThePrint.
Thousands of farmers have been protesting against the centre’s three farm laws for over three weeks at Delhi’s borders. Farmers have claimed that the laws allow corporatisation of agriculture and fear that they will not get a fair price for their produce.
Farmers have demanded a total repeal of the laws along with a new law on MSP. The stalemate continues despite five rounds of talks between the Centre and the protesting farmer groups in which the government has agreed to make amendments, but not repeal the laws.
Courtesy: theprint.in
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
When a woman says no, it means no: HC upholds conviction of three men for gang rape
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of three men for raping one of their partners, ruling that when a woman says no, it means no, and there can be no presumption of consent based on her past sexual activities.
“No means no”, the bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and M W Chandwani said in its May 6 judgment refusing to accept the attempt made by the convicts to question the morals of the survivor.
Sexual intercourse when done without the consent of a woman is an assault on her body, mind and privacy, said the court, terming rape the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society.
“A woman who says ‘NO’ means ‘NO’. There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman's so-called immoral activities,” HC said.
The court refused to quash the conviction of the three persons but reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years in jail.
In their appeal, the trio had claimed that the woman was initially involved with one of them but later got into a live-in relationship with another man.
In November 2014, the three barged into the survivor’s house, assaulted her live-in partner and forcibly took her to a nearby deserted spot where they raped her.
The bench in its judgment said that even if a woman was an estranged wife and lived with another man without getting divorced from her husband, a person cannot force the woman to have intercourse with him without her consent.
The bench said even though the survivor and one of the convicts were in a relationship in the past, any sexual act without her consent would amount to rape if she was not willing to have intercourse with him and the other accused.
“A woman who consents to sexual activities with a man at a particular instance does not ipso facto (by the fact itself) give consent to sexual activity with the same man at all other instances. A woman’s character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had,” the court said.
The court said sexual violence diminishes the law and unlawfully encroaches on the privacy of a woman.
“Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed as a crime involving aggression. It is a violation of her right to privacy. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim,” HC said.
The court also upheld the trio’s conviction for the assault of the survivor’s live-in partner.
