Saturday, October 07, 2006
Superficial Idiots - I
It is amazing right. A judge listens to arguments, evidences and counter arguments from leading lawyers in the country. Makes careful deliberation and prepares a N page report elucidating his rationale and then delivers a judgement recommending death penalty for Mohd. Afzal. Forget corruption, forget agendas and all the usual error factors involved in judgements being delivered.
Some idiots, who (a) have no clue what the evidences are, (b) no clue what the arguments were based on, (c) have never read the judgement and (d) do not know the rationale behind the judge's decision - actually get to talk about the judgement and whats more - disagree with it. Their only 'qualification' to do all this nonsense is a celebrity status (somebody ought to ask Arundhati Roy - which part of the judgement report she disagrees with) or a blogger account username and password and they can talk about any complex judgements delivered by high courts and supreme courts. These idiots draw some vague arguments in the air and dance around like monkeys using words like 'human rights' and some other stupid cliched 'values' and act all moral. Disgusting.
The judge should have added one more page to his report which brings in a requirement that only people who cross some logical threshold ( greater than plant life) should talk about this judgement. I would seriously consider amending our 'Freedom of Speech' and put an 'Idiot clause' to it.