Chandigarh set to ban short skirts in discotheques

[Styx]

CHANDIGARH: The Chandigarh administration appears to be sweating over rising hemlines at city discotheques, ruling that "scantily dressed women" or any "indecency" could shut them down.

In its policy "Controlling of Places of Public Amusement, 2016," which many have termed absurd and ridiculous, the administration has made all provisions for throttling city's nightlife in the name of regulation, citing indecency and sedition as top reasons. Bureaucrats seem to find city bars and discotheques a breeding ground for anti-national elements too.

The policy that came into effect on April 1 has not only curtailed the bar timings by two hours from 2am to 12 midnight, it also gives unprecedented powers to the babus over bar owners and makes running of discotheques an uphill task.

According to the policy, a nodal committee with deputy commissioner as chairman and municipal corporation (MC) commissioner, Chandigarh police SSP, director, health services and excise and taxation commissioner as members, have the power to refuse renewal of permission for business operation.

Referring to the running of bars and discotheques, the policy states the permission can be denied by the committee in case of "exhibition or advertisement of scantily dressed women" and "indecency" or if it is "seditious and likely to excite political discontent."

The policy draft, however, does not define "scantily dressed women" or "indecency" and also doesn't elaborate on sedition.

"It's moral policing. How do you define a scantily dressed woman or being indecent? It is all subjective. What you may find indecent, I may find innocent. The administration should not reject permissions on such parameters at least," said Manish Goyal, a city-based restaurateur.

Goyal added that it was a vague and harsh policy and would kill the nightlife of Chandigarh and ruin businesses. While terming the policy as blatantly unconstitutional, noted lawyer Anupam Gupta, who studied the draft of the policy, said the entire policy was flawed. "The entire notification is completely without any authority of law and the onus would be on UT to show under which law or which legal power they have passed this notification," he said.

According to senior advocate Ranjan Lakhanpal, the administration can't pass such a policy in the name of regulating nightlife. "The policy is completely incorrect. It's moral policing and in violation of fundamental rights of citizens. The UT administration has not used the word 'indecency' and 'sedition' in relevant manner and is behaving like a dictator."

City hoteliers and restaurant owners have also questioned the provision of sedition, saying till date not even a single instance of such a nature has been heard from any bar or restaurant of the city.

Vipul Dua, president of Joint Forum of Young Entrepreneurs and owner of a bar in Sector 35, said, "I have been in this business for last 10 years and never heard a single instance related to sedition from any of the city bars or restaurants. I am amazed that UT could make such a provision in the policy as ground for shutting down business."

The Punjab and Haryana high court had ordered the UT administration to frame a policy for regulating the operations of city bars and restaurants after a number of violent incidents had taken place outside discotheques.

While the UT home secretary did not respond to repeated phone calls and the phone of deputy commissioner remained switched off throughout Tuesday, joint home secretary Karnail Singh, when contacted, said the policy was as per the law. "We have framed this policy following directions from the Punjab and Haryana high court. The policy is aimed at regulating the nightlife and ensuring law and order," he said.

As per the policy, UT's nodal committee can revoke permission for running business if it is considered:

1. To be indecent or of a scurrilous character

2. To be seditious or likely to excite political discontent

3. Any exhibition or advertisement of scantily dressed women

4. To contain offensive reference to personalities

5. To promote hostile feelings between different classes

6. To be calculated to cause a breach of peace

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...irts-in-discotheques/articleshow/51902629.cms

 

[RISING SUN]

It's regressive move. We youngsters believe in our free thinking whether it's about my wife or my girl. It will not be accepted. Period.

 

[VCheng]

 

[ranjeet]

Looks like now Bhakts have to teach Secular folks to even criticize Modi government the right way.


http://www.opindia.com/2016/04/the-truth-about-chandigarh-bans-miniskirts-in-discos-story-on-msm/
Truth about Chandigarh bans miniskirts in discos.

A news report was circulating online, which was in all probability broken first by Times of India, saying: “Chandigarh set to ban short skirts in discotheques“. The story was consequently picked up by almost every media outlet and given its own fresh twist:

Zee News: Chandigarh all set to ban ‘scantily dressed’ women from discotheques

News X: #SanskariBullying: No short skirts in Chandigarh discos: ‘Ban skirts or face shut down’ says, administration.

Catch News: Chandigarh discos ban entry for ‘seditious’, ‘scantily clad women’.

HuffpostIndia: Chandigarh to ban short skirts in discos because it’s breeding ‘anti-national’ elements

All the reports are based on what has been nicknamed Chandigarh’s “Disco Policy”, officially called: “Controlling Places of Public Amusement 2016“, to “maintain law and order situation”. So does the policy really “ban short skirts in discos because they breed anti-national” sentiments? Lets have a look at the part which talks about this aspect:



The policy says, permission may be cancelled if “it”, that is the public place, is considered to violate any of the laid down norms. A few of the norms are:

1. To be indecent or of a scurrilous character;
2. To be seditious or to be likely to excite political discontent;
3. Any exhibition or advertisement whether by way of posters or in the newspapers, photographs of scantily dressed women;

Point number 3 above talks only of “exhibition or advertisement whether by way of posters or in the newspapers“, of scantily clad women, and not of scantily clad women themselves. Can Indian media not understand the difference between ads of scantily clad women and scantily clad women?

Further, from where did media infer that “scantily clad women” = “women wearing short skirts”? Are skirts the only medium of being “scantily clad”? What is the genesis of this word “skirts”? In fact, this conclusion betrays their own small mindset.

Point number 2 above talks about carrying out seditious activities. There has been a lot of debate on this and even without this “Disco Policy”, there are enough sections in the Indian Penal Code to take care of seditious activities, so what this law proposes may not be something brand new.

Point number 1, talks about “indecent” character.

These are three different, independent violations which have been listed out. But as usual Indian media has made a hash of the matter, either out of sheer incompetence, or deliberately. They have deliberately combined all the three points, added some imaginative bits about “short-skirts” specifically, and manufactured outrage-worthy headlines. This is nothing but lying.

Indian media could have raised many important issues about this “Disco Policy”, like:

1. What is the need of a “Disco Policy”
2. Is this a matter of priority?
3. Why ambiguous terms such as “indecency” and “scantily clad women” have been used in the policy? These are extremely subjective terms and can vary according to the moral bent of each person.

But our media, out of sheer incompetency or malafide intent, has managed to completely misreport a story. There is almost no chance any of these outlets will publish even a shred of an apology or clarification, and none of them will be taken to task either.

 

[VCheng]

It's regressive move. We youngsters believe in our free thinking whether it's about my wife or my girl. It will not be accepted. Period.

 

[Spectre]

View attachment 301391

What is the requisite length for normal?

 

[VCheng]

What is the requisite length for normal?

Not Applicable?

 

[Spectre]

Not Applicable?

Wonder if the same applies to Scottish Men wearing kilts

 

[VCheng]

Wonder if the same applies to Scottish Men wearing kilts

Yes, it does!