Not torture, really?
We were informed by the home minister, much to our dismay, that the police do not torture journalists. Apparently what happened during the half-day peaceful protest on January 27 by the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Ports did not tantamount to torture. The lame definition of police brutality by the minister which resulted in two journalists getting assaulted by riot police, visual record of which was aired on national television, leaves us disgusted. We are outraged by this statement because it comes from the minister under whose watch the police operate, and given his sentiments, we shudder to think how the police will behave in the future when tackling any procession of people or the media sent to cover such events.
We may well ask the honorable minister what constitutes police brutality in that case. Now that we have been instructed that when people come into close proximity with the police, they may "collide" and journalists who required stitches in the hospital due to this "collision" can seek no redress because it was all a mere accident? People do not sustain injuries that result in serious cuts that require stitching or bone fractures due to collisions; these injuries take place when law enforcement authorities decide to mete out the law with a heavy hand. The police were out in force on the streets and they contained the protests with a heavy hand. Whereas the home minister could have given us the assurance that this sort of incident would not happen again, he chose to act in the opposite fashion. We are now presented with another example of alternate facts and this is simply no way to earn public trust.
Comments