echognomics

Joint-Dictatorship of the ~~Proletariat~~ Pierrots of Oppressed Nations

Why waste time scrounging up both a sock and a half-brick when a single cast-iron frying pan is already more than adequate for any imaginable problem, plus fairy incursions? Typical PMC wizardry, always trying to overcomplicate magic.

Malala could have had some vaguely "left" sympathies when she was attending that Trot summer camp 2012 as a 16 year old. But I doubt that she has any kind of real socialist convictions left in her as a 27 year old adult, when she's been safely ensconced within Western elite liberal "progressive" institutions for more than a decade, and is now so financially secure and socially accepted within that crowd that she's co-producing suffragette Broadway musicals with the Hilldawg herself. https://archive.ph/rURQV

She's not a comrade or any sort of revolutionary. At most she's a safe brown "activist" who's ultimately compatible with Western capitalist hegemony.

She's just foreshadowing her pick for Secretary of Defence.

I assume OP is referring to Kamala's maternal grandfather, P.V. Gopalan?

lmao

Nah, it's funny even if Trump leaked documents for personal profit or due to general incompetence. Maybe funnier, since it's Uncle Sam tripped up by an individual idiot perfectly embodying the nation's core capitalist qualities of rapacity and hubris

Also, it doesn't really matter if Trump didn't do it for ideological or moral reasons. Nobody in the colonised world cares too much about how imperial hegemony is disrupted, so long as it is.

gross mishandling of classified documents that totally coincidentally coincided with an alarming rate of intelligence assets getting killed

lol owned

That interpretation sounds like a plausible socially progressive reading of the law, given that there's a proviso to address cases where a person rapes a military spouse "by means of violence, coercion or other means" (it refers such cases to Article 236, which concerns cases of rape by violence or coercion in general). One could argue the addition of this proviso implies that the entire article is intended to be read as a law to protect the welfare of military spouses, addressing different ways a man could take advantage of a lonely military spouse, either by dishonest seduction (dishonest because conviction under the law requires proof of the man knowing that the woman is already married), or by force/abuse of position. The relevant clause of the Chinese criminal law code reads:

第二百五十九条　明知是现役军人的配偶而与之同居或者结婚的，处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役。 利用职权、从属关系，以胁迫手段奸淫现役军人的妻子的，依照本法第二百三十六条的规定定罪处罚。

Article 259: Anyone who cohabits with or marries a spouse of an active-duty serviceman knowing that the spouse is the spouse of an active-duty serviceman shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention. Anyone who uses his power or subordinate relationship to coerce and rape the wife of an active serviceman shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 236 of this Law.

Of course, the broad way that the law is phrased reveals big blindspot in the provision, as it kinda fails to consider or address a possibie situation where a military spouse could or would want to exercise agency by actively seeking out affairs while their spouse is deployed.

Edit: Actually, upon reading the criminal law code further I realise that it also contains a general criminalisation of bigamy in Article 258 (anyone "who has a spouse and commits bigamy, or who marries another person knowing that the other person has a spouse" can get up to two years imprisonment). So, I guess in cases where a military spouse actually remarries while the soldier is deployed, that would also open her (or him/them) up to some criminal liability. However, if she's "merely" having an affair, or cohabiting, she's technically not liable for any crime. Which means, on a structural level, the law is a little more lenient on the military spouse as compared to the jody. This further supports the argument that it's more accurate to read Article 259, which addresses only the person seeking to marry or cohabit with the military spouse, as theoretically aimed at protecting military spouses from being taken advantage of while their husbands are deployed instead of it being a law meant to punish military spouse infidelity, since it distinctly doesn't seek to punish the cheating military spouse like Article 258 does for general bigamy. If Article 259 was intended to punish all military spouse infidelity, it logically would need to treat both the military spouse and the person they cheated similarly.

Ah sorry didn't mean to misgender them. Will edit accordingly.

Yeah. A Chinese court can probably easily differentiate between "recognising" a factual instance of bigamy (or in this case, lesbian cohabitation) while still treating it as an illegal act, and "decriminalising"/"legalising" a practice by court judgment. I would assume that any legal system would inherently need to be able to do the former without necessarily overreaching into the latter, because if that ability isn't there then it may be theoretically possible to perversely argue that judges actually cannot impose derivative criminal libilities or pass sentences on convicted persons because courts should not recognise (i.e., legalise) a crime by doing so. In general, arguments along the pattern that a civil case cannot be won because a requirement of the relevant civil law concept is already criminal act are inherently silly, since nobody is going to argue that a civil case to get compensation for physical battery cannot be found because battery is also a criminal offence. It's the literal/plain meaning rule being taken to the dumbest conclusion, i.e., the cases you teach in law school (if such cases exist) to show why concepts like the mischief rule/golden rule/purposive approach are necessary.

In fact, the current situation is probably a weaker case than the bigamy example that you provided, given that unlike bigamy, "cohabitation" (or infidelity) is not even a criminal act per se, just a criteria to tick so as to fulfil other legal liabilities. So, the court can easily just say "we recognise that people sometimes have gay/lesbian relationships outside marriage, and that for LGBTQ people such relationships fit under the definition of "living as if husband and wife" without seriously worrying that somehow according to some crazy literalist interpretation they've created gay marriage. Somehow I don't think LGBTQ activists in China would view that as commendable and actual progress towards legalisation of gay marriage.