January 11, 2006
Indian guys with cameras (updated)News
Our tipline has been buzzing (thanks “mg” and others) with news that Rakesh Sharma, director of the award winning “Final Solution” about the Gujarat riots, is suing the City of New York, and that the NYCLU’s got his back. Here is why:
Rakesh Sharma was filming cars emerge from under Manhattan’s Metlife building in 2005 when he was stopped, questioned, allegedly shoved, and then detained by the NYPD for shooting footage of the building. The cops were suspicious of Sharma’s motives but, after four hours, the director was released and told that he would need a permit if he wanted to do any further shooting.
When Sharma applied for a permit, however, his application was denied because he lacked the proper insurance. Now, represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the director (who has won multiple awards for his documentaries) has filed suit against the city’s “police restrictions on taking pictures in public.” Among those named in the suit are the city itself and the commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting. [Link]
Why was Sharma filming cars? Well it will make sense when you know what kind of cars he was filming:
Rakesh Sharma was shooting footage for a film on New York taxi drivers in May 2005 when officers stopped him…“It’s a sad day when the police think they can detain and mistreat someone simply for making a film on a public street in New York City,” Mr Sharma said on Tuesday.
“I co-operated with them and answered all their questions, but they treated me like a criminal. It was wrong, and I was scared and humiliated,” he said. [Link]
A blogger at Mediabistro quips:
Honestly, if the cops in New York start arresting Indian guys with cameras, they’re going to have to shut down all of Sixth Avenue. We’re officially scared.
I’m hoping that DNSI’s Valarie Kaur might leave a comment and shed some light on this for us. She has recently been filming in New York City as well. I wonder if she was similarly hassled.
Update: Both Rakesh Sharma and Valarie Kaur were kind enough to respond to this post.
You can sign the petition to protest his arrest here.
abhi on January 11, 2006 03:42 PM in Film, Law, News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Also see Amardeep's comment.
I think Rakesh Sharma is just being a brat. I work in the MetLife building and the security here is over the top (since it is over Grand Central). This goes for all of us - white, brown or black. Of course desis are used to lording it around in India so the minute they are subjected to equal treatement they begin to cry foul. I personally am very glad for the extra security, am pro the search laws in the subway and absolutely believe that there should be restrictions on filming bridges and tunnels. Hope the City kicks RS's ass all the way to kingdom come.
If you look like this you better be careful in the post 9/11 USA ;) He should be glad he was just filming cars. Filming skyscrapers or planes or airports would have landed him in Gitmo :-))
This is silly. Maybe Divya and her family is used to lording it around in India.
This guys is not bringing a lawsuit because he was lording around, he was taking "candid shots" (whatever that means) on a busy street in New York. He was first prohibited from doing that and then he was allegedly "detained" and interrogated". He has sited specific reasons why he thinks his rights were violated by the NYPD officers. (read the complaint).
Also
His is not a singular experience. Desis have been harassed by law-enforcement officers after 9/11.
And.
This an opinion that you have formed and its fine, maybe you would be glad if you were detained, interrogated and strip searched. If Rakesh Sharma does not like it then he can and should sue NYPD.
Tom: There is no need to get personal. Anyone with the minimum amount of honesty will admit that in India the privileged class is very, very, very privileged and then some.
Please do read the opening line of quote. Rakesh Sharma was filming cars emerge from a tunnel and not just filming a random busy street when he was arrested. Security in the MetLife Building is already over the top, moreover there is a tunnel under the building, and security in bridges and tunnels is also very strict. What basis does anyone have to get away with this double whammy of a violation other than to appeal to privilege? Of course people are mistreated by the cops all the time, but that's a separate issue.
Abhi, Valarie Kaur has her own story about being arrested while filming/observing an event (this time the RNC in 2004). She wrote about it here.
I personally am very glad for the extra security, am pro the search laws in the subway and absolutely believe that there should be restrictions on filming bridges and tunnels
Divya, pray tell us why should there be restrictions on filming or photographing buildings, bridges and tunnels?
Anyone can get zillions of such images from anywhere online; it's not like there is some kind of vital security interest encapsulated in the exterior of, say, the Met-Life building (which millions see and thousands photograph every single day).
Moreover, the 9/11 terrorists did not go around taking pictures of the buildings. They simply ploughed into them because they were visible and easy to target from the air. Exterior photographs were and are completely irrelevant to fighting terrorism: it's simply a form of gathering and recording information that everyone already has access to. There is simply no good reason to restrict this freedom.
You started it. I am a law abiding Desi, in India and in USA.
Also, make it personal and then analyze this story. Imagine one of your folks going through this kind of experience.
Are you sure he violated a law ? Was he arrested ? The NY city would easily fry a brown guy just to set an example. Why these New York's finest chickened out and let this guy go. This guy was detained, harassed and humiliated and then he was let go. These officers cold have allayed their suspicions without being physically and verbally abusive. His complaint is about the harassment and damage to his photographic equipment.
The detective confiscated his passport, physically pushed him, snatched his camera and among other things said to him: We know how to deal with you guys, asshole
Just another day in George Bush's America.
Individual rights are being trampled upon by Big Brother while the Divyas of the world cheer from the sidelines.
I remember reading his detailed sequence of events back then. Excerpt:
He [police officer] then told me he wanted to look into my shoulder bag ( which has no flaps; it is open anyway). When I asked him whether that was legal, he said - I am asking you for your permission. Are you denying me your permission? What are you hiding anyway? Do you have something to hide? And what is in your pockets?". Even though I felt that it was illegal, but, since the detective had already been intimidatory, had seized my passport and I wanted the situation to be quickly resolved, I allowed him a peak into my bag which contained an umbrella, a banana, a copy of the New York Times cityguide and a copy of Time Out, NY. He walked a few paces away to speak to one of the patrolmen when I turned the player mode on and was in the middle of offering to playback the shot to him to set his apprehensions totally at rest when he charged at me, shoved me, snatched my camera and said to me We know how to deal with you guys, asshole. He said he was "authorised to punch me if necessary". I was stunned and as I tried to speak to him, he told me stay right there ; I told him to at least switch the camera/ player off so the battery did not get drained. He further told me Don't move, you are lucky it is me or else you would be down there (pointing to the ground) with hands cuffed behind your back. He accused me of trying to erase my footage, an allegation I found shocking. I denied it firmly.
...For nearly two hours, I was made to stand on the sidewalk outside Starbucks, with my camera and passport in the detectives possession, not allowed even to move, not allowed to use my phone. During this time Sgt McCann arrived and questioned me, asked me for any other professional ID, which I furnished. I repeated most of the information to him as well. I asked him whether I could at least buy water from the Starbucks outlet; he refused and asked a patrolman to take the money from me and get me a water bottle. At this point, I asked Det. Elimeyer whether we were waiting for anything further, he informed me that more experienced detectives were on the way. He said to me in the presence of the two patrolmen - "no hard feelings". I interjected with - " But you did call me an asshole". First he denied it and when I pointed out that the patrolman had heard him too, he said - "when this is over and you are in the clear, I'd be the first to apologise a hundred times, even buy you a beer". He then shook my hand even as I continued to be under 'detention'.
And just noticed from his website he has also started a blog.
Divya, you are entitled to your views on security. But methinks it is too arrogant of you to accuse all desis who cry foul to be ones who lord out in India. I do street photography all the time. And I certainly don't like getting pulled up for silly reasons like that. In today's age of tech and google earth, a terrorist doesn't need footage from the actual location if he wants to blow it up.
Let me recount my personal experience. Last year during thanksgiving I visited Richmond and Philadelphia with friends. In Richmond it was a lazy Sunday afternoon, two of us were harmlessly wandering around downtown and there was this nice cloud formation reflected on the glass panes of a highrise. Naturally I started clicking and I didn't even notice I was right next to a precinct. Suddenly an officer pulled up..did some general enquiry and asked me to discontinue shooting. When asked whether I was doing anything wrong, he said no, but warned me...that things are not good after 9-11 so I better watch out. I was in no mood to take a panga with BigBro and waste my friend's time..so I let go. Then again in Philly, inside the grand central station(37thStreet station?). We were waiting for another friend to arrive. There is a memorial statue of some kind as well as the station itself is superultra beautiful from the inside. Again, when I started clicking, two officers from nowhere suddenly descended on me and asked me to stop shooting. Thankfully both the times, none of them asked me to hand over my film or were not too rude...but I can sort of imagine where all this is going. An old American lady using her digital P&S was also told to stop and she was so pissed off, she started ranting (like old Parsis haggle with conductors in Bbay). I think they even deleted her pics.
Now what is the logic behind associating terrorist motives to someone who is clicking a public building. I don't think there was any law to stop me on either ocassions. Scare mongering tactics will only piss off ordinary people like me and that lady. If a terrorist really needs such photos for doing harm...there are any number of methods to obtain them.
And if Rakesh Sharma was indeed handled the way he describes it, then he is justified in complaining or suing the authorities to seek justice.
long live freedom in the good ol' usa
Marcello Mastroianni?
;)
Why are there water and concrete barricades post 9/11 outside every major building in Manhattan? Why are trucks going into tunnels being checked? Why are bags being checked in subways? I think this line of thinking as to "why" is valid but we need to be realistic about it as well. There has been intelligence in the past that has uncovered photographs (for all intents and purposes lets assume it's correct) would you not want the government to examine any possiblities?
Yes stereotyping has been blatant since 9/11. But will all due respect did the terrorists not look like us? I'm not saying it is correct or that it shouldn't be made a stink of and rectified. But you are talking about a fleet of over 40,000 cops, many not overly educated or culturally aware. To undo their stereotypes brought on by their years of experience on the street and to instill sensitivity to tell the difference between people would take time won't you say?
I filmed my documentary on the streets of NYC, in Herald Square, in the subway and on the LIRR before Sept 11 and I was questioned every time I had my equipment out. I also helped on another documentary post 9/11 and we got questioned and shooed away every single time. It can be distracting depending on how big your equipment is and the questions are valid. I wasn't harrassed though they weren't exactly nice either. I think this city is rough, it's inhabitants are rough, the cities cops are even rougher. You are going to have an element of that no matter what, Sept 11th or not.
I'd like to see how this case goes. I'd definitely watch it. I'm refraining from having opinions about it yet because I'd like to see how it's being played out.
NYC law enforcement has always been jumpy, especially after this incident:
Unfortunately this is the reality that people have to be aware of when indulging in what used to be considered innocuous activities till 9/10/01, are now considered suspicious.
Aside from Valarie Kaur's personal experience at the RNC in 2004, Valarie and myself have been making a documentary and recently filmed for one week in NYC. There are rules and regulations for a professional production in NYC, but they essentially boil down to this: As soon as you put a tripod down, a police officer would be within his or her right to ask for a permit. Which are relatively easy to obtain with production insurance. So restrictions exist on HOW to film professionally -- but not WHAT. (Incidentally, at Ground Zero you aren't allowed to even have a tripod -- our cinematographer had to hand hold the camera...) And techinically, the city could enforce "filming" statues and laws and force everyone to have a permit. But can you imagine what that would do? It's perhaps the most photographed city in the world, how could they police that?
But I think the question is less about permits, permission, and filming and more about racial profiling the mistreatment Rakesh Sharma experienced. He didn't have a tripod and could've been any ol' tourist, let alone an independent filmmaker with knowledge of his rights. Here's from my own experience: I had bought a new, very small, and ultimately crappy Canon mini-DV camera and was eager to use it. I was filming my family's trip to India, and we left from Reagan National Airport in Washington. Someone must've seen me recording in the airport because after I got through security and was waiting at the gate, an undercover FBI agent came with an armed security guard and took me away to interrogate me, asking why I was filming the "airport's structures." (Filmmakers call it "b-roll"...)
After telling him that I'm a filmmaker (even showing him my film grad school ID card to "prove it") and answering accusatory questions, I asked the FBI agent a question of my own. Did he stop me because I'm brown skinned? After hemming and hawing, he said that they don't profile racially and they "would've stopped and questioned anyone filming." But -- and let me totally clear about this -- there is NO law that prohibits using a home movie camera in an airport. None.
I wonder if they would've stopped me -- or Rakesh Sharma -- if I was Japanese. Or any other non-brown person. The problem here is "filming when brown." And you know what, the intimidation works. I think twice whenever I casually use my video, still, or super 8mm camera in a public place. Although, public place is that -- public. And it shouldn't effect me, but it does. Does this make any of us safer?
This may be a bit cruel of me, but I found that line sorta funny.
Anyway, I think brown-to-non-brown relations have gotten a bit dicey since 9/11 for both sides. I'm not trying to promote we-they philosophy. In fact, I completely oppose it. Seeing as how good South Asians have been at making money in America over the last few years, I'm really hoping there aren't a string of absurd lawsuits over the slightest hint of a sentiment that could be racism if you squint and look at it in the right light. The Holocaust brought about the Anti-Defamation League. 9/11 might do something similar in the next few years and I'd L-O-L if it does.
OK here's something along the similar line I thought about...
If I was under arrest or detained, standing on a street corner being humiliated, scared, would I be worried about the battery in my camera?
Sharat, thanks for sharing your experience. I recollect Digg had a thread on photographer's. right. There are quite a few revealing comments and experiences of some other professional photographers and filmmakers on that website.
The barricades and all are for extra security. And the bags were being checked after some credible intelligence reports that were released to public at a rather convenient political time for maximum distraction. I thought you did not know. BTW, the places where photography is prohibited are marked as such. It's not a prerogative of a beat cop to deem a street security sensitive if a brown guy takes photographs of it.
That's exactly why I applaud Rakesh Sharma for bringing this case. I hope this will educate NYPD and help them in being more professional. I hope they will think twice before they indulge in "criminal" harassment of brown skinned people.
Rough is fine. Abuse of power is criminal. I do not carry a Glock with me and I do not wear a blue uniform so a cop and I do not exactly just two citizens. Moreover Mumbai is rough New Delhi is even rougher. New Delhi cops are crude and can get pretty nasty pretty quickly. Why do we not spare them this charity of "cultural unawareness" and being hostages of their stereotypes. If this case helps in reducing the boorishness of New Yorkers in general, even better.
Hey
V v few in India are privileged but most of us are used to plenty of freedom and are quite surprised to see it doesn't exist here. The privileged few here too lead a diff life. Nothing to do with RS being humiliated, that is usually a brown/wog issue and has been since the Indians first arrrived here. What would a Jew with a yarmulke have done? More imp, what would his community have done for him?
Since you ask ...
May be.
Then may be not.
May be you would be too scared and lose your wits. May be you would forget that camera could be powered by battries. May be you would not care. May be you are not a professional, just dabbling in this filming thing.
May be you are a "privileged" desi and you have 5 spare battries.
Wow, that sure rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way! Thankfully there were a few sane voices among the ranters.
Amardeep, I happen to be happy with the law restricting photography in tunnels since I work right over this particular tunnel in question. I have no clue about the efficacy of such laws and whether google can give you the insides of a tunnel but I doubt the NYPD is doing this just to look busy. Over the New Year weekend I went thru the Lincoln Tunnel and there was heavy checking which cost us almost an hour. I still think it was totally worth it. Please also see Vikram's post in this connection.
Sohail - Sure you can make a 100 sub-issues out of this and be outraged about all of them. But the thrust of this blog as far as I was concerned related to racial profiling and that's all I was responding to. Please do tell me what part of my post made you infer that I am okay with police brutality. I'm not going to bother clarifying where RS violated the law since it is already there in my 2nd post.
Janeofalltrades - thanks for your balanced views. But if stereotyping is incorrect, how about political correctness? Where would you set the balance? In my view PC is the worse offence. Stereotyping is bad only if done with malicious intent. PC is bad always because it robs you of your right of expression. Come to think of it, my response is basically an anti-PC stance.
I wonder if they would've stopped me -- or Rakesh Sharma -- if I was Japanese.
that would have been a herculean task - japanese shoot everything they see, and they carry the coolest gadgets around :) seriously though, we don't know what exactly the harassment was. but, 4 hours in police custody could be gruelling. This is yet another reminder about a jittery nation - i remember reading about a lady in hijab who got arrested for shooting from her car randomly while her husband was driving the car. it is not a free country anymore - it took only 19 men on 9/11 and a handful of hawks in washington to make this country go back step by step trampling all over civil liberties. How many years would we have to fight to get those rights back?
Thats an interesting point. Desis rarely stand up for other Desis and thats why NY is not afraid of offending them. Look at the recent case of the rabbi giving some babies herpes thru adult mouth to baby penis contact during circumsion... the Jews rallied to protect the procedure and NY did nothing to stop the practice even though some of the babies died and this practice would be criminal if done by anyone else but the Jews can get away with it because NY is afraid of offending the Jews. Lesson: a Jew can put their mouth a baby's penis yet Desi can't even take a photo.
i've never understood the anti-pc stance. what's wrong with being sensitive or respectful to people who are different (or not different) from you? it's sad we live in a world where asking sensitivity from others is viewed as an inconvience or restriction.
I see two important issues in Rakesh Sharmas case: racial profiling and police abuse.
First, arguments for security (like Divyas) rightly consider the need to protect against real threat but often miss the central problem: lawmakers and enforcement officers have given more attention to racial profiling, which further violates and alienates communities, rather than developing an effective law enforcement strategy that depends on strong ties with these very communities. The social costs of profiling based on skin color (brown = foreign, immigrant, suspect) outweigh any evidence so far that it makes us any safer.
In New York City, police officers are authorized to stop and ask for permits from people filming on the street, as Sharat explained. But like many laws and provisions after 9/11 (esp. when it comes to immigration violations), officers do not carry out these provisions uniformly: they will target Muslims, Arabs, and generally anyone brown-skinned. While my crew and I were lucky not to be harassed by police officers while filming our documentary in NYC (we were instead harassed by other passers-by), Rakesh Sharmas mistreatment, detainment, and interrogation (detailed in the complaint) indicate that he was targeted for filming-while-brown.
The second issue is the problem of police abuse, related but not exclusive to racial profiling. In Sharmas case, the officers verbal and physical abuse alone justify his case against the New York City Police Department. As cited earlier, my own arrest by the NYPD makes me acutely aware of the rampant problem and deep affects of police abuse. I was arrested while video-taping a political protest in Manhattan during the 2004 RNC. I was detained for sixteen hours, physically hurt by a lieutenant, denied access to a lawyer, and sustained injuries from handcuffs. My charges of disorderly conduct were dropped in the interest of justice but my property (two digital cameras, credit cards, cell phone) which were held as arrest evidence have not yet been returned. I am now pursuing a case against the NYPD.
In the aftermath of my arrest, I had to learn how to respond to people who put the burden of guilt on me for being at a protest in the first place, just as some have put the blame on Sharma for filming at all. Its time to remember the fundamental civil liberties and freedoms that make America a country worth protecting. I think if we as Desis showed more solidarity for people like Sharma, we would be showing the best of American ideals.
I think it's quite a travesty that desis are being harrassed in this way. I'm so glad that RS has the nerve to stand up to the police in this way. He's ultimately doing all of us a huge favor!
Don't be so sure. The NYPD can pretty much do anything under the guise of suspicion or questioning. There is nothing illegal for the most part about asking questions and taking permission. It IS the beat cop who is the first line of defense during problems so don't make the assumption that he has no business questioning someone he "deems" an issue. Also the rules about "photography" are fuzzy. Museums will explicitly say No pictures. You can't exactly put up signs in Grand Central for example to say No pictures. It's about discretion even if you decide the discretion may be wrong. The NYPD, the Police Union, the Commissioner and the Mayor will stand behind it.
Please spare me your irritation at another poster. Thanx.
Being PC is important when it comes to public relations, important for this city, it's image as well as when it comes to a law enforcement agency dealing with the general public. Lets not assume all of being PC is wrong. Maybe on a internet message board you can skip it and speak your mind. When you are in a position of power it is essential so it doesn't rob the other person off their dignity. A police officer has no business "expressing" his personal feelings to a perp or alleged perp. He has to follow the law and be PC doing it. That's his job. So lets keep perspective on what and where it applies.
"But like many laws and provisions after 9/11 (esp. when it comes to immigration violations), officers do not carry out these provisions uniformly: they will target Muslims, Arabs, and generally anyone brown-skinned."
You forgot to mention Latinos and Blacks. That pretty much just leaves the whites. Whites have always been privileged (with desis first in line to kiss their ass most of the time). I'm all for fighting against white privilege, except in this case I'm for the security measures. As for police brutality - I don't think it is a racial matter. If there was only one race there would still be police brutality. Now please don't conclude that I condone brutality. Just trying to clarity that it's an unrelated issue. If I had to go through what Valerie was subjected to I would be consumed to ashes.
Sparky/Janeofalltrades - why do you conclude that an anti-pc stance means that you are not sensitive to differences? PC just introduces a level of sentimental dishonesty that only gets in the way of getting to the heart of a matter. For example now we are forced to say men and women are equal. Clearly women are superior in many ways and men in other ways. None of this dare be addressed because of the legally enforced PC stance of equality. Police brutality/kindness has nothing to do with PC so the example is inappropriate.
Totally agree. No one should stifle how they feel and speak their mind. But a police officer or a person in the position of power or in a work environment for example has NO business forgoing being PC. It is a fundamental necessity to keep things running smoothly and to bring a level of respectful interaction.
Janie - A police office must be correct, not politically correct. World of differenc.
My experience with picture-taking and the law :
(1) Chicago, circa 1999 i.e. Pre-9/11 : A security guard rudely asks my sari-clad mother to stop taking pictures inside the Metra (commuter-train) station in chicago.
(2) London, August 2005 i.e. a month after 7/7 : A very polite, apologetic london cop asks me why I'm taking pictures of the ceiling of Picadilly train station.
My conclusion: British cops are much more polite than their american counterparts ? Is that true ?
What's with Indians and train stations, you ask ? I was taking the picture because the ceiling of Picadilly station, for obvious reasons, looks so much like the ceilings of old stations in India (like Madras-central and VT,Bombay).
An earlier interesting episode of "filming while brown":
http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com
As for police brutality - I don't think it is a racial matter
Wow! There have been numerous reports including reports by Justice Department and of court cases where remedies were enforced which will prove beyond a nano doubt that you are wrong.
If you believe there is no problem of institutionalized racism in some police departments around the nation, you have been living on Mars.
No they cannot pretty much do anything under the guise of suspicion or question. If they do they get charged, arrested, convicted and go to jail for a long long time. ask Justin Volpe
There is nothing wrong in asking question to allay the suspicion. There is a lot wrong in abusing physically and verbally and damaging property. You know, even Cops dont get to do that.
This case is not about questioning, its about harassment. A cop can deem an act suspicious but he cannot arbitrarily designate a sidewalk as security sensitive if a brown person is taking a photograph of it.
You have to if you want to detain people for photographing there. This is the how it works. Its not that complicated.
Police inspectors of Godhra in Gujrat, Chief Minister Narendra Modi and his cronies stood behind the thullas who were complacent during the riots must have taken a leaf from NYPDs playbook.
You are kidding me right? What is the point of discussing this extreme? We were talking about the context of police questioning people with cameras. You are cyting extreme examples because you are aggravated so it's pretty much impossible to have a logical discussion. Harrassment is NOT acceptable and I absolutely do not condone it. But in the context of police asking/telling people to stop taking pictures. Well there is nothing unlawful about it as much as we'd like to believe it is.
Now you are kidding me. Did you bother to read the complaint and the Valarie's account ? This thread was about a complaint on harrasment and abuse. Honestly, you have a long to before you get to be a Sepia-Michelle Malkin
Oh please spare me the fucking personal comments.
There's a difference between asking someone why they're taking pictures(and asking them to stop if it infringes on the rights of the person/object in the picture) and harassing them for being brown. Yet, quite a few of the above commenters seem adamant about defending the victim's "right" to take photos of whatever he wants. They mesh this with racism and bam(!), you've got a grade A scandal on your hands. I'm not saying that what happened to Rakesh and Valerie is justified in any sense of the word. Rather, like Jane, I'm simply advocating the fairly simple act of keeping things in perspective.
Jane, there will always be those who'd rather sip haterade and toke PCp(if you get my drift) than actually speak their minds. "Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all, and others to persecute those who reason" - Voltaire
Divya, sorry if you read my comment as making a 100 subissues. That is not what I set out to do. AFAI am concerned the main thrust of this post(and the subject in concern, RS) is racial profiling+brutality. The brutality doesn't exist on its own. It comes as an attachment to his skin colour(and maybe beard). So, I still don't see how you think those two are separate.
That's pretty rich of you. In your 2nd comment you only state that Metlife building is heavily guarded. Well, but that doesn't make it un-photographable even if you have an entire army posing as security. So I clearly don't see how RS violated the law by filimg it, or the tunnel under it. And if there was any violation, then maybe you can explain us why was he let off the first time round..with compliments like "asshole" and compensation of "beer". In #2, you also state there that: It is implied here that as of today there is no such law. And after reading the meat of the links I provided above regarding photographer's right(#18), I've also come to the conclusion that there is no law stopping from filming/photographing any public area (unless specifically restricted and clearly marked). If I am misreading it, I'd appreciate if you can give me some pointers to the contrary. I am taking this thread seriously bcoz as I said, I do a lot of street photography and got pulled up quite a few times(apart frm those 2 incidents) and I want to be armed with all the info I can to avoid suspicious looks and see to it that I am able to protect myself and my equipment if the need arises. This is not a personal tussle between you and me but I can't help noticing from yr comments that the meat of yr argument is this: "I work in Metlife...I don't know or care abt the laws...I feel safe with excessive searching and what if a RS here or there got pulled up and humiliated on the streets for a few hours. It's part of the security pkg. Happens to all ethnic communities not just desis. This is post 9/11, deal with it."Also, let's note some of the other statements you've made:
#2 : ...Of course desis are used to lording it around in India..
#22: ..Thankfully there were a few sane voices among the ranters..
#29: ..Whites have always been privileged (with desis first in line to kiss their ass most of the time)..
I leave it to readers to judge for themselves who is ranting and who is making reasoned arguments. Thanks.
Well said Suhail! You saved me the trouble.
you guys its new york city... a man with brown skin, with a camera, filming... its inevitable.. stop alluding to the pre 9/11 fortress of security america had, times have changed. now granted this isnt exactly constitutionally too hot, our country IS new at this, and realize that sometimes its going to be difficult... look at the big picture and stop making ignorant and ridiculous comments... im sorry, but Rakesh Sharma shouldve used some better judgement
Al Mujahid - You conveniently left out the second part of my comment where I qualified my statement about racial profiling and police brutality. If there was only one race there would still be police brutality. Even today there is white on white police brutality. In black countries there is black on black police brutality. The day we have world peace we will have a polite police force. Meanwhile, we just have to fight the fight. Having a valid cause here will help.
Suhail - Ditto to you too. RP and PB are not necessarily linked. As for filming or photography, I do not know the law so I cannot help you here. It would certainly be wise of you to do your homework before taking to the streets. I'll just ignore your rendering of my stance but what I hear you saying is that RS was deliberately and unjustifiably searched on account of his skin color. I agree skin color may have something to do with it but I do not believe the search was unjustifiable.
By the way, you picked a couple of choice phrases to quote from me towards the end. I'm glad to note you didn't dispute their validity.
Well I have heard of Rakesh Sharma and he is an irredeemable asshole. Basically a leftist weepy ne'er do well who is on a messianic drive against all overbearing Govts who are against the proletariat and so on and so forth. If you guys read some of his comments on India, its bound to get a few tempers raised. Ideology over reason. Emotion over substance. Thats the gist of his personal and professional approach.
I have been through worse in India and heck, while I appreciate the sentiment that intrusive Govt functionaries shouldnt impinge on personal freedom, the fact that it is Rakesh Sharma making such a hue and cry makes my BS meter go ping-ping-ping. Lets face it. We are living in a world where terrorists strike every now and then and such incidents can and will occur, as Govts rush to cope and come up with this & that even though we can attempt to mitigate them. Take the latest attack on IISc Bangalore for instance, which Indian cop would like it now if you were to go around Photographing IISc? They might think you are casing the joint...
I don't agree with the use of "excessive force" or rudeness by the police in these situations, but the paranoia about people taking photographs etc is unfortunately a sign of the times. For example, there have been instances of Muslims with suspicious motives being caught taking photographs of various financial buildings and airports here in the UK post-9/11.
I haven't experienced any direct harassment from the authorities myself, but I did recently have a business meeting in London's Canary Wharf area (dominated by the offices of many investment banks), and I got lost in the shopping mall connected to the train station beneath the main tower (you'd recognise the landmark, it's become quite famous). When I asked some of the people working in the shops where the exit to one of the banks was, instead of pointing me in the right direction (it was pretty close by) they said I should ask one of the many policemen patrolling the area. I wasn't thrilled about it, especially when I sensed why they were behaving that way (even though they were superficially polite in their manner), but I can understand their motivations, and ultimately the cops I spoke to were polite and helpful albeit obviously cautious.
Again, it's an unfortunate outcome of the times we live in. The majority of the individuals involved in anti-Western terrorist activities (along with "armchair sympathizers") are of brown appearance, even though many of them are actually of Middle Eastern origin rather than South Asians, and to make matters worse for us Brits the actual-and-wannabe jihadists here in the UK are disproportionately South Asian due to the ethnic makeup of this country. It's very difficult for people to be able to distinguish between us based purely on our physical appearance; hell, I frequently get mistaken for a Pakistani even by other Indians.
Uhh...since when was challenging "overbearing Govts" a bad thing?
I don't know dick about this chap, but someone whose judgement I trust has met him and thought he's a nice guy.
Jai, it's funny you mention Canary Wharf - as I made a permit-less film there 2 years ago (which I linked to once on SM!) Me, three brown guys and a Chinese breakdancer. We thought we'd get a lot more hassle because we were filming everything, the tower, the square, the station. But despite security guards giving us a hard time, the police weren't bothered. Canary Wharf and Canada Square are full of Asian bankers anyway, so the police aren't instantly suspicious of a brown face. The only place which kicked us out was in Chelsea.
I wish I could say the same about when I'm minding my own business and de-camera'd. Some people may remember my stories post 7/7, oh what fun. It's something I've come to expect, looking the way I do. Jai did you see the new body-scanners at Paddington?
Al Mujahid - You conveniently left out the second part of my comment where I qualified my statement about racial profiling and police brutality. If there was only one race there would still be police brutality.
No, I did not. You are insinuating that brutality is color blind and there always will be x amount of brutality and a white man in America faces the same amount of brutality that a black man does.
We are talking about racial prejudice which leads to brutality.
There will always be some brutality, but in the absence of racial prejudice the minorities will face only general brutality and will be saved from racial brutality which is in addition to general brutality.
Although what happened to RS does happen to other human beings and not correct in its entirety, but he being a communist might be lying and exaggerating to fight his long time ideological enemy - the imperialist/capitalist New York. One of the earlier reports (when the incident happended last year) said he was continuously taking camera shots of buildings and not taxis.
I was in NYC with my bf for New Year's and we took a lot of pics.... skyscrapers, united nations and all other ny 'attractions'and not once were we stopped or harassed by the NYPD. But then again, my bf is a 'white caucasian male'!
Frankly, this sort of discrimination should be stopped. But then again, paranoia reigns supreme and I guess Mr Sharma should have been smart enough to know that.
Before I get to RS, let me recount a couple of incidents involving famous desis...
Two-three years ago, the then Defence-Minister of India, George Fernandes, was strip-searched in the DC airport - despite his diplomatic status and his entire entourage vouching for him, and despite the fact that he was coming to visit Rumsfeld!
Around the same time, South-Indian film star Kamal Hasan was detained at another airport, for no other reason than having a muslim-sounding name. He was interrogated for a few hours, and after that they still denied him the right to fly. He had to make a 12 hour road trip to his destination.
Did these two claim to be "offended", "harassed", "humiliated" or "add-your-typical-leftist-emotional-phrase-here"? No. Did they throw their weight around? No. Were they understanding of the process? Yes. "It's your country", they said. "You have a right to make your own rules."
It takes empathy, compassion, self-confidence, concern for justice and due process to show all these qualities that the above two displayed. Going by Rakesh Sharma's ultra-left leanings, I would guess that he is wanting in all of these qualities and more.
If you don't like rules of a foreign country - don't go there. Stay in your own cave and feel free to rant and rave from there. Don't come to a foreign country, show callous disregard for rules, and then misuse the venues that those countrymen have created for citizens to sue the country's citizens while holding the passport of your own country.
M. Nam
Around the same time, South-Indian film star Kamal Hasan was detained at another airport, for no other reason than having a muslim-sounding name.
He is also supposed to have told immigration officials he was entering the US (from Canada) for a "shooting" (as in desi speak 'film shooting')...
rriiighhhttt....and what rules would those be exactly in this case?
ps: i'll ignore the rest of your rant.
>>what rules would those be exactly in this case?
Not obtaining a permit to film beforehand...? Lacking proper insurance to obtain permit?
M. Nam
oh ok....u meant those legally required rights for what he was doing huh? u forgot not obtaining a permit to fart in that list....
- First of all there is a HUGE difference between some filmmaker and George Fernandes, who was the sitting Defence Minister of India at the time. Its equivalent of giving Rummy a strip-search.
- And YES, George Fernandes PROTESTED enough to get OFFICIAL APPOLOGY from US
That is what one gets being DESI in the post 9/11 US. Not even people with dimplomatic immunity are spared.
RC,
George Fernandes did not contact the ACLU and sue the DC Airport authorities for the incident. The only thing he said is: "I would not like to visit the US in future." It was the Indian embassy that protested and got the apology.
If Rakesh Sharma had said gracefully: "I can't stay in a country where there is no freedom to shoot without permit or insurance. I'm leaving and I won't return" I would have commended him. But he is misusing the ACLU (which was created to protect citizens) to sue American citizens while being a foreigner himself.
Using freedom to destroy it - it's been tried before in history.
M. Nam
I dont think you read my comment's first bullet. A sitting Defence Minister of a major powers of the world doesnt need to go to ACLU. Just 55 years ago this kind of shit caused 2nd world war.
wow. you need to send a mail to the ACLU pointing out to them how they were "created" to protect citizens. and how they're being exploited by this disgusting foreigner. you need to gently guide them towards the straight and narrow. thank god there's someone looking out for the ACLU!!!!
ps: in case you missed it, i was being sarcastic in the previous post too. he did not need permission for what he was doing. have you even read the full account?
But he is misusing the ACLU (which was created to protect citizens) to sue American citizens while being a foreigner himself.
The American Civil Liberties Union cares about, advocates for and fights for the rights of all people in the United States irrespective of their citizenship status.
Here is the ACLU link for rights of non citizens:http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/index.html
P.S. For some wise guy who would point out the difference between a tourist (non-immigrant) and immigrants, the ACLU does indeed fight for the rights of non immigrants like students on visas, people on work visas, illegal aliens and others.
Stay in your own cave and feel free to rant and rave from there. Don't come to a foreign country, show callous disregard for rules, and then misuse the venues that those countrymen have created for citizens to sue the country's citizens while holding the passport of your own country.
Moornam: In THE United States of America, all people irrespective of their citizenship status are for most part equal in the eyes of law. The very reason that courts are allowed to have jurisdiction over cases filed by foreigners is because the Constitution and the law makers want to give the ability to all people to seek redress in a court of law. If the democratically elected legislators wanted to deny non citizens access to courts, they could easily do so.
the law-and-order types would do well to read the actual complaint, which abhi helpfully linked to at the start of the post.
simple question: did rakesh break the law by filming?
answer, per the complaint: the city states that "filming on public property" requires a permit. however, it does not define the boundaries of "filming." rakesh was using a hand-held video camera. it's a fact that tourists are not arrested for using camcorders. why would rakesh reasonably expect that his case was any different from an ordinary tourist filming with a hand-held device?
simple question: did rakesh break the law after being accosted by police, or did he in any way fail to cooperate with police or give police any reasonable cause to treat him in a peremptory and disrespectful manner?
answer: no. meanwhile, the police treated him in a manner that strongly suggests ethnic or racial discrimination. (see the text of the conversation as related in the complaint.)
question: well, what about the specifics of the case. he was filming a tunnel and a skyscraper, wasn't he?
answer: so what? if the city doesn't want people to take photographs or videotape of tunnels and skyscrapers, let it impose a uniform rule to that effect. many countries (india for example) have laws that prohibit photographing any number of locations. if you impose a clear rule and enforce it uniformly, people can complain about whether the rule is justified in the first place, but they can't complain about it being enforced.
question: well, shouldn't rakesh have realized that as a south asian, he was bound to get in trouble of some sort; therefore he should just take his lumps and not file suit?
answer: either you are against discrimination, or you are for it.
That is not true. People are deported every year on legalities. A citizen cannot be kicked out of a country if incarcerated, a "resident" without citizenship can. Basic human rights might be the same but legal rights are not.
Thanks Moornam and HammerSickle for hightlighting that this is basically an airheaded commie issue. These guys have a real talent for capitalizing on righteous indignation for their maximum personal benefit. I'm beginning to be suspicious of Valerie Kaur too. Just checked out her website and (sniff, sniff) she's upset that desis are typically asked about their country of origin whereas her Aussie roomate is not!! If anyone had the remotest sense of justice they would defer to the Native American opinion on this matter instead of being indignant that this country is regarded as white man's land where her 3rd generation Sikh identity is not given due recognition.
Siddhart_M - I'll confess I haven't read the complaint, but it is not enough to read the plaintiff's side. The Answer to the complaint may well tell an entirely different story. Let's not be too hasty in saying this is pure discrimination. Why should the benefit of the doubt go to RS? One cannot randomly rule out the possibility that he could actually have been a terrorist. Besides others on this thread have said that they were filming and were not harrassed.
divya:
i agree with you. but that is precisely what the court system is about. a venue where both sides can air their story, and a judgment can be made. in turn, this will set useful precedent and hopefully reduce the chances of such incidents happening in the future, either by giving clear reasons to would-be videotapers to refrain from filming, or by giving clear reasons for police to allow such filming. dismissing the suit as frivolous amounts to pre-judging the case. and, i do recommend you read the complaint.
i want to ask you what you mean by this. it's a theme you've sounded more than once, i believe. i read it as meaning: "since white people in america killed off the native americans, why should we expect, or ask, them to treat anyone else as well as they treat one another?"
did i get the jist of it right? if not, can you clarify?
peace
Can I have a final word from you whether he violated any law or not? Without that we are pretty much talking past each other.
Read yr comments (esplly, to Amardeep, #22). I hope I didn't render yr stance incorrectly if that was the basis of your ignoring it. No, I am saying the search/general enquiry could've happened to anyone. And let me clarify, I am not against that too. If a police thinks he is seeing suspicious activity he has the right to question in a decent manner within the guidelines of the law. But the subsequent humiliation was because of his brownism. That I am opposed to. And I am opposed to if the officers later ask me to stop clicking after the questions have been answered to their satisfaction, and I have co-operated with them. And I'm glad to note that you didn't ignore them. Peace.Thanks AMfD for the links and Siddhartha for summing it all up.
he didn't expect that. he tried to provide proof to the contrary by giving phone numbers and suggesting the simplest possible thing. i.e. a google search on his name. all his requests were denied.
absolutely. but unlike you, at least people have taken the trouble to read what IS available at the moment before passing comments on the issue. the comments have been based on the account provided.
people have been talking about an issue here, given a specific set of facts. if those facts are proven to be false, that would change everything.
BongBreaker,
I agree about all the desis in the Canary Wharf area, although despite the fact that I was suited-and-booted, I was also slightly flustered (due to not wanting to be late for my meeting and the fact that I was lost) and told both the shop staff and the police that I couldn't find the exit to one of the most well-known investment banks in the world -- which is also probably one of the prime terrorist targets there -- no doubt all this made me look a bit supicious.
I haven't been to that particular train station recently but have seen the various reports on the news. I'm not sure how practical it will be -- considering the impossibility of scanning absolutely everyone, airport-style, especially during the morning & evening rush hours -- but it's a good idea anyway.
Regardless of whether we're talking about the UK or the US, it would be unwise for the police to focus purely on brown-looking people who they suspect of acting suspiciously, considering the number of white & black Muslim converts around, plus of course the jihadists will amend their strategy and use non-desi people for their purposes (ie. as "mules") if they see that only Asian-looking individuals are being targetted. We've all talked about this on SM previously anyway.
I'm beginning to be suspicious of Valerie Kaur too.
Why? did she violate some laws? or are you just suspicious of anyone who asserts the issue of their civils rights?
"want to ask you what you mean by this. it's a theme you've sounded more than once, i believe. i read it as meaning: "since white people in america killed off the native americans, why should we expect, or ask, them to treat anyone else as well as they treat one another?"
That must have been another Divya since I'm new to this board. But no, that's not what I meant at all. What I mean is: if anyone is entitled to this land it is the Native Americans. A desi cannot claim entitlement to this land just because the whites claim it. That's as far as the entitlement argument goes. The other argument is the PC (commie) one. Everyone *must* be perceived equally. I don't buy this either. People will always be perceived differently and if a Sikh gets asked where she's from it's no biggie. Vive La Difference! I know many Americans who are practicing Hindus who complain about not being accepted (enough) by Indians. But Indians are all minorities and we don't make this into an issue. Gujjus don't complain that the Punjabis don't accept them and Malyalees don't care that the Marathis are too whatever. The Indian model can serve as a huge example to the world instead of desis incorporating unnatural ideologies like communism and reducing everyone down to the lowest denominator.
That is not true. People are deported every year on legalities. A citizen cannot be kicked out of a country if incarcerated, a "resident" without citizenship can. Basic human rights might be the same but legal rights are not.
That is why I said for the most part and did not use absolute terms.
When we speak about actions which are proscribed, for the most part it does not matter whether you are a citizen or not.
The other argument is the PC (commie) one. Everyone *must* be perceived equally. I don't buy this either.
Interesting.
A desi cannot claim entitlement to this land just because the whites claim it
Divya: If you are an American citizen, do you believe that you are entitled to the same rights that White Americans enjoy?
I dont like Rakesh Sharma's politics, but his complain is still valid.
He may be seeking attention, but it wouldnt have happened without the police cooperation in this case.
Also how the hell is a tourist supposed to know where he can use a camera.
Miss Janet,
Apparently, you have not heard of Bobby Fischer. Some excerpts from his Wikipedia site. At one time, he used to the World Chess Champion from US of A. An All-American Dude.On July 13, 2004, Fischer was arrested at Narita International Airport in Narita, Japan near Tokyo for allegedly using a revoked U.S. passport while trying to board a Japan Airlines flight to Ninoy Aquino International Airport near Manila, Philippines. Fischer used a genuine passport that the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland issued to him in 1997, but which was revoked in 2003 after George Bush's son became president. It has been reported that Fischer traveled frequently between Tokyo and Manila using his U.S. passport in Clinton Presidency years.
Al Mujahid - It's very very interesting to say the least. Deserves a long, close, hard look. And no, it does not mean some people have the right to trample over others. That's the system we live in now anyway perhaps *because* of this equality nonsense and not in spite of it. Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread entirely so perhaps we will get another opportunity to discuss it.
I was wondering why the RSS types hate Rakesh Sharma. So I googled him and found the reason for this hatred.
Divya: I was being facetious with my interesting comment. What I meant was 'ROFLMAO'.
mujahid, don't you get it? inequality is the result of equality. in other news, war is peace; ignorance is truth; and all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
see y'all on another thread.
peace
"war is peace; ignorance is truth; and all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
This is precisely the world we live in unfortunately. Or haven't you noticed?
This is precisely the world we live in unfortunately. Or haven't you noticed?
And you seem to be very content with the way it is.
Most American are generally tolerant. We, as South Asians can thank the Civil Rights movement for that.
Reverse the sitaution, a couple of Caucasians crash a plane deliberately somewhere is South Asia and kill a few hundred people. Do you think a white dude will walk around in Gateway of India taking pictures? the mob will beat him to death before the police can get to him.
- 4 1/2 years later?
- Are you seriously arguing the U.S. should emulate the Indian justice system?
- Are you seriously arguing the U.S. should emulate the Indian justice system?
Absolutely not....My argument is that we cannot take anything for granted.
"Do you think a white dude will walk around in Gateway of India taking pictures? the mob will beat him to death before the police can get to him."
I will protest that too. Nobody is saying that any other part of the world is better in this regard, but many of us happen to live here and this baseless scrutiny of non-whites is outright racial profiling and is against the constitution of the united states itself. Some of us are not willing to lay down our rights because some nuts who 'looked' like us flew a plane into a building.
AM, yes, the rss folks would like to lock RS up for the rest of his life for what he has done through 'final solution'.
Bong Breaker, when I said overbearing governments vs the proleteriat, I was being sarcastic- perhaps you missed it?
Yes, I am sure he is a "nice guy"- I keep hearing the same no offence intended, about others who constantly rage against "imperialists", "communalists", insert ist of your preference, on a personal level, but scratch the surface and all the "rage" against the "system" boils out. And then they tend to get very nasty very fast, and the impression changes.
I dont find it surprising it all that RS would have created a stink- I have been around a heck of a lot of leftists and communists, and all they can do is create a mountain out of a molehill. As is being made out of this case.
Najeeb,
I have seen parts of final solution, and while I am no fan of the RSS etc, at times I had to roll my eyes at the "editorial slant" being given- wonder when RS will make a movie on the likes of the LET or Tableegh. As far as the RSS would like to lock up RS, I'd sure assure you a lot of us would like to lock up the Deoband ulema who gave a verdict on the Imrana case. But India is a democracy, so everyone moves along and individual opinions dont matter unless the state deems it absolutely necessary to intervene...
Cheers.
Watch out this space for updates on how Indian communists will cheer RS for sueing the imperialist world.
Akash, i have no problem if he makes a movie on LET or tableegh, though both are two different types of organizations. Tableegis cannot be compared to RSS, as Tableegis are fundamentalists (in the sense that they want to follow islam to the word of prophet and koran with no room fo