Monday, February 25, 2013

Spending Cuts to Start Friday in U.S. Without Compromise

(BloomBerg)


U.S. lawmakers have four days to avoid the start of across-the-board government spending cuts, known as sequestration. So far, there is little indication that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans will reach an agreement this week.
Here are questions and answers about the cuts and where talks stand:
Enlarge image
Democrats, including U.S. President Barack Obama, are recommending that a mix of tax increases and spending cuts replace sequestration.
What is sequestration?
It’s the official name for the automatic federal spending cuts that will begin March 1. Sequestration will reduce projected spending by $85 billion over the final seven months of this fiscal year and by $1.2 trillion over the next nine years. Half of the cuts will affect defense spending; the remainder will be spread over other federal agencies.
Why has Congress come so close to the deadline?
Lawmakers can’t agree on how to prevent sequestration from starting.
Will there be immediate effects on March 1?
Probably not, in many cases. Agencies have had five months -- since the start of the fiscal year Oct. 1 -- to plan for changes, so the effects may be gradual. That makes sequestration different from a partial government shutdown like the ones that occurred in 1995 and 1996.
What are the consequences for government services?
Under sequestration, the Pentagon would furlough up to 800,000 civilian employees, requiring them to take unpaid time off. Employees must be given 30 days’ notice. Cuts at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration could mean delays at airports. Spending on child nutrition and housing vouchers also would be reduced.
What are some specific cuts that could happen?
The FAA would probably close more than 100 air-traffic control towers, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Feb. 21. The Coast Guard would reduce its presence in the Arctic by one third, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Feb. 14.
What are the economic consequences if Congress does nothing?
By the end of the year, sequestration would reduce gross domestic product by 0.6 percent and cost 750,000 jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Do the cuts affect all federal spending?
No. Military pay and veterans benefits are exempt, as are Social Security benefits. Payments to Medicare providers would be cut less than other spending, with a maximum of 2 percent. Those exemptions create a disproportionate effect in other areas of the budget, such as defense contracts, meat inspection and national parks.
How big are the automatic cuts?
Compared with annual spending, the cuts will be about 8 percent for defense programs, Danny Werfel, controller at the Office of Management and Budget, told a Senate committee Feb. 14. Non-defense programs face about a 5 percent cut. Because the first year’s cuts would be made over the final seven months of fiscal 2013, the effective reductions would be about 13 percent for defense programs and 9 percent for non-defense programs, Werfel said in a Feb. 8 briefing.
How do agencies decide what to cut?
The law requires them to make equal cuts in every program. Agencies with contractual agreements they can’t break or those that spend a large share of their costs on staff may have little choice other than to implement furloughs.
“Every account has to be cut by a certain percentage,” Werfel said Feb. 8. “It’s not like the agencies can move money amongst accounts.”
Why can’t Congress stop these cuts from happening?
With a few exceptions, lawmakers say they want to avoid sequestration because its across-the-board nature is a poor way to make choices about spending cuts. The issue is that they don’t agree on how to do it.
What do Democrats want?
Democrats, including Obama, are recommending that a mix of tax increases and spending cuts replace sequestration. Obama says he wants to pursue a broader budget deal that would include a rewrite of the tax code and some cuts to health care programs.
What do Republicans want?
Republicans, noting that tax rates for top earners rose Jan. 2, say they won’t accept additional revenue as a way to replace the deficit reduction from sequestration. Instead, they say spending cuts alone, particularly in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, should be the solution.
Have financial markets been affected?
Unlike during the tax negotiations in November and December, stocks and Treasury bonds haven’t reacted instantly to statements from congressional leaders. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has increased 6.3 percent so far this year, as of 4 p.m. in New York on Feb. 22. Yields on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury bond increased to 1.96 percent on Feb. 22 from 1.76 percent on Dec. 31, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices.
Defense contractors have seen slower growth. The Standard & Poor’s Aerospace and Defense Index gained 6.8 percent in the past 12 months, trailing the 11.6 percent gain for the broader Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.
Is Congress going to vote?
The Senate is scheduling a vote as soon as this week on a $110 billion plan that would delay the cuts until January 2014. The plan relies half on spending cuts, such as ending some farm subsidies, and half on higher taxes, primarily a minimum 30 percent tax rate on top earners. The tax provision is known as the Buffett Rule after one of its leading proponents, billionaire Warren Buffett. Republicans are expected to block the proposal from coming to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
What about the House?
House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, says he will consider anything the Senate passes. Last year, the House twice passed bills to delay the automatic cuts and replace them with other spending reductions. Those bills expired when the new Congress began Jan. 3.
Would Congress be affected by the cuts?
Yes. The legislative branch would be treated like any other agency with cuts to such things as committee budgets and building maintenance. Lawmakers’ salaries wouldn’t be affected.
Why did Congress create sequestration?
Because lawmakers couldn’t come up with a better option. In August 2011, as they debated an increase in the federal debt ceiling, Republicans were demanding spending cuts equal to the size of the debt limit. Obama wanted a debt limit increase of more than $2 trillion to get past the 2012 election. Lawmakers agreed to cut about $900 billion up front and do the rest through sequestration, intending to create an outcome so unpalatable that they would come up with a way to avoid it.
Why is it called sequestration?
The name stems from a 1985 deficit-reduction law, when the across-the-board cuts were first enacted to ensure that Congress would act. In 2011, the administration proposed -- and Republicans accepted -- sequestration as the backstop to deficit reduction if a 2011 supercommittee and regular congressional rules didn’t produce results. They didn’t.
Is this the only fiscal feud?
No. A temporary measure extending government spending expires March 27, and failure to act would cause a partial government shutdown. Several months after that, the U.S. will again approach the debt limit. Any resolution to sequestration could include provisions that would address the other deadlines.

Oscars: 'Argo' wins Best Picture; Day-Lewis, Lawrence get best acting nods

(FoxNews)

Oscar has a bit of egg on its golden face.

“Argo” took home the Best Picture award during Sunday night’s Academy Awards.
The film’s director, Ben Affleck, was famously left off of Oscar’s Best Director list of nominees.
Affleck, who sped through an emotional acceptance speech, did not mention the snub, and had only kind words to say about his film's competitors.
 "There are eight great films that have every right, as much a right to be up here as we do," he said said, his voice cracking later when he thanked his wife, actress Jennifer Garner.
"Argo" had already snapped up every major award leading up to the Oscars, so its presenter may have been more of a surprise than the winner.
First Lady Michelle Obama, introduced by Jack Nicholson, appeared via satellite to announce the Best Picture award.
But "Argo" didn't hog all of the Oscar spotlight.
Daniel Day-Lewis took home the Best Actor award for his role in “Lincoln," and Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress for "Silver Linings Playbook."
The 22-year-old was so excited she tripped and fell hard as she walked up the steps to the stage to accept her award.
"You guys are just standing up because you feel bad that I fell," she said to the audience.
Ang Lee won the best director award for "Life of Pi." It was a major upset, as Steven Spielberg had been favored for "Lincoln."
"I really want to thank you for believing this story and sharing this incredible journey with me," Lee said.
Christoph Waltz took home the first big award of the night, winning best supporting actor for his role in "Django Unchained." It was his second Oscar from his second Quentin Tarantino film. He won an Oscar for supporting actor in 2009 for "Inglourious Basterds."
Anne Hathaway took home the award for best supporting actress for her role in "Les Miserables."
Hathaway, whose perkiness helped carry her and the listless Franco through an ill-starred stint as Oscar hosts two years ago, is the third performer in a musical to win supporting actress during the genre's resurgence in the last decade.
"It came true," she said, clutching her Oscar.
There was another Oscar surprise when a tie was announced in the Sound Editing category. Teams from "Skyfall" and "Zero Dark Thirty" both took home golden statues. It was not, however, the first Academy Award tie. According to History.com, there were ties in 1943, 1949 and 1986.
But the big winners of the night were perhaps slightly overshadowed by the show's controversial host and seemingly endless musical performances.
Seth MacFarlane, of “Family Guy” fame, kicked off the ceremony by pushing the crudeness envelope early-on, but Captain Kirk -- yes Captain Kirk -- wasn’t having it.
William Shatner, dressed as his "Star Trek" character, appeared on a screen less than 10 minutes into the telecast to cut off what he called MacFarlane’s offensive jokes.
Shatner said he was coming from the future to “stop you from destroying the Academy Awards.” He then went on to hold up a news article that read “Seth MacFarlane Worst Oscar Host Ever.”
As the night began, MacFarlane took jabs at Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Chris Brown and Rihanna. His jokes were met with mixed applause and scattered laughs from the celebrity audience.
Following MacFarlane's initial show introduction, the Oscars quickly took turned into a musical extravaganza, as promised.
A series of musical numbers were presented as a salute to movie musicals of the last decade. Daniel Radcliffe, Jennifer Hudson and Catherine Zeta Jones were among the night's performers.
The star-studded cast of “Les Miserables” also took the Oscar stage to perform, including Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Helena Bonham Carter and Amanda Seyfried.
Their performance received a standing ovation.
Adele entertained the Oscar audience in a much-anticipated performance of her hit "Skyfall." The performance was part of a tribute to the James Bond franchise, which celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. She later won the award for best original song.
Earlier in the night, 76-year-old Shirley Bassey got a standing ovation after she belted out "Goldfinger" for the 007 tribute.

All of those performances took their toll on the show’s running length, however, which went about 35 minutes past its promised three-hour run time.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/02/24/oscars-are-predictable-wild-card-seth-macfarlane/#ixzz2Lt65hNqi

Bhopal Archbishop Leo Cornelio Granted Bail

(UCANews)


Judge Sharma directed the accused to furnish a bond of 10,000 rupees (US$183) each, remain in the country and cooperate with the court’s investigation.
Bhopal:
Three Church officials including the Archbishop of Bhopal, accused of attempting to poison a fellow priest, were granted anticpatory bail on Thursday.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Sriram Sharma granted bail to Archbishop Leo Cornelio, his vicar general Father Mathew VC and diocesan spokesperson Father Jonhy PJ.

The court case was first registered on February 7 on behalf of Father Anand Muttungal, former archdiocesan spokesperson, who alleged that the three men had conspired to use unnecessary medicines to make him think that he was mentally unbalanced.

Fr Muttungal has claimed that the conspiracy was in response to previous allegations of financial mismanagement that he had brought against the archbishop and others in the archdiocese.

Archbishop Cornelio and his co-defendants have all denied any wrongdoing. The court is set to hear the case on March 1.

Judge Sharma directed the accused to furnish a bond of 10,000 rupees (US$183) each, remain in the country and cooperate with the court’s investigation.

Counsel for Fr Muttungal objected to the granting of bail on the grounds that the accused posed a threat to his client because of their positions of leadership in the archdiocese.

The court ruled that the accused had no criminal history and granted the bail request.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Association of Bhopal has planned a candlelight procession on the grounds of the Bhopal parish church to show solidarity with the accused archbishop and his colleagues.

“The issue should have been settled within the Church and should never have gone to civil court,” said Daniel John, president of the association. “As head and father of the local Church, it is impossible that the archbishop indulged in any such alleged activities.”

He added that local parishioners hope the case will ultimately be withdrawn and settled amicably out of court.

Inquisition Comes Knocking, Again


Manish Manjul 

Those of you, who do not have the time or inclination to read the 'Prevention of Communal and targeted violence' bill, it is time to wake up. It will divide the entire nation into two communities. One the majority community and all other will be the 'elite' communities.

First of all, it is said to be a bill, which will try to solve 'communal riots' and save the 'secular fabric of the nation' (whatever it means).
Section 3(c) “communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property, knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group, which destroys the secular fabric of the nation;

Now, anyone who has the faintest idea of our IPC and CrPC, knows that there are ample provisions to take care of such crimes. What is needed is the correct implementation of these provisions and removal of the draconian laws, without dividing the nation into warring communities.

Then what is the idea of another bill?

The answer to the question lies in section 3(e)
Section 3(e) “group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India;
Read the two paragraphs together. Slow. Real slow.


You will find out that according to this act, killing, plundering, hurting or raping Majority population is not 'communal or targeted violence'.

The intention behind the act will become clearer when one reads the definition of 'victim':
(j) “victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or her property as a result of the commission of any offense under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;
Thus, if you are a Hindu, living in the only country where you are a majority, you or your wife, children, parents, siblings or any relatives may be butchered, raped or burnt to death by fanatics of other aggressive religions and still you or the poor wretches who have suffered, will not be considered victims. In Godhra, 58 Hindu men, women and children were burnt alive by a mob of Muslims. Instead of admitting that the fault lies in ideologies based on fanatical books, which promote hatred and senseless killing of innocents, this law will protect them because Hindus will not even be considered to be victims.

If you think I am stretching it a bit, dekho:
7. Sexual assault.– A person is said to commit sexual assault if he or she commits any of the following acts against a person belonging to a group by virtue of that person’s membership of a group
Thus, if you are a Hindu woman, you are fair game for anyone and everyone of the 'elite' communities. If Hindu women are raped or molested, it will not be considered a 'sexual assault'. What will it be ? A friendly game ?
When Manmohan Singh had said "Muslims have first right on the resources of the nation", did he mean the honor of Hindu women also?

May be. Did he forget to mention Christians, who are becoming more and more aggressive by every passing day.

Then there is a term called 'mass rape' in this very section of the act:
Explanation 1– For the purposes of this section, mass rape means the rape of more than one woman belonging to any group.
How very thoughtful! If one or more Hindu women are raped (like hundreds were raped in Kashmir), and they go to a police station, they will not be considered victims, nor they have been sexually assaulted and neither they have been mass raped.

Are they 'resources', to be plundered by the 'elite' communities?

Most of the nation knows the name 'Godhra riots' or 'Gujarat riots', but have limited knowledge of the chronology of the events. It is a good time to take a closer look at those horrible riots.


It so happened that on 27/02/02, a coach of Sabarmati Express was burnt by Muslim fanatics. The coach was carrying Men, Women and Children from their pilgrimage at Ayodhya. All Hindus. Charred to death. Read the full report of Justice Tewatia here. If this draconian and partisan act comes into force, those poor families, who suffer enormously due to the loss of a near and dear, will not be even considered as victims.

Can there be anything more cruel then this?

The only section, which considers the majority community as the citizens of the country is section 90.
90. Right to relief, reparation, restitution and compensation.- (1) All persons, whether or not they belong to a group as defined under this Act, who have suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or her property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and when death has occurred as a consequence thereof, the next of kin of such deceased person shall be entitled to relief, reparation, restitution and compensation as applicable to them in accordance with the provisions under this Chapter.
 Relief under this section will be granted not only to religious and linguistic minorities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but also to non-minorities and non-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes affected by communal and targeted violence.
Look at the tenor of the statement - 'but also to'. As if they are being very magnanimous.
Sick bastards.
Now, why did they have to insert this section here. To take us for a ride. This section will be used by the propaganda machinery of the divisive forces to hide the monstrosity of the act. Articles will be planted in newspapers and double faced speakers will be planted in 'panel discussions' on TV channels, where they will read only this section to prove the 'good intentions' of the sickulars and the benign nature of the bill.

This bill proposes the setting up of a NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNAL HARMONY, JUSTICE AND REPARATION. The name seems really touchy, emotional and all full of empathy. Let me remind my compatriots that we have had such an office in our country earlier also. It was also given a very beautiful name. The name was 'HOLY OFFICE'.

The parallel that one can draw with this bill in history is during the period of Inquisition. This dreaded tribunal was operational from 1562 to 1812 in our country. During all these years, the Hindu populace had to suffer at the hands of Christian as well as Muslim rulers. The similarities are strikingly similar.


Here is how the Office of Inquisition (called holy office) was installed:
Before beginning to use the holy office of the Inquisition, persons to hold the following posts should be found out and selected: First, an advocate to work as promoter; and an apostolic notary, who should be a priest if one can conveniently be found, and, if not, a layman who should be an apostolic notary or a clerk of his majesty or belong to the ecclesiastical auditorium, whosoever may appear best qualified and most suitable; and also a meyrinho (officer of apprehended malefactor), who may be an ecclesiastic if one is available and a solicitor who would also serve as a gate keeper and a jailor. All these officers should be Old Christians, god fearing persons deserving of confidence who can keep secrets.

It should be easy to guess that the aim of this 'HOLY OFFICE' was to suppress those who were of different religion from Christianity. It has been wiped out of our history books by the ruling crooks but one can read all the glory of this 'holy office' in 'The Goa Inquisition' by A.K.Priolkar, published by 'Voice of India'. It is based on the church and Portuguese documents.

Now, let us compare the 'holy office' with the proposed setting up of National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation.-
(1) The Central Government shall constitute a body known as the National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned to it under this Act.

(3) The National Authority shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chair-person and five other Members.

Provided that, at all times, not less than four Members, including the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, shall belong to a group as defined under this Act.

Provided further that, at all times, there shall be –

1. one Member belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes;
2. four women, whether Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or Member;
(2) No person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or Member of the National Authority if: (b) he or she has, in any manner, exhibited bias against any group, by acts or in writing or otherwise;

This effectively means that one can go on deriding Hindu religion, its followers and practices like missionaries have been doing for so many centuries. No one will call you biased. But the moment you will write anything criticizing (even genuine) any member, doctrine or dogma of the elite community, you will become ineligible.
This is not only theoretical but, as you will see, all those on drafting team are virulent when it comes to Hindu religion. But we will talK about that a little later.

Back to Inquisition and the present bill. The officers of the 'holy office' were considered above even the viceroy in those days. When the Inquisitor came from Portugal, he was provided the rulers residence.
Now, let us look at the power that this extra constitutional 'Authority' is asking for its gangsters to frighten 83% of Hindus.
29. Officers and other staff of the National Authority.- (1) The Central Government shall make available to the National Authority such police and investigative staff under an officer not below the rank of a Director General of Police and such other officers and staff as the National Authority may deem necessary for the efficient performance of its functions.
Just like Inquisition and Inquisitor was above all other rulers, if this authority comes into being, it will be above all other posts. Elected or Selected. Not below the rank of DGP?
What a joke! Is there any rank above that in Indian Police.

During the centuries, when Hindus lived like scared mice, they were tortured according to the whims and fancies of the Inquisitors. The regulations laid out were:
The Archbishop with the said deputies with such other theologians and canonists, as he may consider necessary, shall decide the final sentences and the interlocutory orders of torture.
If you have not got the import of this sentence, it means that the Christian fathers and bishops were the gangsters who decided the modes of torture to the poor Hindus, Muslims and Jews captured. Just that now, it will be exclusively for Hindus.

Am I being alarmist? Am I scaring the s*** out of you?

Let us look at the relevant sections. That would be section 12:
12. Torture.– Whoever, being a public servant, or under the control or direction of or with the acquiescence of a public servant, intentionally inflicts pain or suffering, whether mental or physical, on a person belonging to a group by virtue of his or her membership of a group, including causing grievous hurt or danger to life, limb or health or sexual assault, for the purposes of obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession or punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, is said to inflict torture.
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any pain, hurt or danger as aforementioned caused or inflicted in accordance with law.

So, if you do not belong to a group i.e. 'elite communities', which in plain language means that you are a Hindu, intentionally inflicted pain or suffering, physical or mental is not said to be torture. That is what heathens are meant for. Ain't it?

In the days of Inquisition, torturing the natives of our country was approved by 'ecclesiastical  persons'. The equipments they used for torture were really ingenious. Here is one example of the instruments of 'holy office'.

The above pictures show the chairs used to interrogate the unlucky heretics. These are the real ones, now placed in museums, the world over. Heretics are all those who do not behave according to the dogmas of church. The merriam webster dictionary defines a heretic as - a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth.

Thus all Hindu practices were considered heresy and all Hindus were considered heretics. It is just a coincidence that Sonia Gandhi, under whose guidance, the bill has been drafted is also an alleged Roman Catholic.

Therefore, just like the good old days of Inquisition, the torture that will be inflicted on Hindus will be considered 'mercy'. After all, they are lowly heathens, immersed in idolatry. They deserve this.
Let us move on with the bill. The section 82 says that:
82. Attachment of property.- (1) Where the charge has been framed in relation to an offence under this Act, the Designated Judge may direct that the property of the accused person be attached during the pendency of the trial and until conviction or acquittal, as the case may be.
Now, this must be a first of its kind for riots because usually such a provision is used for crimes in which the accused is assumed to have amassed wealth by ill gotten means, like sale of narcotics. On second thoughts, it is not the first of its kind. The Church knew such tactics very well. It seems the framers of the law or their handlers, working from behind the curtains had with them, the instructions manual of Inquisition. The manual of Inquisition says:
When a person is arrested for the crime of heresy, his entire property, whether moveable or immoveable, will be sequestrated and deposited in charge of persons of sound credit.
Persons of sound credit! Which would have been Christians only.
Now, the list will include everyone else, accept Hindus.

The missionaries have always been smart, they perpetrated their crimes by making laws that suited their agenda. The procedure of Inquisition was that anyone could go and tell the 'fathers' of Inquisition about the 'heresy' committed by anyone. The accused would be arrested. He would not be told about his crime nor about the complainant. He was supposed to 'confess' his crime. If the poor guy could not even think of any 'heresy' committed by him, the helping 'fathers' were always there to encourage him with their torture instruments. Thus, the onus of innocence was on the accused.

Our seculars have also devised the law based on the same lines.
74. Presumptions as to offences under this Act.- (1) If in a prosecution for any offence committed under this Act, it is shown that the accused committed or abetted or conspired to commit the offence of hate propaganda under section 8, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the offence committed was knowingly directed against a person by virtue of his or her membership of a group.
So, the premise of justice has been inverted from 'Innocent unless proven guilty' to Guilty unless proven innocent'.
Just like the 'fathers' of Inquisition, this bill intends to provide unbirdled power to the few selected persons of the 'elite' communities over Hindu men and women. Remember the adage Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How the women were victims of the 'sex starved fathers' armed with such powers can be read here and here.

The similarities between the Inquisition manual and the proposed bill are stikingly similar, the changes, wherever they appear are just cosmetic. Let us look at another aspect of injustice.

Just like during Inquistion, the identity of the victim is to be kept a secret. Section 40.
40. Identity of victim and informant to be protected.- The National Authority shall take appropriate action to protect the identity of the victim or informant at all times.
and also in section 87
87. Protection of victims, informants and witnesses
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), a Designated Judge may, on an application made by a victim, informant or witness in any proceedings before it or by the Special Public Prosecutor in relation to such victim, informant or witness or on its own motion, take such measures including:
(a) not mentioning the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to the public;
(b) issuing directions for non-disclosure of the identity and addresses of the witnesses;
That means, if any man or woman decides to ruin the life of Hindu, he/she has just to go to the nearest cop and tell him that he/she has been mentally tortured by 'such and such' act of the accused, the poor Hindu will find him behind bars for a cognizable/non bailable  offense. He will not be told about the name of the accuser. On top of it, he will have to prove his innocence.

Or think of another scenario, if a Hindu employer fires an inefficient employee belonging to any of the 'elite' communities, he can be 'taught a lesson' by the disgruntled employee because the guilt is presumed in this act.

This list of stupidities in built in the bill are illustrative and not exhaustive. They should be sufficient to give one the general drift of the thinking behind the 'drafting' (or should it be called fabricating) the bill.
This bill has been prepared by an entity called 'National Advisory Council' headed by Antonia Maino a.k.a. Sonia Gandhi. She has hand picked a band of seculars, who are going to protect the 'secular fabric' of our country. These sickulars have spent more then six years in drafting this perverted act.

The question is whether the act is perverted or the drafters are perverted?
But, who are these sickulars, for whom 'secular fabric' means putting 85% of the nations populace at the whims of fanatics of other religions?
Will talk about them some other time. In the mean time, you can read a little bit about Harsh Mander, one of the faces behind this monstrosity here.