Counsellors ("shrinks" in the US?) recognize that nobody can "hurt your feelings" unless you permit them to as well. i.e. there is contribution on the side of those "feeling hurt" as well as the party "doing the hurting". Given that, we need to divide the accusation into three parts - a) was there any intention to "hurt the feelings of people", b) were there any lies uttered as an instrument that could have effected hurt and c) should we consider the "hurt" felt when facts are being revealed valid for legal purposes.
In the case of Sanal, (b) is certainly not the case since he's talking about facts he found in his investigation, and we need only examine (a) and (c).
Sanal is certainly not inciting violence between religious groups even by accident. So that's out. Sanal is a "myth buster" in the public eye - i.e. has permanently adopted a skeptical stance in matters of "miracles". Given the amount of evidence he's personally seen in this matter, we might at least give him the human allowance of a snarkiness that might have developed and which he might have expressed. Maybe mild cause for (a) perhaps, but insignificant in my opinion given his reputation.
Rgd (c), I think this whole category of "hurt" ought to be legally excludable and as far as I've read there doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to do so. Truth hurts people when it shatters a belief that they have attached their self worth to. If someone feels "hurt" when presented with facts (at least facts at hand, leaving aside "historical facts" for the moment), this kind of hurt should not be cause for legal action.
I wish the "duty of a citizen of India to develop a scientific temper" were interpreted in this manner when it comes to actionable forms of hurt.
In the case of Sanal, (b) is certainly not the case since he's talking about facts he found in his investigation, and we need only examine (a) and (c).
Sanal is certainly not inciting violence between religious groups even by accident. So that's out. Sanal is a "myth buster" in the public eye - i.e. has permanently adopted a skeptical stance in matters of "miracles". Given the amount of evidence he's personally seen in this matter, we might at least give him the human allowance of a snarkiness that might have developed and which he might have expressed. Maybe mild cause for (a) perhaps, but insignificant in my opinion given his reputation.
Rgd (c), I think this whole category of "hurt" ought to be legally excludable and as far as I've read there doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to do so. Truth hurts people when it shatters a belief that they have attached their self worth to. If someone feels "hurt" when presented with facts (at least facts at hand, leaving aside "historical facts" for the moment), this kind of hurt should not be cause for legal action.
I wish the "duty of a citizen of India to develop a scientific temper" were interpreted in this manner when it comes to actionable forms of hurt.
edit: tpyo (b) -> (a)