when a person is a visitor in another country, it’s only polite to not engage in behaviors that violate local customs.

Are you talking about Pelosi and the headscarf?

;-)

I am not up on all the ins and outs of Indian politics. But what you raise is an interesting question of how to go about resisting the use of orderliness against us. Teddy Roosevelt had a problem as police commissioner in NYC. The police were taking bribes. One of the causes of the bribes was by saloon owners to get around a law closing them on Sundays. Teddy's response was to enforce the law, despite the rantings and railings of the various interest groups. By forcing the law and its effects into the sunset he forced people to confront the law, its actual effects, the popular dissatisfaction with the law and the corroding effects of having a law but not enforcing it. As it is said, Teddy was enforcing a law that had hitherto been enforced dishonestly.

So how do you respond to a minority that wants to use the laws to achieve their own ends beyond the law? Expose it all to the sunlight. The law is on the books. To say you should enforce or not enforce a law because of how you feel about the group exercising the point of law is a dangerous step away from the rule of law and towards rule by personal prejudice. Put everything out into the open, including the motivations and behaviors of the suspect group.

In the US, we have the 'flying Imams' filing suit. Should we not give them their day in court because we suspect their motives? No. We should do the exact opposite and expose them through their own law suit. Perhaps a few counter suits for libel are also warranted. But not enforcing a law because you don't like the group bringing the lawsuit helps that group show injustice much more than letting the lawsuit go forward.

Alex,

I agree that there is a point of discretion at different levels. In fact, the example of the policeman issuing a warning vs a ticket was the path originally taken in India. But if the law allowed for a private citizen to force the warning to be ignored and the speeding ticket issued with subsequent legal actions to followed, then you are past the traffic cops discretion. Change the law so a private citizen can't force things to go further. Expose the private citizen to the light of public opinion for why they are pushing the issue. But the law remains the law.

Whether it tearing down mosques or simply burning down villages, the Hindu nationalists do not particularly respect the rule of law, only the laws of which they approve.

Judicious and selective enforcement is also part and parcel of a just legal order. Or would you prefer that you got written a ticket every time you were pulled over for speeding, rather than merely getting off with a warning?

Now the Indian legislature may decide to debate a new law, but any change will be done in a 'lawful' manner. I would much rather visit, work or otherwise interact in a country where the rule of law prevails, even if I didn't particularly like certain laws.

To say 'That an arrest warrant has been issued against him is pretty unconscionable. ' is to substitute your sensibilities for the rule of law. Fortunately, India is above such whims.

But seriously, Mr. Gere's exuberance is just another example of something I see all too much of from elites: the laws, including the obligations of a guest, pertain to everyone but them.