Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

Madonna's cultural appropriation confirms what a cliche she has become. There' s only thing duller than a Twitterstorm , and that's an Instagramstorm . Particularly when said storms feature figures who like to think of themselves as controversial and as deliberately baiting us : Rihanna posing in a clingy burqa at a mosque, Mario Balotelli posting a racist image , and now Madonna doctoring pictures of African and African-American leaders to promote her new album . Really, the only dignified thing to do is to not dignify it with a response, and move on . Who cares if Madonna straps black ropes on the images of dead black rights icons? As Peter Robinson wrote in the Guardian:"It's slightly heartbreaking that Madonna, an artist who made her name through an intuitive grasp of almost every major trend and zeitgeist fluctuation, is so crap at social media." But sometimes a solely jaded response betrays our own complacency, like resigning yourself to the fact that there will always be people who think of racist slurs as banter , or those who think it is just fine to appropriate the symbols of others to give their own tepid existence some edge , or people who still wear bootcut jeans . It's not OK, no matter how persistent and ever- present it is . Even though Madonna has always been controversial , it also seems that as the world around her has got sharper, she has got duller and more derivative . The appropriation that she and others have carried out is nothing new ; we're just noticing it more . That's because those who are piggybacking on others' journeys do not only have more channels to flaunt their cluelessness and sense of entitlement (Iggy Azalea, walk away from Twitter) but they are also being called out on it more . Whether it is usurping religion - crucifixes and nun habits are passe now; it's niqabs on naked bodies  - keep up - homosexuality or now minority rights , Madonna is a manifestation of how privilege feeds off the authenticity of "struggle" . This is a double plundering that leads to further marginalisation : the dominant narrative will oppress you, then co-opt you, and then weave you into your own tiny little section of the tapestry . Some would argue that slavery and segregation ended long ago (well, segregation in the US in the 60s and apartheid in South African in the 90s, so not that long ago) . But that doesn't mean white people can now happily vandalise the cultural and historical totems of a minority's struggle as part of some universal poster for the white western narrative of overcoming and learning from our mistakes . Imagine a pop artist using the recent CIA torture as part of their campaign - perhaps showing dead Arab personalities being waterboarded . No? Too soon? Well , when it comes to certain issues , it will always too soon . Of course ,  the charitable position is that Madonna, or to a different extent, Iggy Azalea, are not doing this with any high degree of self-awareness or design - they might see all contemporary culture as equal-access human heritage that they can dip into and sample as a vehicle for their talent . They would be right to some extent , but the sad fact is that these modern iterations of minority culture that they are sampling all arose from suffering and oppression rather than from a series of tortured geniuses in drawing rooms across Europe . Yes, there are spaces where our common mix of religious, sexual and racial legacies intermingle - gloriously, sometimes . But that is usually an uncurated, spontaneous thing, not a cynical shopping list . To put it simply , edginess comes from just that : being on the edge . Ironically, all Madonna and her ilk's desperate antics to appear so only confirm that they are, in fact, utterly comfortable and mainstream . Cultural appropriation is now the standard default of the unoriginal . It is a common and predictable template , where one becomes a cliche in trying to avoid being a cliche because you have nothing new to offer - something Madonna would surely be mortified by .
Who cares if Madonna straps black ropes on the images of dead black rights icons?

Ferguson unrest: Make protesters pay for riot damage. No matter whose side you are on in the upheaval following the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, everyone should agree on the profound sadness of it all: sadness that an 18-year-old boy-man walked a path that led to his destruction; sadness that a police officer felt the need to defend himself by shooting another human being; sadness over the rioting and looting that followed a grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Wilson; and for some, sadness that Wilson was not indicted . Much of the sadness was encapsulated in a sound bite I saw on one TV network . An African-American business owner, surveying the destruction of his store, plaintively asked,"How am I going to feed my kids?" I have an answer and it is one that should be applied to anyone convicted of riotous behavior, destruction of property and looting . It's called restitution . Restitution is an Old Testament concept instituted to remind people that when one harms another person, or steals or destroys property, someone else suffers and deserves reimbursement . It says the state is less a debtor than the victim of a crime . Restitution can also instill true moral guilt in a person , which can lead to genuine repentance and a decision by the perpetrator to make different choices leading to a better life . As the authorities in Ferguson examine videos that show the faces of many of the rioters and looters, charges will undoubtedly be filed . If convicted , the perpetrators should be forced to pay for the damage they caused . If they have jobs , their paychecks should be garnished . If they are on welfare , those checks should be forwarded to the businesses they destroyed . If they receive food-purchasing assistance , that assistance should be withdrawn . This should be the practice going forward . Those who destroy their communities will be required to pay back those harmed by their hooliganism and forfeit any government benefits they receive . This might require legislation , but politicians should have the public's support . A close relative of restitution is shaming . The convicted should be brought before those harmed by their behavior and publicly shamed . No one seems to be ashamed of anything nowadays , but shaming might help prevent future violence . Rioters and looters who are black could be shamed by law-abiding African-Americans . They can be asked,"Is this why Dr  Martin Luther King Jr  marched and went to prison? Is this why he paid the ultimate price? Would he and other civil rights leaders dating back to Frederick Douglass be proud of your behavior today? Don't you owe them something better than this?" Perhaps if people realize that their destructive behavior will cost them something, they think might twice about harming others and robbing them of a living . People from around the country are reportedly donating money to help those whose businesses were destroyed . That again demonstrates the generosity of Americans of all races and backgrounds . While donations will help, along with insurance , if it covers damage caused by violent protesters , the lawbreakers should still be required to take responsibility for their actions . In addition to whatever legal penalties might result, restitution and shaming should be part of the punishment . We've gotten away from personal responsibility and accountability, preferring instead to cast lawbreakers as "victims," when the true victims are often ignored . Too often many blame others for their circumstances . Too often many feel entitled to what others have achieved through hard work and dedication . Too often too many feel justified in taking and destroying the property of others instead of working and building for themselves . If they don't feel ashamed , they should .
It's called restitution

India's mass conversion problem. "Homecoming" in the Christmas season is supposed to be a joyous occasion, accompanied by camaraderie and cheer . Not so for the small community of Christians in Agra, a town in the northern Indian province of Uttar Pradesh . On Christmas Eve, the flock of believers were cowering in fear , because a couple of churches were burnt and there was the looming threat of more skirmishes with the belligerent among their Hindu brethren spiralling into serious communal clashes . More portentous was the grand ghar wapsi (homecoming, or mass-reconversion) programme announced by the Dharam Jagran Samiti (loosely translated into Hindi-Religious Awakening Front) in the neighbouring town of Aligarh , where Christmas was to be "celebrated" by bringing 4,000 Christians and 1,000 Muslims back into the folds of Hinduism . This Samiti, a not-so-small wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a militant Hindu organisation, contended that far from propagating religious intolerance, it was only righting historical wrongs and injustice perpetrated by Christian missionaries and Muslim clerics who, in order to bolster the numbers of their respective faiths, had lured and coerced Hindus to stray from their original religion . Attack on secularism . When these turn of events created a furore in parliament , the Narendra Modi- led central government instructed the local administration to thwart the Samiti's grandiose plans, and Christmas day went peacefully . But ,  the solution - a national legislation to ban and criminalise conversions - assertively advocated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which commands an absolute majority in parliament, and despite repeated disavowals, remains rooted in essentially a chauvinistic, right-wing Hindu ideology, is far more disconcerting, and if implemented , would deal a grievous blow to the constitutional ideal of secularism . It would be downright specious, even dishonest, to claim that missionaries and proselytisers' activities in India had nothing but a salubrious effect . Historical records bear ample testimony to the rigorous implementation of St Caprion's axiom - "extra ecclessium nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation), even by the proverbial fire and sword, especially by explorer-cum- conquistadors like Vasco da Gama, the tales of whose brutalities in enforcing a harvest of faith in the erstwhile Portuguese-controlled state of Goa are legion . Active proselytisation was an integral part of the colonial project ; indeed , as historian Ranajit Guha states,"the Bible and the toothbrush were one of the main instruments of the British colonialists" . This reveals that the missionaries did bring "material" gifts to the native population - especially western medicine and hygiene . But these benefits aside, there was another more substantive reason why many Indians, especially the Dalits (Untouchables) and tribals embraced Christianity, and even Islam . Both these religions liberate them, or at least hold out the promise of unshackling them from the pernicious burden of the caste-system which is so deeply entrenched in Hinduism . Though ostensibly secular in objective, the anti-conversion laws in force in various states of India - Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh (all areas with a significantly high population of tribals, Dalits, the depressed castes, and reeling from poverty, illiteracy and abysmal healthcare) in effect gives the government a vast swathe of control over people's choices in matters of faith and religion . Going way beyond , they endow the government with surveillance powers over a constituency of people . Starting from the premise that the freedom of religion and religious chose of "those who are converted"(note; the laws never say "those who convert") need to be protected from incursions of proselytisers - the various anti-conversion legislations, ironically termed as "freedom of religion" laws - make it mandatory for the convertees to inform the head of the district administration . They will then give the go-ahead only once he is satisfied that one is not swapping religions for monetary benefits or other inducements, or by being taken in by fraud, or being swayed by either promises of salvation or threats of incurring divine displeasure, as the case may be . The laws of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh make it incumbent upon neighbours or villagers to inform the administration and the police of any activities of pastors, nuns and clergymen which could give rise to a suspicion of proselytising motives . Without defining what all would, and could, possibly count as "inducement" or "fraud", these laws impose stringent criminal sanctions on violators . Anyone found guilty is visited with imprisonment extending to three years, and with a financial penalty of 50,000 rupees (approximately $800) . Tellingly, the punishment is doubled if those who convert are women, or members of the lower castes and tribal communities . These laws are invoked and enforced only when a group of people, not individuals, seek to move out of Hinduism . One might well question - in face of such provisions, do the laws even need to use the modifiers "forcible" or "fraudulent"? Also ,  not a single legislation even addresses, let alone punish, "reconversion" which the many Hindu zealots are painstakingly claiming as totally voluntary and a righteous reply to the violation of rights by colonisers and their ilk . Indians look up to the judiciary to uphold the secular values of the republic , and the Supreme Court has, time and again, thwarted onslaughts on people's core fundamental right of religious freedom . But its record in adjudicating the evidently unsecular anti-conversion statutes is dubious . The last time it did was in 1977, in the Reverend Stanislaus case , wherein the Odisha and Madhya Pradesh statutes were upheld . Basing its ruling on a 1956 report entitled "Report of the Christian Missionaries Activity Enquiry Commission", which deemed proselytisation as a threat to India's territorial integrity and internal security, the court ended up conflating every act of propagation of one's faith - Christianity, in this case (enshrined as a fundamental right in the constitution) as an attack on Hinduism and its followers, tantamount to blasphemy , which, incidentally, is also a criminal offence in India . A national anti-conversion law, if enacted , would definitely be challenged in the Supreme Court . In that case, the judges could remedy the errors of 1977 by seeking inspiration from the European Court of Human Right's 1993 ruling in the Kokkinakis case , which struck the right balance between keeping out improper proselytism and Christians' right to practise, profess, and propagate their faith .

Indians look up to the judiciary to uphold the secular values of the republic

