The holiday state of Goa has decided to reject a proposal for India’s first Playboy club on one of its beaches following complaints that it would promote prostitution, local officials said on Monday.
A local lawmaker threatened to go on hunger strike last week if the nightclub was allowed to open on Candolim Beach, but it was ultimately rejected on a technicality.
Chief Minister of Goa, Manohar Parrikar, told a state assembly session in state capital Panaji that Playboy’s application had failed because it did not meet requirements to set up a beach shack.
“The shack policy of the state makes it mandatory that the application for any shack should be applied for by a local individual in his name and we can’t grant shack permission for a brand,” Parrikar said.
PB Lifestyle, the Indian franchisee of the Playboy brand, announced plans in November to open 120 clubs, hotels, fashion cafes and shops in India over the next 10 years.
Goa’s tourism minister Dilip Parulekar said the planned venue in Goa had sparked much discussion.
“There have been concerns raised about vulgarity being promoted through the club. We are aware of how prostitution is rampant in the state’s coastal belt,” he said.
PB Lifestyle, which had insisted there would be no nudity at the venue, was not immediately available for comment on the rejection.
In a bid to appease the country’s conservative values, Playboy in December unveiled a new-look costume for the “bunny girl” waitresses in its Indian outlets.
The traditional skimpy corset has been replaced with a sari-inspired two-piece costume, comprising a one-shoulder top, a bare midriff and a sheer, full-length skirt with a split. The ears, bow-ties and fluffy tails remain.
Playboy magazine remains banned in India, along with a host of other foreign “adult” publications, owing to obscenity laws banning material deemed “lascivious or appealing to prurient interests”.
Impeachment hearing explodes with applause as Jackie Speier highlights Trump’s daily lies
Texas Republican Rep. Mike Conaway on Thursday argued that it was not illegal for Republicans to "out" the White House whistleblower.
Conway cited a Washington Post "fact-check" that gave "Three Pinocchios" to the claim that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.
Following his time, Ambassador Gordon Sondland was questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA).
During Speier's questioning, she was interrupted by Conaway, who brought up The Post giving "Three Pinocchios."
Adam Schiff buries one of the GOP’s remaining anti-impeachment talking points
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Wednesday took a hammer to one of the Republican Party's few remaining talking points aimed at undermining the House impeachment inquiry.
Throughout the testimony of European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland, Republicans kept saying that there couldn't be any kind of extortion scheme on President Donald Trump's part because Ukraine got its military aid without publicly announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.
Schiff, however, showed why this argument simply doesn't hold up.
"My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, 'Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president,' that there's no evidence of bribery!" he said.
Chris Wallace fact-checks his own Fox News colleagues after their denials of Trump’s quid pro quo
As US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland gave his testimony in the House impeachment hearings this Wednesday, Fox News contributor Ken Starr acknowledged that Sondland's testimony all but guarantees that articles of impeachment will be drawn up against President Trump. He also posited that Trump "gave himself enough cover" regarding Sondland's September 9 conversation with Trump where he said the President allegedly said, "I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo."
"Well, I think that Ken Starr and [Fox News contributor] Andy McCarthy are very good lawyers," Wallace said. "And like any good lawyers they can parse this, phrase this any way they want, but as a reporter it seems to me that we have to go to what the headline is today, and the headline is that Gordon Sondland, one of the three amigos, perhaps the one who had the most direct contact with Donald Trump, says in his opening statement, 'Was there a quid pro quo with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting? The answer is yes.'"