Slashdot Log In
Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:06 PM
from the like-a-glimpse-into-the-future dept.
from the like-a-glimpse-into-the-future dept.
Academiphiliac writes to mention the BBC reported in an article this morning that the Malaysian government may start using tough anti-terror laws to censor bloggers who insult either Islam or the country's king. "The move comes as one of Malaysia's leading online commentators has been questioned by police following a complaint by the main governing party. The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial. But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh, the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Informative)
Not true.
Until 9/11 the biggest act of terror committed on US soil was the Oaklahoma City bombing, committed by a right wing white supremacist. The act of terror that caused greatest loss of life in Europe is still the Bolgona railway station bombing perpetrated by a neo-facist right wing group.
Islamic terrorism is relatively new. The PLO was secular. Their friends, the Baader Meinhof gang and Action Directe were communists.
Most religious terrorism is sectarian, Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics, Sunni against Shi'ia, Shi'ia against Sunnis.
And since we are on the subject of terrorism, what do you call a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disegards international law and treaties? Perhaps the term is not terrorist, but the corrupt crew are still a bunch of totally evil bastards regardless.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, I would really like to see some Muslim protests, in the street, against terrorism - those (rare) strongly worded letters condemning terrorism don't cut it in my book.
The most frequent terrorist attacks these days are Muslim. Especi
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And since we are on the subject of terrorism, what do you call a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disegards international law and treaties? Pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until 9/11 the biggest act of terror committed on US soil was the Oklahoma City bombing, committed by a right wing white supremacist. The act of terror that caused greatest loss of life in Europe is still the Bolgona railway station bombing perpetrated by a neo-facist right wing group.
Those are incidents. Not a count of terrorists. T
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
George Habash, the founder of the PLO, was Christian, so are many of its members (past and present).
That's not secular, that's just more plain muslem asshattery.
Yep, all those Palestinian Christians in the PLO were just being 'muslim asshats'...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, so what? Or are you trying to say the PALISTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION is a bunch of Catholic terrorists? Wiccans maybe? Oh, so their stated purpose was secular, something about having a separate Palestine, but when that was offered they switched back to "da Jooos did it to us!!!11" That's not secular, that's just more plain muslem asshattery.
The major players are israeli jews and palestinian muslims; the jews have been screwing with the palestinians for rather a long time and have gone so far a
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Insightful)
> Not true.
Absolutely true. The number of Muslim terrorist acts in the last 30 years dwarf all other such acts through all recorded history.
You are, of course, applying the usual "massage the data" approach -- arbitrarily picking "greatest death toll in a single incident" as a yardstick.
And, oh by the way, trying to use the same tactic Muslims always use -- point fingers at others to distract from the issue at hand.
You are, sir, full of shit.
Parent
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Informative)
For example in the UK [wsws.org]
"More important still, the government's draconian antiterrorism laws have already been used by the police last month to arrest 144 people protesting against an arms fair in London. The civil rights group Liberty has challenged the use of emergency powers contained in sections 44 (1) and 44 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 as illegal. Liberty's court action has revealed that on two occasions--from August 13 for 28 days and from September 11 for 28 days--the Metropolitan Police had unrestrained power to treat everyone in London as a terrorist, and stop, search and hold them without cause or reasonable suspicion. The Met. has already declared that the provisions of the legislation could be used against those demonstrating against President Bush's November 19 state visit to Britain, which will be policed by up to 250 armed officers under the leadership of London's head of antiterrorist and security operations, David Veness."
NPOV link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSEi#Protests [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that most terrorists are Muslim
Which is irrelevant, as most muslims are not terrorists. Since the portion of any large group that is terrorist is so low, you can't really say anything about someone based on what invisible sky ghost they worship.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Malaysia is 62% Malay, 24% Chinese, 8% Indian and the remaining 6% "something else". Malaysia has some strange laws that only apply to M
Latest: He has been released (Score:5, Informative)
It Doesn't Matter What the Intent of the Law Is (Score:5, Insightful)
The intent of the law doesn't matter one iota. What matters is what it allows. If it can be abused, then its very likely that it will be at some point. Even if the guys currently in charge use it responsibly, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way when leadership changes hands.
Of course, it's always disheartening to see things like this:
Freedom of speech, except for the speech we don't like. Somehow their assurances concerning the intent of the law don't give me much confidence.
The Problem with Insulting Islam... (Score:4, Funny)
That it's far too easy to do!
Re:The Problem with Insulting Islam... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who truly believe their religion wish only to *share* their religion. Take it or leave it. The act of *sharing* your beliefs if done by a zealot drives people away. The act of *sharing* your beliefs done by a true believer can be a moving event in a non believers life.
History Repeating Itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism? Overthrow the state that the Terrorists occupy? Nope, look at Iraq. Do you put up a cute little "Terror Alert Scale"? Oh yeah, that was really effective! Nope, you can't "defeat it", and anyone saying you can has not thought enough about the concept. Regardless, however, it would seem that many (frivolous) laws are being put in place to combat terror, even in countries one wouldn't expect this in (Say Canada, for example...). What is perhaps scariest is that these laws will probably not go away quickly -- giving anyone who wants to abuse them more than enough chance to get away with it and cover up evidence.
By no means, am I advocating that there was some "master plan" by some Evil Genius(tm), instead I think it is just a general ideology that comes with the times. What disturbs me is in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws. While some might ultimately get repealed, most will not and some may even snowball into much bigger, much badder laws that essentially go from government monitoring, to Government Sanctioned Living(tm).
I am also not, by any means, saying that I have all the answers -- which always seemed like a cop out to me, to criticize without at least adding your own view and possible solution -- but I do have a couple of thoughts.
*Every law should have a sunset clause -- an expiration date, if you will. This would be an immutable amount of time (say five years), and the law would be required to be reviewed and passed through whatever checks and balances exist (if any). The law could of course be repealed, but it could not be extended anymore than 5 years from the date of review. This would still be open to abuse, but would certainly stop a lot of the stupid laws that stay on the books and are used solely for abusive purposes by law enforcement or Government Men (tm).
*Laws should be "subdivided" into categories. So laws dealing with "Terrorism" would all be put into that category and that way one could remove them from the system wholesale. No need to go hunting and pecking. Obviously, this too would present problems, but I think it would simply things.
*Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English. If the common man (and yes, I am inferring that the common man isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer") can't read it, it can't pass.
Anyway, yeah, pipe dream.
How do you defeat terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:History Repeating Itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism?
Stop fucking the middle east.
Parent
Intent of the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Lesson (which should have already been) learned: It doesn't matter what the law was intended to do, but rather what the law can be twisted to imply. If a law can be interpreted in a manner, it will be interpreted manner. That's the most important thing to understand from this article.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many people understand that in the US we have a different situation. Our government changes every 42 years. Congressional elections are held every 2 year, and presidential every 4 years. So the
Devolution of Information (Score:3, Interesting)
Article: "The Malaysian government may..."
TF(BBC)A: "The Malaysian government has warned that it could..."
When I had to listen to it on shortwave, BBC was a great alternative to the then already groupthink polluted US media. Now it's Fox News with British accents. Despite their Reynolds Wrap hard hats, some people think this happens on purpose, forced by some shadowy puppet governments or government puppets. This example shows how it happens due only to inattention to detail, and desire to make a point, even here on
Mohammed enjoys anal sex with Allah and the devil! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm glad of one thing, at least (Score:3, Funny)
It's a good thing America doesn't do anything like that, right?
Oh, wait.
Re:so let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)
No, that makes you gay.
In case you were confused about that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I Love All the World's People" - John Lennon
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It makes you a blasphemer, for which the traditional punishment under Islamic law is death.
Re:Makes you proud-another US sucks post. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, his approval rating is 30%. It sure doesn't seem like the populace is fearful of criticizing the Bush administration.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the USA, you can come before the White House and shout curses against Ronald Reagan.
In the USSR, you can come before the Kremlin and shout curses against Ronald Reagan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are closer to a totalitarian state; more so now, but we were under Clinton as well. And my point is not Clinton versus Bush, it is to note that technological capabilities really bloomed for the Government under Clinton and have only increased. Due to enhanced technology, it is no longer as labor or resource intensive to listen on your calls, monitor your surfing, or fly over and determine your ambient energy output. (And by your, I mean YOU or ME. Not all of us collectively but each individual in th
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharia law is evil in exactly the same sense that Communism and Nazism are evil. Exchange worship of a Stalin/Mao figure for a deity, and change a few economic policies, and you have exactly the same thing. People are required to think certain thoughts and adopt certain lifestyles, and punished by death if they do not. Any thinking person should be strongly opposed to such an idea. But then, all religions know how to brainwash people so that they cannot think critically about their own faith.
We criticise and challenge Christians about silly beliefs like Creationism, and Christians ignore us and go on believing what they want. Fine. We should criticise and challenge Muslims about their silly beliefs too. But (at least in my country) no-one dares to do that, because the Muslims won't just ignore it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
It's simple: Muslim nations aren't threatening us in any credible way. Except for Afghanistan with OBL/Al Qaeda; but we took care of that to a good extent with a relatively small amount of military force, and we had been attacked, so there was obvious justification. It didn't take a gigantic invasion to topple the Taliban, since they were little more than a rag-tag terrorist organization posing as a government.
Turning inward is the correct and moral way to deal with outsiders, unless they
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
And we still have things like freedom of speech, for the most part. There's some bad things, like the government being able to see which books I check out from the library without a warrant, but that's really nothing like being jailed indefinitely just for insulting a stupid religion.
In these other countries, things aren't like this. Not only can they be jailed for insulting a stupid religion, their government is a monarchy, so they can't ever change it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:4, Insightful)
I assure you that no US military unit would follow the orders of a president that refused to turn over power unilaterally. And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
More likely the scenario would be just like it has been in past Republics, the Senate/Congress would proclaim a dictator with the SCOTUS approving it, or a constitutional convention would simply change the rules completely and allow for a dictator.
That would be soemwhat more problematic because you would have some ligitimacy.
Parent
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:4, Funny)
And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
Probably because they're too chicken.
Parent
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, there's the other branches of government. They don't have to go along with the President, especially since they control the purse-strings. That's how we finally got out of Vietnam, remember.
Second, there's the military. The President can't stay in power, in contravention of the Constitution, without support from the military. Most countries are this way, since the military usually has all the guns.
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen.
Parent
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
A dictatorship would be laughed out of Washington if it wasn't preceded by eno
USS Death Star (Score:4, Funny)
Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.
or something like that...
Parent
President Gas (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, he hasn't sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of right wing conservatives don't care what religion you are. I will give you a hint, they aren't the ones in government prefacing every American with a descriptive word like African in order to separate them from clean white crackers either. I think you have the roles backwards, confused and i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least in Britain, you can make fun of the Queen, her inbred cheating son, and the Church of England. (Damn, who was that comic, years ago, missing a finger, used to do all sorts of jokes about it?)
At least in the U.S., you can make fun of Bushy, Dick "No, not in the face!" Cheney, Pinch Faced Pelosi, The Baptists, Mormons, and Stogey Boy Clinton.
At least in Canada, you can make fun of...eh, oh sorry, I'm being informed by the Canadian Ministry of Nicey Nice that it is not tolerated to make fun of anyon
Re:Muslims could do with some insults to wake them (Score:3, Informative)
Well, no. Islam got its big start when the Prophet began to conquer pretty much everything he could reach. It continued in that vein till it met something that could stop it. It was rolled up and subsumed by various flavours of Mongol conquerors, which resulted in the destruction of that "enlghtened" Islam you seem to think existed from the beginning. Remember that Sha
Re:Muslims could do with some insults to wake them (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent