Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers 381
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."
They love you. (Score:2)
But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom.
"religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisible man living in the sky, and he has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these things he will send you to a place full of fire, and smoke, and burn and torture forever and ever 'till the end of time.... but he loves you. And he n
Re: (Score:2)
FSM FTW!
Oh, the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, this is nothing new for religion.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what I call people who recognizes that there is a government that employs torture, detention without trial, starts wars, disregards international law and treaties and does not mount a rebellion to overthrow such a g
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wou
Re: (Score:2)
I would just be thankful that this oppressive regime allows you to have an opinion that is negetive to them and allows you to express it.
For now.
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:2)
It doesn't matter who is in charge. Simply being in charge is enough.
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: (Score:2)
Which country would that be? Palestine? Never was such a country. Transjordan, perhaps? Invented by the British between the World Wars.
Sorry, the theory that the Palestin
Re: (Score:2)
Which country would that be? Palestine? Never was such a country.
Palestine and ISrael are the same country. It depends where you buy your maps which name shows up.
Sorry, the theory that the Palestinians lived in peace and harmony signing kumbaya in their very own country till the Ebhil Djooos invaded and drove them out is a fantasy.
Jackass. The Palestinians may have feuded among themselves before the whole israel/palestine thing got started, but that doesn't mean they haven't been screwing them recen
Re: (Score:2)
While we obviously can't line up all the terrorists and count them, I'd bet there is a goodly amount of non-muslim terrorists in Africa. But nobody cares about them, so nobody counts them.
To paraphrase Hotel Rwanda: "They're not even niggers. They're africans."
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.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:2)
http://www.coyotescorner.com/tshirts-hs.htm [coyotescorner.com]
I saw one of these last week on the Muni in Sfran...
Re: (Score:2)
Calling the PLO secular is bullshit. They are muslim terrorists.
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]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Muslims are not terrorist, but a plurality to a majority often support terrorism, depending on the region in question.
So would you if I phrase the question properly. If you assume that the people fighting us in Iraq are terrorists, then asking Iraqis if they support the resistance movement would show a majority that support terrorism.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Latest: He has been released (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"We should not deny these people a chance to vent their feelings," he said.
Otherwise, agitators tend to get deported.
Even in 'free' countries.
Ethnicity and economy (Score:2)
These populists write affirmative action laws to control hiring and to limit government contracts with non-Malay companies. It's vaguely reminiscent of South Africa's populist ethnopolitics, but with the bizarre additi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Bumiputra is a political construct, not an ethnicity. It includes Malays as well as indigenous people. Indian Muslims can also be bumis if they pretend to be Malay.
No.
Half the population is ethnic Malay. Chinese are about 25%.
Confusing the extremists (Score:2, Insightful)
The Islamic terrorists are going to have a tough time figuring out where they stand on this: are they in favor because it punishes people who insult Islam or are they opposed because it's part of an anti-terrorism effort?
For that matter, the right-wing conservatives are also going to have a tough time with this: are they opposed because it punishes people who insult Islam (a favorite pastime of right-wing conservatives) or are they in favor because they reflexively support anything that falls under the guis
Re:Confusing the extremistsMOD PARENT TROLL (Score:2, Insightful)
That alone should get the parent modded TROLL -1.
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
Not confusing at all (Score:2)
For starters, I doubt that anyone would seriously define themselves as a "terrorist". (This isn't D&D and people cheerfully proclaiming themselves -- or their whole race -- to be chaotic evil.) The terrorists consider themselves more along the lines of "freedom fighters". You don't go blow yourself up just for the sake of making others panic a little. You
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually (interestingly), I can't even find an article on Muhammed on Wikipedia. The top link when I search is "Muhammad Ali", and the rest of the links have last names and none appear to be "the prophet Muhmmamed" (or Mohammed, or Mahhamod, or however it's spelled).
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Plain English does not cut it. The syntax of natural language is very forgiving and loose. It is not strict enough to express clear and unambiguous meaning. That is the fundamental problem in using simple plain English to write laws. Take the simple easy to understand line from our Constitution that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments". Is it really an and condition? Should the punishment
Re: (Score:2)
Take for example the California three-strikes (I under stand it is a California law, not sure about elsewhere) law. This law says (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that after three felonies one will face the maximum sentence. That doesn't sou
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you call present day an enlightened age? It is painfully obvious to me - as well as to many others - that we are currently in an age that is anything BUT enlightened. Nationalism is rampant, our leaders ignore the rights of the populace, Joe American is in complete denial of the stripping away of freedoms, and the rest of the
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
Muslims could do with some insults to wake them up (Score:2)
Re:Muslims could do with some insults to wake them (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Hmmm.. Not being a Christian myself can you quote me where their God demanded that they kill themselves in His name?
Or are you just making up rules on how you think their religion should work instead of going to the source?
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)
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.
The lying - lack of principles (Score:2)
At one point, if someone was a racist, or religious bigot, or a tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood, they said so and were up front about it.
These days it seems like everyone lies so freely and easily and without guilt that you can't make a rational decision since you can't trust anyone.
Islam out and out says it is okay to lie to non-believers (I think judiasm does in the torah too).
But lots of government officials in the US these days lie constantly.
The Article in Question (Score:3, Informative)
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/holds.php?item
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, but I'm really getting tired of seeing governments screw people over, and the people don't do anything about it. Maybe we all deserve to live in misery, being oppressed by bad rulers, since we're not willing to do what it takes to retain our freedom.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Of course I don't agree with Sharia Law, and I certainly wouldn't want it in my country. But if it did become law in my country, I'd be getting my guns out and shooting people who enforce it, just like I'd be willing to shoot anyone who tried to get millions of people to board trains destined fo
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you can't have Communism without a totalitarian regime. As Marx realised, if ordinary people have a choice in the matter, they will prefer to take a bigger slice of the capitalist pie, rather than give up their "bourgeois freedoms" like the right to own property and choose their own occupations. So Communism has to be forced on people "for their own good", and the only type of government that can do that is a
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem. It seems to me that American people have nothing prepared for that type scenario.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
President Gas (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, he hasn't sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The modern way is to make all up sorts of ludicrous excuses (that are just about believable) why the constitution doesn't apply to you (uhh...Bush wouldn't..oh...ye...nevermind) and rig the election (but I really can't see anyone being audacious enough to rig an election to get Bush in...oh...ye..
Re: (Score:2)
The Iraqi insurgents may not have much compared to our military, but they still have a damn sight more than us American civilians do! For example, go try to buy an AK-47 with an intact receiver (which I'm sure the Iraqis have plenty of) and see how far you get.
Depends on which state (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Malaysia is a democracy.
iqu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sharia Law? No thanks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:so let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)
No, that makes you gay.
In case you were confused about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if no other male aroused him that way, then I'm not sure if gay is the right label either- it's a bit more of a fetish than full-blown (hehe) homosexuality.
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.
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:2)
That's oh, so true. Some of the things I miss having are:
Now, I don't believe that we are at the point of being a police state. I agree that we are far from being at the point where som
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: (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: (Score:2)
But not Scientologist%^&$NO CARRIER