Malaysia Frees "Anti-Islamic" Blogger 53
quarterbuck writes "The Malaysian blogger who was under arrest on sedition charges has been freed by the courts. Raja Petra Kamarudin's comments were interpreted by the government as being anti-Islam and anti-government; he was arrested under Malaysia's Internal Security Act. Now, a court has ruled that the government was overstepping its limits in what is being called a landmark ruling."
Re:Speaking freely (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking freely is un-Islamic.
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
Peace is un-Islamic.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things you mention were un-Christian.
Re:Blogger's blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Even places like Turkey restrict detention without charge or trial to 7 days - why is my country different?
Because, probably like my country, they need that much time to work through the bureaucratic gridlock that is figuring out how to proceed with such ambiguous charges. I mean, you have a murderer, you know you gotta produce evidence, time, place, etc. You know what you need to charge him and keep him in your hands.
With this ambiguous new crime of "terrorism", it's too broad to define what you need to "nail'em" and get your desired outcome. You got a lot of circumstantial evidence probably, not a lot of previous trials, judgments, etc that you can use to compare with your case. I mean, you can't go back 20 years and find out a lot of cases that deal with trying someone as a terrorist, especially when the laws themselves are so new.
In the face of making a stupid mistake or honestly not knowing what to do, they'd rather keep folks under their thumb than risk letting them go. Unethical and possibly illegal as it may be to hold folks, that's probably the only alternative they see. Hold them till the can figure out what the heck to do.
That's my take on it. I have no clue what the best thing to do is, and would not like to be in the shoes of the folks who decide this stuff. Who knows if that's it, or if they just pulled a number out their asses.
Re:Speaking freely (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Speaking freely (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking freely is un-Islamic.
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
Peace is un-Islamic.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things you mention were un-Christian.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things were un-Everything (un-British, un-Hindu, un-African, un-Whatever). That's just the way things were everywhere until fairly recently. Maybe you and the parent should keep the broadbrush in its holster a little longer next time.
Re:Speaking freely (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things you mention were un-Christian.
And the un-Christian part has not changed much. What has changed is Christianity being separated from Government. Put them in charge and they'll bring back the dark ages.
Re:Speaking freely (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm an atheist, but I've only became one after I read and learned as much as I can about the religions that are out there. And I can safely say that every sentence in your post is a flat-out lie.
Speaking freely is un-Islamic.
False. Free speech and debate is, and has always been, encouraged in Islam. As a matter of fact, the lack of it was what gave Islam such a hard time in its beginning. (Don't confuse free speech with random insults though, they're different.)
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Quite the opposite. Islam was rejected in Mecca because it respected women. Before it came, families would bury [wikipedia.org] their babies alive if they discovered they were girls. Also, Islam is the _first_ law in history that gives women [wikipedia.org] a share of inheritance. Books can be written about respect for women in Islam, but this isn't the place.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
How so if the atonement of pretty much most of the major sins in Islam is freeing [wikipedia.org] a slave? That's 1172 years before the the Slave Trade Act. Many of the very first muslims were slaves and their masters tortured them just for that.
Peace is un-Islamic.
That doesn't even make sense... Muslims had to have a military, just like EVERY OTHER JOE-KINGDOM AND ITS SISTER JANE-EMPIRE HAD ONE. Without one they would all die. It's as simple as that.
You look like you're confusing Islam-the-religion with government-regimes-that-happen-to-have-a-muslim-majority-and-therefore-claim-to-muslim.
Re:Speaking freely (Score:2, Insightful)
"Christians somehow managed to learn a little tolerance."
Now if only they could learn just a bit more ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Re:Blogger's blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Then perhaps you should not charge people with "terrorism", but on murder, vandalism, etc.
I've never understood why "terrorism" needs special laws, when any kind of terror strike is already likely to run afoul of enough other laws to get you sent to prison for life. Even sending people flour in a letter could probably get you sued for harassment.
If anything, suing people for terrorism instead of murder only serves to validate the idea that someone who kill people for a political or religious ideology is somehow different than any other murderer, thus helping other would-be terrorists to justify their actions.
Re:Blogger's blog (Score:1, Insightful)
Being mown down by a speeding drunk driver is also a senseless death.
The driver made a conscious effort to speed whilst drunk just as much as the terrorist made a conscious effort to detonate a bomb where people are very likely to get killed.
In fact, you could say deaths due to terrorism are less senseless, since they are ultimately designed to make the world a better place from the perspective of the terrorists and their supporters, whether or not we agree with it.
Drink driving and speeding can make no such claim.