Slashdot Mirror
Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers
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."
According to his latest blog entry, he has been released after 8 hrs, and the reason for his temp detention was comments made on the website
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
However, we have lots of issues to clean-up "back at home", if we want to preach to Malaysia about such issues.
For example in the UK
"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
Again, so what? Or are you trying to say the PALISTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION is a bunch of Catholic terrorists?
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'...
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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 Sharia Law applied from the very beginning of Islam.
A frequently made assumption by Americans and (some) Europeans is that "Freedom" is desired by virtually all people everywhere. History does not seem to support that contention, really. Sharia Law worked quite well for centuries in the Islamic world. In many ways, it still does. Personally, I'm none too fond of the parts of Sharia that reduce to Dress Codes, but then we must remember that Sumptuary Laws (AKA Dress Codes) existed in many societies throughout History, including most European countries during the Renaissance. Prostitutes must wear red shoes is not, after all, a Muslim idea.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
He was called Dave Allen.
)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Allen_(comedian
I used to see him when I worked in Kensington, late 80s, early 90s. He stayed near RBK&C offices just off Kensington High St.
That Carlin quote comes from this routine about religion. If you haven't seen it, it's very funny, and well worth a watch imo.
It makes you a blasphemer, for which the traditional punishment under Islamic law is death.
This is one of the articles that caused it all
i d=6714#c
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/holds.php?item