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."
Considering that most terrorists are Muslim, somewhat ironic that anti-terrorism laws are being used to silence those who "insult Islam." How else is Islam going to be civilized and reformed from within if criticism and debate on the state of Islam in the modern world is crushed in a major Muslim nation, Malaysia, keeping in mind most of the world's Muslims live in Asia?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
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 guise of anti-terrorism?
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:
"I was alleged to have insulted the king, and also Islam and incite racial hatred, so I am going in there to reply to all these charges. I promise I'm going to give them a hell of a tough time," he told the BBC before he turned himself in.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.
That alone should get the parent modded TROLL -1.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You know, back in the days of the Cold War, it used to be that in the "West" Communists were feared. In the USSR, it was the "Spreaders of American Imperialism". It would seem that history is repeating itself, but with the added proviso of having a unified enemy. One that can literally be indistinguishable from the common person, and even more disturbing, cannot be defeated. Now, I know that is nothing new in this crowd, but think about it, a Communist can be defeated, I would say for the most part they have been. The USSR fell, Cuba has its own problems with Castro falling to old age, China a communist country in name, now has "capitalist zones" throughout -- Communism is a dead horse and it has been flogged to death.
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.
The Bush administration is insulted on The Daily Show and Colbert Report almost every day. Comedy Central runs a cartoon show that does nothing but mock the administration. Plenty of people have, and still do, publicly protest against Bush. I realize that freedom of speech in America isn't what it used to be, and theres some serious threats to it. However, what you wrote (taking the context of the article into account) seems to imply that there is some sort of systematic persecution or detainment of those who criticize Bush, which isn't the case.
I mean, his approval rating is 30%. It sure doesn't seem like the populace is fearful of criticizing the Bush administration.
Religion deserves to be made fun of. Too many people take it too seriously and want to force it on people.
I'm sure any sane person would rather vote for a new government than take up arms and shoot people (and get shot at) to achieve a new government. It's just a matter of when "enough is enough", and enough people have decided it's time for the latter.
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.
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 laws that Bush is putting out right now, may have a different meaning next year when we have our presidential election and Bush is not in office. How do we know that the next president, whoever it is, will not twist the laws and executive orders that Bush has implemented. We don't! Be afraid, be very very afraid!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
But you are surely not in agreement with the principles of Sharia law? As in, everyone who doesn't believe in the correct magical superman is murdered by the State? You wouldn't want that in your own country, right?
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.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
We do, actually.
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.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Huh? Sure we do, at least a lot more than most other countries.
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.
Saying something remotely critical of Islam doesn't make you right wing or conservative. And saying that all right wing conservatives do X because that is your fucked up world view is just as stupid.
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 in general, all fucked up. Maybe you should step back and look around a little more.
By not letting yourself be perpetually terrified.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
If the people that I know in the military are any indication, then the day a President unilaterally declares himself king/emperor/dictator for life is the day that some missiles are "accidentally" launched at said dictator. There are a lot of military folks who take that "uphold the Constitution" part of their duty very very seriously.
I'm sure any sane person would rather vote for a new government than take up arms and shoot people
I think it's important to realize that no government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy. (If somebody can point to a solid example, I'd be very interested in knowing.) All instances of true reduction of power have been forced by either outside powers, civil war, or economic collapse.
With that, we can see that government power only expands, or at best remains constant over the long term. In the case of the US, expansion of power and revenue (especially federal) has occurred nearly exponentially over certain periods, with the past century being most notable.
Citing history, I belive we can only conclude that it is the destiny of every government to consolidate (centralize) power and increase revenue over its lifetime. After all, the US -- which is now the most expensive, most powerful government that has ever existed -- was originally designed with strict limits on the expansion of power.
I am a peaceful individual; I am not interested in war or coercion at all. So no, I do not have a solution to any of this. But again, I think it's important to realize this inherent trait of centralized power: there is a reason why governments expand their powers and revenue over time, and it's certainly not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.
Only fanatics want to *force* it on people.
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.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I think the greatest asset we have in the US to prevent the creation of a dictatorship is inertia. Can you imagine how much work it would be to restructure the Federal government into a fully top-down model. Think of the practical implications of cutting out the representative channels. Who would answer to whom? How would federal administrative law function? Who would fill the non-representative duties of today's congressmen?
A dictatorship would be laughed out of Washington if it wasn't preceded by enormous amounts of planning. If we couldn't manage a state of emergency in a single city after Katrina, how could we manage a state of emergency in an entire layer of government--let alone the country.
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 the collective whole. Kinda scary, actually.)
The US really needs to have a frank dialog and discussion to decide how much permission we want to give our Government to observe and control us under the guise of the public good. Any approach to the subject has, so far, been based too much in partisan politics and too little in addressing the foundational issue of what kind of society we want given the capabilities of enhanced technology.
I believe that things will only get increasingly repressive until this discussion occurs and politicians have impressed upon their consciousness the difference between can and should where technology exists.
Personally I think of Islam as currently being in the place where Christianity was hundreds of years ago. You know - crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, and all that other neat stuff.
President Bush has declared himself dictator. He's had his people say that they are beyond any oversight by Congress, and that any attempt by Congress to prosecute them for contempt of Congress when they fail to testify or produce materials that Congress deems it requires for its Constitutionally-mandated oversight duties will be blocked when it's referred on to the Justice Department for enforcement. That's all a dictatorship is - authority in a single office and individual without check.
Okay, he hasn't said his dictatorship is for life yet. No need to do that until shortly before he's supposed to hand over power to the next president. Who knows, if by miracle a Republican is elected, maybe he'll go ahead and pass on the dictatorship. Will that make your military friends happy enough?
Even if Hillary steps into office after him, in a smooth transition, as things stand she'll be inheriting the dictatorial powers his people have seized for the office. Will your military friends be content to let her march them off to ill-conceived wars on the far side of nowhere, absent any power left to our Senators and Congresspersons to oversee or check her schemes?
No offense to the military, but if they're patriots, they're working out detailed plans to "accidentally" launch something in the very near future. Dictatorships are no more "declared" these days than wars are. Instead, we just slip into them like something comfortable.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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%.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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...nevermind).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Communism isn't in and of it self evil, it is usually the totalitarian regime that enforces it.
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 1984/Stalin/Mao-style arrangement with regular purges of dissidents.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?