Pakistan Blocks YouTube

Multiple readers have written to tell us of news that Pakistan has ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies." This follows increasing unrest in Pakistan over a Danish newspaper's reprinting of cartoons which depict Islam in a less-than-favorable light. The cartoons also sparked controversy when they were first published a few years ago.

Comments

The offending content

[broothal]

SILENCE!! I KIIILL YOU

Re:Lucky they're not offended by the Bible

[computechnica]

I wonder if they have blocked this site: Skeptics annotated Quran

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[Stormwatch]

Well, there's no conclusive evidence that it is harmful either, now is there?

Yes, there is. Read and learn.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[spacefrog]

Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat So in other words, it's legal.

Which Eurpoean country is 'more enlightened'? Not only does Wikipedia contradict your statement about the UK, but your 'mysterious enlightened country' is no where to be found.

I'm strongly opposed to circumcision . . . and talking out your ass.

IP hijacking, not DNS hijacking

[Nigel Stepp]

Not that it's really important, but many are saying there is DNS hijacking going on.

It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.

It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.

I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.

Re:Lets bring these people up to speed

[@madeus]

So in other words, it's legal. I went out of my way to make the situation and my position clear, you've chosen to try and pick and argument, and be an ass about it.

In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).

If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):

The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.

To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).

One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous.

Which European country is 'more enlightened'? Off the top of my head? Finland and Germany have already ruled it's illegal without consent. As noted, in the UK the legislation also affords more protection than in the US (even if it is still incomplete).

Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.