Slashdot Mirror
Syrian Blogger Sentenced to Three Years in Jail
blind biker writes "The AP reports (via the Herald Tribune) of Tarek Bayassi, a 24-year old Syrian blogger sentenced to three years in jail for 'undermining the prestige of the state and weakening national morale.' The original sentence was six years but it was commuted on appeal. Apparently, this isn't an isolated case in Syria."
Lese majesty has been a crime since Roman times. Remember, it's only treason if you lose (the revolution).
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
There's obviously a couple of homonyms at work here... "prestige of the state" and "weakening national morale". Because here in the UK at least, our perception of what makes us prestigious is that we ARE free to comment on the state, and what weakens our national morale as much as anything is when the state is seen to exercise excessive power over the freedom of the population.
The President of Syria has worked very hard at creating an image of being a humble, quietly-spoken, Western-educated ex-ophthalmologist who's had power lavished upon him almost inadvertently. Well it's back to the drawing board for the Damascus spin-doctors now then!
Irregardless of that ...
Aaargh.
The choices are regardless or irrespective. Pick one.
Hm, US not much different folks; banned book == no freedom of speech. ( http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmafia.htm )
:-|
and speaking of which, about the the writers's trial, no due process either, seems that a judge may rule that you are not allowed to mention the law on your defense, under penalty of jail time.
This book was "Previously banned" by the admission of the author. Right along with Lolita and others. It is banned no more. Don't forget about the Sedition Act when John Adams was President. Christ, it's not like anyone is claming that the US is perfect.
Find a freedom that is PRESENTLY being violated in the US to bitch about. It's not hard to do.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Singapore?
you are using Singapore, the country where they can fine you for not flushing a toilet in a public restroom, where possession of marijuana is punishable by death as an argument FOR people being able to live like we do in the Western world?
-I only code in BASIC.-
It sounds unlikely, but Bashar isn't really to blame here. He was never meant to be president. His brother was groomed for the role, but died in a car accident. When Hafez died, Bashar was working as an eye doctor in London. He was rushed back to inherit a job he never wanted. After he took control he quickly put in place measures to liberalise the country, loosening restriction on freedom of speech among others. However, this didn't last long. it soon became clear that he was not the one with the power. The real leaders were the senior official of the Baath Party who had been put in place by his father. They clamped down and reversed his reforms.
While he is the one whose face is on posters on the side of every building and on the wall of every shop and home, he's not in charge. There's obviously a lot of brainwashing going on, but he really does seem to be very popular in Syria. A lot of this is bread and circuses: people generally have a good quality of life, so tend to ignore the politics.
In any case, Syria is a beautiful country, with incredibly friendly people. It's sad to see stories like this, but there are signs of improvement in the regime. Even the fact that he had a trial and had his sentence reduced is a progress. It's unlikely he would have had that under Hafez. Despite the recent furore over the alleged nuclear reactor, there seems to be signs of progress towards peace with Israel. Only a couple of weeks ago, Turkey's president Erdogan was brokering talks about a possibly treaty. Time will tell.
"In any case, Syria is a beautiful country, with incredibly friendly people." I testify to that. Everybody in my mosque is very nice, but Syrians stand out even on that background.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
though Indirect succession. Singapore also supports regime in Myanmar (Burma). They usually site racial tensions between Malay, Indian and ruling Chinese class as reason for continuing the dictatorship. "Elections" are held for appearances sake, but while I was living there they seized assets of any opposition politician that looked like they would come close to winning a seat, usually on phony charges like "libel" or such. If some area did manage to elect a representative not approved by the state, then that neighborhood basically kisses goodbye to certain public services, infrastructure upgrades (like MRT tube stations etc). Like withholding rice in neighbouring Indonesia, but for a modern country.
But don't worry, like many others around the world it is a US approved dictatorship.
I find the above insightful, because you quoted something that touches on what it actually means to be a word.
ALL words start out in usage, and gradually get popular enough to be in the dictionary.
Like "blankie" and "cyberspace". They were "de facto" words, and then the dictionary people over at Webster made them words "per se" due to popular use.
It's just like an ISO standard, more or less. If the ISO (webster) publishes a standard, it is a standard "per se", whereas a "de facto" standard is simply one the world uses.
It's "de facto" if it's popular, and it's "per se" if some authoritative body says it is.
The US Civil War was about secession (or rather, the right of a state to secede from the union), not directly slavery. The core of it was that Southern states tended to view them selves as belonging more to their State (so one was a Virginian or a North Carolinian before they were American). The Federal government to them was supposed to be a loose organization more analogous to the United Nations of today. It's existence was solely to provide a unified military defense and to facilitate interstate commerce. As such the southern states wanted the right to decide their own policies (of which slavery was indeed a major hot issue of the day). They also viewed it as their right to decline membership and go their separate ways if they felt so justified. The war was largely based on a disagreement in the interpretation of that relationship between the US and the individual states.
Slavery wasn't abolished until a year into the war and then ONLY in the Southern states (though at the time Lincoln didn't have control over them, so it was a bit toothless). Slavery in the North was still quite legal after the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery didn't end there until the 13th amendment passed after the war ended, 3 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Indeed, General Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave (though he set him free in 1859), and his wife owned four. Many other Union generals owned slaves too. Naturally slave ownership among the Southern leadership was quite common. On the other hand the VAST majority of the soldiers doing the actual fighting on either side did not own slaves at all (afterall, slaves cost a lot of money, and wars are often fought by the poor). In the eyes of the common soldier they were simply fighting to either keep their country from tearing apart or for their independence against an oppressive government, depending on which side they were on.
Not that I think slavery is good or anything (IMHO it's one of the greatest evils man can commit), but it just irks me sometimes when the American Civil War gets simplified into a no slavery vs slavery or good vs evil situation, when in reality it was far more complex.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I'm sorry, but speaking as an ex-pat American living overseas, I can tell you that Guantanamo Bay has soured the image of America in every goddamned place which was not already anti-American.
As a country they may still be on friendly terms with America, but every single one of them is ashamed of what we have become