Malaysia Frees "Anti-Islamic" Blogger

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."

Comments

Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking freely is un-Islamic.

Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.

Freedom is un-Islamic.

Peace is un-Islamic.

Re:Speaking freely

[dnwq]

Trivia: the Malaysian government which is pulling this is not the radical Islamic wing. The Internal Security Act has even been used against the Islamic party. Make of that what you will.

Re:Speaking freely

[skam240]

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:Speaking freely

[TubeSteak]

A previous charge of sedition is still pending against the blogger.
...
When the Internal Security Act was introduced in 1960, the government said it would be used to protect people "from Communist subversion."

Sounds like Malaysia is still enjoying the good old days of McCarthyism.

Re:Speaking freely

[Lazyrust]

yes, but dont forget that people have been killing each other and repressing each other in the name of their respective gods for thousands of years.

The Roman Catholic Church had the Inquisition starting in the 1200s to persecute heresy, which the Popes saw as a threat to their power in Europe.

Women only "recently" gained equal rights. In 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was passed by the United Nations. Not exactly a long standing history of women rights. Oh, and the United States is the only developed nation that hasn't even ratified this convention.

And lets talk about freedom. California has passed Proposition 8, along with other amendments in Florida, which removes the civil rights for gays and lesbians to marry.
Replace the words "Gay" in Gay Marriage with "Interracial" and all of a sudden its something completely different to people. Yet its the same thing: removal of the freedom for people to choose who can visit them in the hospital, who can make medical decisions for them, automatic inheritance, spousal/child support, support to sue for wrongful death of a spouse and so on. And while religious groups claim that marriage is a holy sanction, remember that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. When you allow religion to choose your civil liberties, you are no better than the muslims who stone raped women accused of adultery in stadiums because its in their religion. It wasnt long ago that African-Americans had their own schools, doors and drinking fountains.

And considering we just had 8 years of Bush, a United Methodist, with him invading sovereign nations, I find "peace is un-islamic" a bit of a narrow definition.

Re:Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to remember about the McCarthy legacy was over 100 real leaks were rooted out and removed from American politics. And every year that passes those who claim to be innocent victims of the McCarthy era incriminate themselves.

Re:Speaking freely

[Lost Race]

Christians somehow managed to learn a little tolerance. Let's hope Muslims can step up soon and do the same.

Re:Speaking freely

[canUbeleiveIT]

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

[quarterbuck]

I posted the story originally with the title "Malaysian Court Frees Blogger" (I remember because I used the same title that New York times did).
The "anti-islamic" comment is not mine
I don't believe this has anything to do with religion, most developing nations use religion, public order, morality etc. as an excuse for authoritarianism.
I do hope that it will change and that freer communications and exposure to the rest of the world is a factor in bringing about cultural change, not just change to internet.

Re:Speaking freely

[linumax]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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 their babies alive if they discovered they were girls. Also, Islam is the _first_ law in history that gives women 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 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

[Red Pointy Tail]

Parent is exactly right. Insulting religion is an easy excuse and makes for an easy target to charge someone in this country when nothing else sticks. The actual reasons are entirely political.

What was left unsaid is that RPK was a persistent thorn in the side of the present government: he has published an ongoing series called 'The Khairy Chronicles' about the allerged corruption and abuse of power of the outgoing prime minister's son-in-law (PM Abdullah Badawi, now being forced out), and have publicized much of the allerged evidence linking the next incoming prime minister (equivalent:president) to the grisly and ghastly sex-and-murder case of a Mongolian interpreter who was brokering a weapons deal (the private investigator hired by Najib's goons confessed in an affidavit that future-PM Najib have said that the interpreter likes anal sex, and she was blown up with C4 explosives by the police detail assigned to protect Najib, using C4 explosives obtained only from the army where Najib is the Defense Minister. The trial is ongoing but Najib was never charged even when many roads point to him. The PI & his family promptly disappeared the day after the affidavit and was never seen again).

Yep, this dude has been anointed to be our next prime minister by the ruling party, and there is nothing they can do about it for now. Lovely country, ain't it, put your Ted Stevens to shame :)

Re:Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

"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:Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever listened to what religious right radio in the American midwest espouses? Not hearing a lot of tolerance there.

Re:Speaking freely

[bigstrat2003]

Having read the mindless slams against Christianity that get posted here on a regular basis, I would also lump atheists* in with the Muslims in that regard. Maybe they can go learn tolerance from the Christians... delicious irony. ;)

*Yes, I know not all atheists are intolerant, I'm atheist myself and get along with Christians beautifully. I just felt like taking a jab at the hypocritical, intolerant atheists who are so vocal on /.

Re:Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

why cant i call my teddy bear mohammed then? where's the free speech in demanding someone be executed over a what they named a bear? REAL fucking free

Re:Speaking freely

[skam240]

What the hell are you even getting at?

Re:Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly agree. Lumping a religion along with a certain party is discrimination.

And, a religion is something that is not supposed to be forced on others.

Re:Speaking freely

[jbridge21]

Also, Islam is the _first_ law in history that gives women a share of inheritance.

That's not quite correct. Check out Numbers 27:1-11... sure, the daughters only get something if there aren't any sons, but that's hardly reason to discount this incident entirely.

The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives."

So Moses brought their case before the LORD and the LORD said to him, "What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them.

"Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' "

Re:Speaking freely

[smithmc]

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 their babies alive if they discovered they were girls. Also, Islam is the _first_ law in history that gives women 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 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.

You keep pointing back to the early days of Islam. Yes, maybe back then, compared to the environment around it, Islam was progressive. But what about today? Shari'a law? The church running the state? Stoning of rape victims in stadiums? Threats of murder and bombings over a cartoon of Mohammed? Women having to cover their faces in public, being expected to walk N steps behind their men? Doesn't sound all that progressive to me.

Re:Speaking freely

[Anonymous Coward]

And so are the hate-mongers who so vilely slander people who have a beautiful faith in the truth of the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Re:Speaking freely

[Raenex]

Free speech and debate is, and has always been, encouraged in Islam.

So, preaching that Islam is a religion based on a false prophet is ok then, right?

(Don't confuse free speech with random insults though, they're different.)

Bullshit. Being able to offend somebody is the hallmark of free speech.

Re:Speaking freely

[raju1kabir]

You look like you're confusing Islam-the-religion with government-regimes-that-happen-to-have-a-muslim-majority-and-therefore-claim-to-muslim.

You in turn are confusing Islam-as-it's-actually-practiced with pie-in-the-sky-utopian-Islam-that-doesn't-exist.

Your vision of Islam is as ridiculous as a vision of Christianity where every believer gives away all their worldly posessions and goes around inviting people to slap them on the cheek all the time.

A religion is what people actually do with it, not some fantasy world you conjure up with preposterously charitable cherrypicking from its holy book.

Re:Speaking freely

[MrNaz]

Being able to offend somebody is the hallmark of free speech.

I think that this singular sentence is wholly representative of the level of civilization, sophistication and understanding that Western peoples have achieved.

200 years of civil development, a war of independence, a civil war to free slaves and a current war supposedly to defend freedom and what is the pinnacle achievement of your society's developmental process?

The right to call me a jerk.

Please stop exporting "American Culture" to the rest of the world. A bunch of spear weilding African bushmen would have a higher level of civilization than you do.

Re:Speaking freely

[Raenex]

The right to call me a jerk.

Yes, that's right. It also means I can criticize your religion, government policy, or whatever else somebody in power mind find "offensive".

Please stop exporting "American Culture" to the rest of the world. A bunch of spear weilding African bushmen would have a higher level of civilization than you do.

I find this statement insulting and offensive. Please report to the nearest re-education camp.

Re:Speaking freely

[mdwh2]

Indeed - in the UK, it was only in the last year that we finally repealed the Christian Blasphemy law, after someone tried to sue the BBC using it.

Re:Speaking freely

[bigstrat2003]

Your attempt at making a point falls flat on its face. Even though I don't believe in those things in the slightest, and think it would be silly to do so, that gives me no right to engage in mud-slinging toward people who disagree with my assessment.

Am I the only one?

[synonymous]

Am I the only one that can see what "National Security" is?? Simply guns to keep the sheeple, slaves.

Re:Am I the only one?

[von_rick]

National Security is a loose term and can encompass enforcement of several worldviews. However one common outcome of National Security is erosion of civil liberties and YMMV.

Blogger's blog

[dnwq]

Raja Petra's blog. Less "blog" and more "discussion site", I guess.

Really, though, I'm not too sure how relevant the article is to Slashdot - how many countries have an Internal Security Act that allows the government to detain anyone, without trial, for as long as it wants? And among countries that do - both Malaysia's and Singapore's governments reaffirmed their intention to retain the acts this year, so it's not going to go away soon (the opposition in M'sia is a coalition that includes the radical Islamic right. Not exactly a civil rights champion, there. The opposition in Singapore is virtually nonexistent).

Re:Blogger's blog

[solweil]

>how many countries have an Internal Security Act that allows the >government to detain anyone, without trial, for as long as it wants? I guess you meant this as a sort of negative rhetorical question, but actually most countries have a law approaching this.

Re:Blogger's blog

[aproposofwhat]

Apart from Malaysia, Britain's probably the worst - luckily the Neues Arbeit administration was stopped from extending detention to 42 days from 28, but guess what?

The very next day, Wacqui Jacqui Schmidt (our truly imbecilic Home Secretary) tabled legislation that would allow 42 days to be voted for by the House of Commons, "in an emergency".

Even places like Turkey restrict detention without charge or trial to 7 days - why is my country different?

Re:Blogger's blog

[Seakip18]

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:Blogger's blog

[dnwq]

Yeah, rhetorical. The political situations in such countries are always complicated and deeply nuanced - not something that armchair commentators at Slashdot appreciate.

A blogger is detained under the ISA for writings that may be read to insult Islam. Members of the radical Islamic party then line to support an anti-ISA petition. And so on - how many Slashdotters understand the chain of events?

Really, every time an article like this comes up, all that happens is either comments that think that everywhere else is ruled by the Taliban or comments that are absolutely certain that the US/UK is also totally fascist, really! (protip: no, it isn't, and you have no idea how political freedom works. This as someone who's actually lived in Malaysia, Singapore, and the UK before: the British have an amazing degree of political freedom.)

Not exactly perceptive discussion...

Re:Blogger's blog

[ickoonite]

the opposition in M'sia is a coalition that includes the radical Islamic right

True, but that's because the opposition in Malaysia is still a rather nascent phenomenon. Yes, there have been opposition parties for years, but they are all very small, and so this odd alliance of non-Muslim Chinese Malaysians and the radical Islamic parties is what you get. It's the only way to face off the UMNO (ruling party) juggernaut.

Incidentally, the blame for the Internal Security Act (both in Malaysia and Singapore) can be laid squarely with the British. As someone else has pointed out, it was introduced when there was a very real fear that Malaya would fall to the commies; the British were successful in preventing that. But afterwards, these new "democracies" felt that the ISA might be useful, and so it has remained. The other British-imposed legislative gem is that criminalising sodomy (though Muslim Malaysia might have had something to say about that anyway): the one-time darling of the UMNO party and now leader of the opposition Anwar Ibrahim has twice been accused of sodomy, though pretty much everyone knows the charges were politically motivated. The first time round though, he spent quite a few years in jail for it.

The good thing is that sites like this "blog" are demonstrating that the power of the Internet is starting to act as a force for change (and why it is relevant to Slashdot, I might add). That the government feels the need to lock people up on trumped-up charges of anti-Islamic conduct is, ultimately, a sign that they are making waves. And that can only be a good thing.

:|

Re:Blogger's blog

[Anonymous Coward]

In a couple of years I'm sure that if you says something bad about Dear Leader you'll be getting a visit from his Brown Shirts.

Re:Blogger's blog

[aproposofwhat]

Nope - even for terrorism charges in Turkey, it's still 7 days.

Re:Blogger's blog

[Seakip18]

Yikes. Confusing Nouns! I meant that whatever country the poster lived in. Not necces. Turkey. Sorry about that.

Re:Blogger's blog

[Lost Race]

42 days is just the next click up on the ratchet from 28. After that will be 90 days, then 180, then they'll probably shoot the moon and go for "indefinitely". Then they'll broaden the definition of "terrorism" to include pedophilia, tax evasion, speeding, littering, etc.

Re:Blogger's blog

[aproposofwhat]

Unfortunately, I live in Britain, and have seen our civil liberties under attack from the idiocracy that is New Labour ever since before 11/9/01.

The 28 days was an increase over the (IIRC) 14 days that was voted on every year in Parliament, and was seen as adequate for fighting IRA terrorism - there is no sensible argument for more than the original 14 days, but the fear-mongering plays well with the press, so New Labour assiduously pursue extensions to the detention period.

One day, we (the British people) will have had enough - I hope it's not already too late.

Re:Blogger's blog

[aproposofwhat]

Well, speeding causes more deaths in the UK every year than terrorism has in the last decade - roughly 6-12% (depending on the source) of fatal accidents are related to excessive speed, and at around 3000 per year, that gives between 180 and 360 deaths per year.

Even the lower limit is roughly 3 times the number of people killed in terror attacks in the UK in the last 10 years, including the 'Real IRA' Armargh bombing.

And don't get me started on those bastard litterbugs...

Re:Blogger's blog

[Anonymous Coward]

That's OK - Gordon Brown's got shit taste in shirts.

Re:Blogger's blog

[aproposofwhat]

As a UK citizen for the last 44 years, I can tell you that we do not have anywhere near the level of political freedom that we had 10 years ago - 'terrorism' legislation has been routinely used against legitimate protests, and one clause in the legislation is currently being misused to justify 'stop and search' against youths, in an uncanny echo of the SUS laws that contributed so much towards the inner-city riots of the early 1980s.

British civil liberties are at such a low ebb that even establishment figures such as the Information Commissioner are starting to speak out against the egregious excesses of the New Labour fearmongers.

But then again, that's just my perspective.

I've never been to Malaysia or Singapore, so can't comment on their systems, but I can testify to the erosion of British civil liberties by the current government, driven by the tabloid press.

Re:Blogger's blog

[Dutch Gun]

Well, speeding causes more deaths in the UK every year than terrorism has in the last decade - roughly 6-12% (depending on the source) of fatal accidents are related to excessive speed, and at around 3000 per year, that gives between 180 and 360 deaths per year.

Everyone in modern society more or less has to accept a certain amount of inevitable risk, such as the well-known risks we all take getting into a car. We do what we can to limit the risks, balanced against reasonable practicality/economics. We have traffic rules that are enforced by law, rules against driving drunk, modern cars have an enormous amount of engineering in them devoted to safety, etc, etc... But even so, everyone understands that there's nothing you can do to prevent a certain number of accidents from occurring. We just learn from mistakes and try to correct anything that's correctable.

Terrorism and other sorts of brutal mass-homicides tend to be particularly horrific because of the senseless nature of such killings. These are deliberate attempts to inflict as much suffering and death upon people as possible. That has a much different effect upon people than a simple car crash. While losing someone to an accident is incredibly painful (most people has lost someone at some time in their lives), I can only imagine the additional pain inflicted with knowing someone killed your loved ones with malicious intent.

I don't think you'll have much luck comparing some random sort of accident statistics with terrorism-related deaths. They don't have the same psychological impact (sort of by design), and therefore the numbers won't mean a damn thing to most people. Human nature, I'm afraid...

Re:Blogger's blog

[ultranova]

With this ambiguous new crime of "terrorism", it's too broad to define what you need to "nail'em" and get your desired outcome.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Blogger's blog

[Seakip18]

You see, that's the issue they tried to solve. Rather than have to get the needed proof and belief that "yes, they commited 1,842 crimes via one act" and try them each on so many x amounts of criminal charges, you can throw the book at them with one charge. No need to prove what constitutes things like single counts of vandalism and destruction of property when you've got so many other things to prove.

Makes your evidence, your trial and everything else easier. They've just done a shitty job deciding how to proceed from there. The optimist says they are learning....the realists says they are just sucking and will continue to do so. It's new territory in a new age and they aren't keeping up. Not that I'd know how to anyway. This blogger case shows just how it goes.

Re:Blogger's blog

[raju1kabir]

Terrorism and other sorts of brutal mass-homicides tend to be particularly horrific because of the senseless nature of such killings. These are deliberate attempts to inflict as much suffering and death upon people as possible.

Speeding is worse. At least terrorists believe they are serving some higher cause. People who kill by speeding are just selfish assholes without even the justification of some warped morality. Add that to the fact that they kill far more people than terrorists ever could and I think it's clear what the greater tragedy is.

Everyone in modern society more or less has to accept a certain amount of inevitable risk, such as the well-known risks we all take getting into a car.

The risk of getting into a car is not inevitable. Driver behaviour has a tremendous amount of impact on how dangerous a ride will be - both for the people in that car, and others as well.