Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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?
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
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.
import system.cool.Sig;
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.
Christians somehow managed to learn a little tolerance. Let's hope Muslims can step up soon and do the same.
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.
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.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
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.
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.
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...
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
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 :)
"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)
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.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.