Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body
Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."
If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.
Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.
When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.
"international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"
I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.
According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.
So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
And if women didn't dress provocatively, they wouldn't be raped.
Yeah, yeah, that's it. Suppress freedom of expression so half-crazed Islamist assholes don't have an excuse to riot. Sounds like a great plan to me.
But she showed her ankles!!!! I COULDN'T HELP MYSELF FROM RAPING HER AFTER THAT!!!
Besides don't forget to stone her after raping her. It's the Muslim way!
Now here's the catch. A riot was asked what they didn't like about the video or what was so wrong, answer, I would not watch that rubbish. So what do you do with morons who riot about content they have never even bloody seen and like automatons they are rioting because the were told to be insulted and that they should riot.
Saudi Arabian government can fuck right off. The Government of Saudi Arabia via their nominated sub-cult the Wahhabis were the shit heads telling everyone to riot. No matter what anyone writes, draws or video if the criminally insane subcult of Islam spends money on telling the rest of the Islam world to riot via the religious communication channels then a percentage of fundamentalists world wide will riot.
The problem is not the content the problem is the corrupt autocratic government of Saudi Arabia and it's fiscal campaign corruption of the US government. How many US politicians are crawling around feeding at the hand of the Saudi government and it's Wahhabi religious fanatics, shit they ran airliners into US buildings, own substantial interests in US media channels, corrupt US politicians and the US governments turns a blind eye, again and again and again.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
Oh, really? So what was this all about?
IMO, yes. All religion is bad. That being said, some religions are worse than others and IMO Islam is the worst of the lot.
Those are things called "facts". They are just inconvenient things that get in the way of unsubstantiated rants.
Then why are Muslims also attacking in so many other countries? There are Muslim terrorist attacks, all over the world, every day, and it's been going on like that for decades. Muslims are actively attacking not only Jews, and Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, and of course, other Muslims.
How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?
Bless, I actually wondered how far I'd get down the thread before someone started mouthing off about things they don't understand, which is often the case when the UN is in a story, I had to actually get quite far this time before I reached your post.
So let me explain for you, the UN is a bit like your government, except whilst your government represents the population of your nation, the UN represents the governments to the world.
So a bit like when a member of your government comes up with some braindead law and no one wants, the UN works in the same way, but with far more safeguards. Saudi may well be mouthing off about this sort of thing but it wont happen, because the only UN body that comes close to this sort of thing would be the ITU, and the ITU requires unanimity on votes, and as the West wont vote for this measure at the ITU, it wont actually happen.
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
Really though, the UN is less scary than government in this respect, because sovereign nations can opt-out of it, or elements of it, whereas you can't opt-out of your government. There are some exceptions, if one member state threatens another, or if one government ceases to represent it's people through committing war crimes against them for example, then the UN may act, but for the most part, nations sign up to what does suit them, and don't sign up to what doesn't (i.e. some countries don't think the WTO would benefit them).
The point is though, for every fringe-organisation of the UN filled up by the nutjob countries, there are plenty of UN organisations that facilitate global cooperation, for example, the International Civil Aviation Organization helps facilitate global standards on air traffic control so that when a plane enters another country's air space they can navigate safely to land, or avoid other air traffic, without fear of conflicting standards on such things causing issues. The Universal Postal Union helps ensure you can send a letter from your house in the middle of whatever country your in, to just about any other address in the world and so forth.
So yes, don't worry, your sovereign nation's rights and laws will remain intact, providing it doesn't try and force them on anyone else, which is precisely why Saudi Arabia's bid is just noise that is doomed to fail. The UN still has a point, just as your government still has a point, even if it probably does a lot of things you dislike as most governments do. Just as at least some form of government is necessary for a civilised society to exist by enforcing laws against being able to arbitrarily murder people and so forth, the UN is necessary to ensure that certain international efforts and cooperation flow smoothly by mitigating the potential for cultural barriers and so forth to cause issues (i.e. imagine if an air traffic controller at a busy airport like Heathrow, or Chicago O'Hare had to know every language in the world to cater to pilots flying in from all over the world).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/30/husain-haqqani-muslim-rage-is-about-politics-not-religion.html
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
The basic message is simple: The Islamic powers that be see the decline of the Islamic world and instead of catching up by modernizing their world, they seek to keep what control they can by creating theocracies, where the rule is to not question those in charge. It keeps the population dumb and controllable but also backward and unable to matter in the real world.
A perfect example was shown with Olympics. Saudia Arabia had fielded a female Judoka but insisted she would be allowed to wear a headscarf. Probably the first thing you picture when thinking of Judo is the standard uniform, which has no head covering. It never had, wasn't needed to appease any country ever before. But Saudia Arabia needed to be appeased because else they might withdraw. So the woman was allowed to disregard safety, disregard tradition and wear a piece of kit nobody else was allowed to wear...
AND LOST
Immidiatly, she didn't stand a chance! Not even the slightest. She was the worsed to ever take part in the modern olympics.
She wasn't put into her countries team to win or even to compete, she was put in to be harmless enough to not upset Saudi Arabians while at the same time playing the "the world hates islam" card by hoping she would be barred because of the headscarf. She wasn't and it became clear thar SA biggotted nature simply meant they had no women worthy of competition.
It is easier to shout loudly "rah rah us" and blame everything on them, then to risk modernizing your country and have the people wonder why this old men are in charge. England works that way, "trust us the 1% conservatives, we will fix your country because you are great, trust us". The USA loves its rousing "We are #1" waving made in China banners.
And around the world, were the powers that be have made a mess of things, religion is a good card to rally your troops around the leaders in support rather then looking for a handy rope.
Why do you think backwater North-ireland had religious strife? Because it was managed so well economically? Why do you think the orthodox church is back in power in Russia, because the last time they were in charge, they did so well economically?
No, but in economic hard times when people can't improve themselves or society, they become susceptible to religious control telling them they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Because keeping the people stupid is a good way to control people, but when times are hard, people also prefer to be kept stupid. Easy answers are so much easier.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up.
Anonymous because I don't want to be beheaded.
What about non-militant Islam, is that evil? These aren't the "death to America" types, but the much more common "I want to go to work, come home to my family, and help raise the best and brightest kids I can, and maybe I stop by Friday prayers at the mosque" types.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
1. Regular personal declaration in belief in monotheism, and that Mohammed is the messenger of that 1 god. This conceptually would be like a Christian reciting the Nicene Creed.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this.
3. Giving at least 2.5% of ones income as charity towards the less fortunate. This seems positively virtuous.
4. Fasting, particularly during Ramadan, if practical (exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, etc). Again, harmless to anyone who isn't fasting.
5. A pilgrimage to Mecca. This could potentially support the Saudi government, but it's also basically harmless to anyone who isn't doing it, and often quite moving to those who do (Malcolm X is a great example - his experiences led him to stop hating white people due to their race).
And I should point out, for the record, that I'm not Muslim myself, but I've noticed that those who think that Islam is completely evil often know very little about what Muslims actually believe and how they practice their faith.
I am officially gone from
So your proof is "because it has to be"? The Spanish inquisition was about 150,000 people, at most (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls). The Salem witch trials were 19 (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/asal_de.htm). By all means, give me the rest of the numbers that add up to 99.849981 million. Now, do we get to count atheistic communism in this comparison? Because Stalin (20 million), Hitler (50 Million) and Mao (70 million) (http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm) killed or were responsible for the deaths of quite a large number of people... and in about 2.5% of the time of Christianity.