Common sense is alive and well in Pakistan

MrJoeSoap

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Pakistan has ordered all Internet service providers to block the YouTube website for containing "blasphemous" content and material considered offensive to Islam, officials said Sunday.

An inter-ministerial committee has decided to block YouTube because it contained "blasphemous content, videos and documents," a government official told AFP.

"The site will remain blocked till further orders," he said.

Other officials said the site had been blocked because it contained controversial sketches of the Prophet Mohammed which were republished by Danish newspapers earlier this month.

One major service provider, Micronet, said in an email to subscribers that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority had directed all ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies."

"Meanwhile Internet users can write to YouTube.com to remove the objectionable web content/movies because this removal would enable the authorities to order un-blocking of this website," the email said.

At least 17 Danish newspapers republished the controversial drawing, vowing to defend freedom of expression a day after Danish police said they had foiled a plot to murder the cartoonist.

In the latest in a series of demonstrations over the cartoons in Pakistan, hundreds of hardline Islamists in the southern city of Karachi torched effigies of the Danish prime minister and the cartoonist on Sunday, witnesses said.

"Death to cartoonist," the demonstrators chanted before burning the effigies, as well as US and Danish flags, outside a mosque.

Supporters of cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan's small opposition party also staged a small protest in Karachi.

In the southwestern city of Quetta, activists from a hardline Islamic organisation burned a Danish flag. Witnesses said they also demanded the government close Danish missions in Islamabad and end diplomatic relations.

"It is a deliberate attempt to malign Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims," Habib Shah Kerani told the protesters from the Anjman-e-Islam (Organisation of Islam) group.

Some 12 cartoons published in September 2005 by the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper sparked bloody riots in the Islamic world.

Five people died in Pakistan in February 2006 during protests against the cartoons, while a Pakistani cleric offered a reward of one million dollars and a new car for anyone who killed any of the cartoonists.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5io-SE_bmENEzM46rwdVuDt9iK5zg

First the cartoons, now this. Anyone else feel a little sorry for them? Not on my list of holiday destinations this year anyway, I'm sure they're devestated.

astrofool

5 people died at the protests over cartoons. Wow, what a sad way to go.

berliner

We'll have that eventually in Europe in the future

Dave!

They have a point in fairness. Ya can't go insulting Muhammed and think you can get away with it.

MrJoeSoap

DaveMcG wrote: »

They have a point in fairness. Ya can't go insulting Muhammed and think you can get away with it.

True that. Some man for one man that Muhammed character!

Jesus Wept

DaveMcG wrote: »

They have a point in fairness. Ya can't go insulting Muhammed and think you can get away with it.

What about his ma?

Thirdfox

I was reading the BBC report on the ban and actually I can somewhat see their convoluted point.

Insulting Muhammed is illegal (I assume) in Pakistan. People here who are saying that these things should be freely available to see over the internet over there, would they advocate child pornography (illegal here) being something that freely accessible on the net too?

Pornography is banned in many countries, this religious thing isn't really that far off the mark from other social/moral reasons for censoring the net (something that is practised in all countries to a certain degree).

We have the crime of blasphemy in our Constitution too, no one has tried to use that in a long time now though...

Just trying to see it from their government's viewpoint.

Guy:Incognito

Thirdfox wrote: »

I was reading the BBC report on the ban and actually I can somewhat see their convoluted point.

Insulting Muhammed is illegal (I assume) in Pakistan. People here who are saying that these things should be freely available to see over the internet over there, would they advocate child pornography (illegal here) being something that freely accessible on the net too?

Pornography is banned in many countries, this religious thing isn't really that far off the mark from other social/moral reasons for censoring the net (something that is practised in all countries to a certain degree).

We have the crime of blasphemy in our Constitution too, no one has tried to use that in a long time now though...

Just trying to see it from their government's viewpoint.

Religion shouldnt be ruling countries. Politics is bad enough without getting reigion involved.

Jesus Wept

All praise be to Terry, he is the savior and one true God.

Terry

The prophet mohammed (muhamed, muhammed, etc.) sucked my balls when I prayed with my arse facing towards mecca.
Then he performed the miracle of turning lambs into sheep.

After this post I'm going to watch some porn and have a ****.
Then I'm gonna eat a ham sandwich.

Have I insulted enough religions yet?
Feel free to add (within reason. By saying that, I mean libel).

Judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves.

Terry

Blasphemer.

Thirdfox

Stekelly wrote: »

Religion shouldnt be ruling countries. Politics is bad enough without getting reigion involved.

I agree being an agnostic but...fact of life is that religion is a major part of many people's lives and that some religions are more sensitive than others.

I doubt anyone would be supporting child porn to be made available here because it is against our morals... so how can we justify saying that youtube should be made available even though (apparently) it is against their morals/religion and even law?

Overheal

Lets make http://www.allahtube.com

Agamemnon

Thirdfox wrote: »

I doubt anyone would be supporting child porn to be made available here because it is against our morals... so how can we justify saying that youtube should be made available even though (apparently) it is against their morals/religion and even law?

There's a difference between something being offensive and being harmful. Child porn is harmful to kids. Some people might be offended by blasphemous cartoons but they won't be ruined by them like the children in child porn are.

JavaBear

You make a good point ThirdFox but you must remember child pornography on the internet is a result of other activities. Child abuse, paedophilia, kidnapping etc.

Damn I was too late with this post..:rolleyes:

slipss

Thirdfox wrote: »

I was reading the BBC report on the ban and actually I can somewhat see their convoluted point.

Insulting Muhammed is illegal (I assume) in Pakistan. People here who are saying that these things should be freely available to see over the internet over there, would they advocate child pornography (illegal here) being something that freely accessible on the net too?

Pornography is banned in many countries, this religious thing isn't really that far off the mark from other social/moral reasons for censoring the net (something that is practised in all countries to a certain degree).

We have the crime of blasphemy in our Constitution too, no one has tried to use that in a long time now though...

Just trying to see it from their government's viewpoint.

Theres always one.

Sangre

Thirdfox wrote: »

I was reading the BBC report on the ban and actually I can somewhat see their convoluted point.

Insulting Muhammed is illegal (I assume) in Pakistan. People here who are saying that these things should be freely available to see over the internet over there, would they advocate child pornography (illegal here) being something that freely accessible on the net too?

Pornography is banned in many countries, this religious thing isn't really that far off the mark from other social/moral reasons for censoring the net (something that is practised in all countries to a certain degree).

We have the crime of blasphemy in our Constitution too, no one has tried to use that in a long time now though...

Just trying to see it from their government's viewpoint.

And if you accept this point you accept an attack on freedom of expression. You could apply this logic to any number of things the governement make illegal. What next, no insulting of the governemtn etc.? Can you see China's point in banning website because of part dissent?

I know you're not agreeing with it but lets not give their 'point' the respect of 'recoginition' as it only leads to its validation.

Victor

What if its "only" cartoons of child abuse?

ODD-JOB

Terry wrote: »

The prophet mohammed (muhamed, muhammed, etc.) sucked my balls when I prayed with my arse facing towards mecca.
Then he performed the miracle of turning lambs into sheep.

After this post I'm going to watch some porn and have a ****.
Then I'm gonna eat a ham sandwich.

Have I insulted enough religions yet?
Feel free to add (within reason. By saying that, I mean libel).

Judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves.

And you're a moderator of the forum ?

Guy:Incognito

Victor wrote: »

What if its "only" cartoons of child abuse?

Then it's cool.

Terry

Thirdfox wrote: »

I agree being an agnostic but...fact of life is that religion is a major part of many people's lives and that some religions are more sensitive than others.

I doubt anyone would be supporting child porn to be made available here because it is against our morals... so how can we justify saying that youtube should be made available even though (apparently) it is against their morals/religion and even law?

Morals, religion and law are three seperate things.
Uniting all three is what causes problems.

Overheal wrote: »

Lets make http://www.allahtube.com

I don't know if you clicked that link, but it actually works and is an Islamic version of youtube.

Victor wrote: »

What if its "only" cartoons of child abuse?

Then you join a certain website and try to take down scientology.

ODD-JOB wrote: »

And you're a moderator of the forum ?

Yes.
Jesus, Moses, Thor and Ganesh also blew me.

cjt156

The Bodhisattva reckoned you weren't his type, then?

biko

Bah, they're only blaming the Danish stuff.
Secret agenda is to increase work productivity by 30%

Dinter

Thirdfox wrote: »

I doubt anyone would be supporting child porn to be made available here because it is against our morals... so how can we justify saying that youtube should be made available even though (apparently) it is against their morals/religion and even law?

You're comparing two wildly different "crimes".

The one involving the Prophet is a thought crime. There is no reason to police it as it harms nobody unless you're the artist or publisher. Then there's a pretty good chance of you being harmed.

Blocking websites and decrying people who disseminate such images impinges on my right to free expression.

Child pornography causes a raft of problems for the people involved and that's why such extensive legislation is needed to ban or police it.

Thirdfox

Like Victor said above - what if its "just" animated child porn? No one is actually "harming" a child.

But this is getting sidetracked from my main point that it's against the law (as far as I know) to be blasphemous just like it is against the law to have sexual intercourse with a child here. "Thought crime" as you define it cannot be prosecuted (they don't know what you're thinking: that Muhammed is a pork eater or that you want to rape a child... thinking about such a thing isn't prosecuted - it's when you act (draw that cartoon or actually have intercourse with a child that they will punish you).

I think they are legally within their rights to act like they have done... however I just don't agree with their laws (and agree that children need to be protected in our society).

Dinter

Thirdfox wrote: »

But this is getting sidetracked from my main point that it's against the law (as far as I know) to be blasphemous just like it is against the law to have sexual intercourse with a child here. "Thought crime" as you define it cannot be prosecuted (they don't know what you're thinking: that Muhammed is a pork eater or that you want to rape a child... thinking about such a thing isn't prosecuted - it's when you act (draw that cartoon or actually have intercourse with a child that they will punish you).

Censorship, at the most basic, is an act against thought crime. Thus a country removes access to a web content provider on the basis that their citizens may be tempted to see some of the content. The crime is to possibly look at something. That's oppressive and downright over the top. Also they urge their citizens to mail YouTube to have the content removed. What business of it is theirs?

If it is against the Islamic religion to see such images they should have faith that their followers will respect their holy rules. Leave us infidels alone to choose our own way to hell.

It is against the law here to watch, let alone partake in somebody having sex with a child. There's pretty strong and understandable reasoning behind that. I hardly need to explain further.

As regards sex with a simulated minor that is not illegal at all so point doesn't count.

Mr. Incognito

I think what the world needs is a big gay religious love in porn flick.

Muhammad, Jesus, Budda, even L Ron and defo those Indian gods with all the arms, an 8 mm lens and a few litres of baby oil.

World peace is just a short animated movie away.

Dinter

SetantaL wrote: »

I think what the world needs is a big gay religious love in porn flick.

Muhammad, Jesus, Budda, even L Ron and defo those Indian gods with all the arms, an 8 mm lens and a few litres of baby oil.

World peace is just a short animated movie away.

Great idea.

Just make sure you don't post it on YouTube.

williambonney

Speaking of youtube, it was on the BBC news today; Pakistan was responsible for youtube being down for over two hours last night.

MrJoeSoap

williambonney wrote: »

Speaking of youtube, it was on the BBC news today; Pakistan was responsible for youtube being down for over two hours last night.

I had a feeling the two were related. When Youtube went down I checked google news for info and the news about Pakistan was just breaking.

Sam Vimes

Dinter wrote: »

Also they urge their citizens to mail YouTube to have the content removed. What business of it is theirs?

that's the only thing about this that annoys me. i don't give a crap if muslims don't want to use youtube. i don't give a crap if the packistani government wants to prevent its people from viewing youtube. but when the packistani government tries to censor a website in another country because they don't like people drawing pictures of their imaginary friend i get pissed off

gerky

Pakistan Lifts Curbs on YouTube

By STEPHEN GRAHAM – 5 hours ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan's telecoms regulator said Tuesday it has lifted restrictions on the YouTube Web site that led to the knocking out of access to the popular video-sharing site in many other countries for a few hours over the weekend.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority ordered 70 domestic Internet service providers to restore access to the site after removal of what government officials had deemed a "blasphemous" video clip.

Pakistan ordered YouTube blocked on Friday over a clip featuring a Dutch lawmaker who has said he plans to release a movie portraying Islam as fascist and prone to inciting violence. As a result, most of the world's Internet users lost access to YouTube for several hours on Sunday.

While a number of other videos featuring the politician, Geert Wilders, would remain visible to Pakistani Internet users, the one which was removed had been "totally anti-Quranic ... very blasphemous," said Pakistan Telecommunication authority spokeswoman Nabiha Mahmood.

She said it promoted Wilders' upcoming movie, but provided no details of its content.

An Internet expert said Sunday's problems came after a Pakistani telecommunications company complied with the block by directing requests for YouTube videos to a "black hole." So instead of serving up videos of skateboarding dogs, it sent the traffic into oblivion.

The problem was that the company also accidentally identified itself to Internet computers as the world's fastest route to YouTube, which is owned by Google Inc. That led requests from across the Internet to the black hole.

Mahmood said the Pakistani regulator was not responsible for "technical hitches" that may have lead to problems elsewhere. She said it was not clear how those occurred.

The authority, which aimed to restrict the site only in Pakistan, posted a complaint through the Web site but had not been in contact with the administrators of YouTube.

The outage highlighted yet another of the Internet's vulnerabilities, coming less than a month after broken fiber-optic cables in the Mediterranean took Egypt off line and caused communications problems from the Middle East to India.

Pakistani officials do not want a repeat of the violent anti-Western protests in early 2006 after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad regarded by many Muslims as offensive.

Danish editors reignited the controversy earlier this month by reprinting a cartoon that shows the prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

On Tuesday, some 300 students rallied at a university in Multan, carrying banners denouncing Denmark, the United States and President Pervez Musharraf — the latest in a series of small protests held by Islamic students in Pakistan.

Umer Abbasi, a leader of the protest, urged all Muslim countries to follow Pakistan in blocking offensive material on the Internet.

"If you look deeply, America can be seen behind all anti-Muslim moves around the world," Abbasi told the crowd, which later burned Danish and American flags.

Authorities wanted to prevent Islamic hard-liners from seizing on the Wilders clips, said Abdullah Riar, Pakistan's minister for information technology and telecommunications.

"We are already in the spotlight on the issue of intolerance and extremism and terrorism," Riar said, "and this is something that somebody is doing by design to excite and insinuate Islamic sentiments."

.

Sqaull20

Whats scary is other governments can control the internet for a short time/take it down..

There was a case last year where russian hackers temporarily disrupted internet service to estonia..

Little Princess

remove religion from politics is what i say. news like this is depressing.

Dinter

What's even scarier is that if the cartoons are left up it'll probably cause riots etc.

Ffs I know there's stuff on the internet that I could look at that would offend my sensibilities or get me into trouble with the law so therefore I don't look.

How difficult is that?

tech77

Terry wrote: »

After this post I'm going to watch some porn and have a ****. Then I'm gonna eat a ham sandwich. Have I insulted enough religions yet?

I hope you washed
your hands before you had that ham sandwich

tech77

tech77 wrote: »

I hope you washed
your hands before you had that ham sandwich

well now youve offended the jains

Dinter

Terry wrote: »

After this post I'm going to watch some porn and have a ****.
Then I'm gonna eat a ham sandwich.

Have I insulted enough religions yet?

Not too sure about offending religions but I'm sure you'll be offending the rest of your colleagues in the office.

dsmythy

Uh oh, judging by the posts there's a couple of people here that need beheading!

Dinter

dsmythy wrote: »

Uh oh, judging by the posts there's a couple of people here that need beheading!

Quick, quick declare a fatwa of death.

I've already declared one on you. No backsies.

Terry

tech77 wrote: »

I hope you washed
your hands before you had that ham sandwich

Nope.
Natural salty taste FTW.

Dinter wrote: »

Not too sure about offending religions but I'm sure you'll be offending the rest of your colleagues in the office.

Office?
Colleagues?