Common sense is alive and well in Pakistan

MrJoeSoap · 24-02-2008 11:49PM #1

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 · 25-02-2008 12:12AM

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

berliner · 25-02-2008 12:18AM

We'll have that eventually in Europe in the future

Dave! · 25-02-2008 12:24AM

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

MrJoeSoap · 25-02-2008 12:26AM

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 · 25-02-2008 12:35AM

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 · 25-02-2008 01:34AM

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 · 25-02-2008 01:46AM

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 · 25-02-2008 01:47AM

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

Terry · 25-02-2008 01:48AM

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 · 25-02-2008 01:50AM

Blasphemer.

Thirdfox · 25-02-2008 01:57AM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:08AM

Lets make http://www.allahtube.com

Agamemnon · 25-02-2008 02:11AM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:15AM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:17AM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:29AM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:29AM

What if its "only" cartoons of child abuse?

ODD-JOB · 25-02-2008 02:51AM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:55AM

Victor wrote: »

What if its "only" cartoons of child abuse?

Then it's cool.

Terry · 25-02-2008 12:25PM

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 · 25-02-2008 12:44PM

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

biko · 25-02-2008 12:46PM

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

Dinter · 25-02-2008 01:20PM

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 · 25-02-2008 01:57PM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:51PM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:57PM

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 · 25-02-2008 02:59PM

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 · 25-02-2008 05:31PM

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

MrJoeSoap · 25-02-2008 05:31PM

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 · 25-02-2008 06:06PM

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

Common sense is alive and well in Pakistan

Comments