Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is being investigated by Pakistani police under a section of the penal code that makes blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death. BBC Urdu reports — according to a Google Translation — that Pakistan's Deputy Attorney General has launched a criminal investigation against Zuckerberg and others …
Fatwa took you so long ?
Positively brutal punishment
"... shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine."
So they'll kill you, and then fine you? Oof.
if they fine you THEN kill you? And if you refuse to pay the fine, do they not kill you until you've paid the fine?
But please understand....
...only to prove how much Allah loves us...
"I'm losing my head... bitch!"
Last words of M. Zuckerberg.
Sorry, just had to say it!
seems a simple answer is needed
Cut Pakistan from the Internet completely.
btw, here's my pic of Mohammed, in a dark coal mine. To save bandwidth it's only one pixel
As far as I was aware
All computer users [Pakistan inclusive] are able to decide which websites to visit. If they don't like the content don't use Facebook.
Why in the west do we feel the need to bend over backward to make our cultures accommodate anyone else's? We certainly are not afforded the same courtesy in return.
Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum. On our Internet we will exercise freedom of speech. If you don't like it you don't have to be part of it.
From the internet?
Rather from the world.
First the nuclear tech theft from Holland and reselling it to every crazy dictator under the sun.
Then creating the Taleban and supporting them till this day for all practical purposes financing 9/11 and the ongoing war against the coalition in Afghanistan.
And now all these crazies.
The powers that be really have to understand that there are severe limitations to "the enemy of my friend is my friend" maxima and Pakistan is probably one of the best examples for this.
The whole country should be embargoed for a few decades. Nobody leaves nobody enters. Nothing is imported. Not like it has oil or something else that is of interest to us.
Re: As far as I was aware
Was with you until this piece of entitlement:
"Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum. On our Internet we will exercise freedom of speech."
The US don't own the internet any more than Pakistan, so no, it should not have any ultimatum.
Wow, it's like I'm on the Daily Mail site
"Cut Pakistan from the Internet completely"
Yeah, of course! That's a reasoned reaction from the superior nation with the moral high ground! Cut them off! They're only a backward nation anyway. That's what we need - more simple answers from simpletons, It's common sense, you couldn't make it up, IYLISMWDYGLT, etc, etc.
My previous jokes regarding a Great American Firewall notwithstanding, I love the notion that cutting a country from the Internet is "simple."
Sometimes I can feel the grey matter at the front of my brain starting to liquefy...
I really loathe this definition of the West as civilised/other parts of the world as uncivilised.
For a start it's a distinction that's been used over millennia to justify all manner of atrocities, like the genocides of aboriginal Australians and native Americans. More recently it's that sort of thinking that's allowed the vileness we saw in Abu Grahib.
Secondly it's bollocks. Ask an assylum seeker, forced to survive on Red Cross food vouchers in "civilised" Britain.
it's extremely unlikely that "the west" will bend over backwards and hand Mr Zuckerberg and co. over to the Pakistani authorities. Indeed, I'd expect the UN to disregard this complaint, entirely.
A small modification if I may?
'On our Internet we will'
'On everybody's internet everybody can'
And then append
'We do not apologise for this'
to the sentence.
So will MarkZ & co. sue for intimidation, threats of violence and restrictions to his human rights?
Pakistan should be more like us and more tolerant of others values and beliefs, until they are we should cut them off from global society and isolate them from the rest of the world. That's bound to help.
I think the west is comparable to Churchill's little aphorism about democracy - it's the worst, except for all the others.
Not like it has oil...
"Not like it has oil or something else that is of interest to us."
They used to export bloody fine hashish.
Cut Pakistan from the Internet completely.
What, you mean a sort of "Great Firewall of the Rest of the World"...?
RE Re: As far as I was aware
Why would you assume I refer to the US? I am British.
But on the contrary the Internet was setup and IS mostly funded by USA, Britain, Germany, France - ie the west.
We can happily do without the non english content contributed by Pakistan, for that matter I would take no issue with disconnecting China too.
They can have their own Internet just by fragmenting the network. We dont need them, they need us.
>> Then creating the Taleban
I think you are confusing Pakistan with the USA.
With regard to asylum seekers - Its a mark of a civilized country that we even accept requests for asylum. Said seeker should feel blessed that we allow him to stay and give him food in any form. He would likely be afforded a small cell and daily torture if he went home where he belongs.
If you want to compare, pop over to Pakistan and see if you can seek asylum at all. See if they will even bring you an interpreter if you dont speak the language.
I guess I will see you back at Heathrow in a couple days [if you are lucky].
I think when we talk about civilization we are referring to:
Disparity between rich and poor
Not supporting terrorists
Not exploiting children
Respecting others right to be alive
Having a voice politically and legally
A general standard of education regardless of wealth
A general standard of healthcare regardless of wealth
Freedom from discrimination on basis of gender
Freedom from discrimination on basis of sexuality
Freedom from discrimination on basis of religion
Stop being such an ungrateful moron, we live in prosperous countries in the lap of luxury.
re A small modification if I may?
NO you may not.
I say OUR not every bodies because the majority of the backbone equipment and data centres are situated and paid for by European or North American nations. We are also the only ones who contribute toward managing and planning ongoing development.
But I agree - we should never apologise for our cultures ethos of freedom. Anyone who disagrees with it and threatens us should be greeted with an 'F you Jimmy'.
As much as I hate Mr Z and his awful service and its breeches of free speech I take threats against our culture seriously.
"Why would you assume I refer to the US? I am British."
To quote you...
"Since the Internet is a western creation, controlled by civilized countries shouldn't we give the ultimatum."
Technically the Internet is a US creation. By that logic, the US (not you British) should get the ultimatum. Obviously that logic is wrong and elitist, you merely used it because you thought it entitled you to get an ultimatum.
"But on the contrary the Internet was setup and IS mostly funded by USA, Britain, Germany, France - ie the west."
The internet is mostly consumed by the west, therefor it would make sense that it is mostly funded there too. Besides, worldwide peering is mutually beneficial for all of us.
"We can happily do without the non english content contributed by Pakistan, for that matter I would take no issue with disconnecting China too. They can have their own Internet just by fragmenting the network. We dont need them, they need us."
Really? Banning innocent people because of where they're from? Why do you think you are better than they are? That's racist. Ban them for having different ideologies than you? That's censorship. If we put up a firewall to cut off the east, then we are hypocrites.
What if the east becomes the world superpower, I imagine that you will be very unhappy if they show you the same respect that you've shown them.
The Internet is a British invention from the BBS, newsgroup and IRC origins at British universities to the founding father of the Internet Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
Next you are going to state that USA gave us TV, electric, golf, fibre optics, nuclear power, flushing toilets, steam engines, radio etc etc.
I should have stated more clearly we fund the Internet disproportionately. The rest of the worlds consumers [China and Japan excluded] freeload.
Excuse me but where does anyone in the west benefit from Pakistan being on our Internet?
The correct term would be xenophobia not racism but lets not be pedantic. Its nothing to do with race, its to do with cultures that purport to be against our culture and ideologies yet have the nerve to complain about how we use our creations.
On the point of innocent, anyone who idly sits by and does nothing about their own country funding, training and sheltering terrorists is no more innocent that those who commit crimes against the west.
We are already too accommodating of the needs of foreign nations with interests that are not just different but on too many occasions in direct conflict with our own.
Liberals like yourself are happy to give away the privileges generations have sacrificed to provide for us to those who lack the ability to not fight each other long enough to make any real contribution to mankind.
Naming rights, naming rights, naming rights.
There's a couple of tells to determine the internet's origins.
First, the name and lineage comes from ARPAnet, which was named after the US's Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Second is the IP4 allocation blocks, seen at http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/map_of_the_internet.jpg
Note how the first dozen or two /8 subnet blocks are companies or government organizations that are based in the US.
Third is the domain naming, which is why typing in .gov, even while in the UK, will instead lead to a government in the US.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, while doing a lot to advance the internet, is about 20 to 30 years too late to be a founding father of the Internet. Founding father of the World Wide Web, yes, but we're too technical to get those two confused, right?
The evil or organized religions
The US does own the internet. I don't think you understand the internet.
As for Islam, it is an insult to rational mind. Mohammud was a violent, blood thirsty pedofile.
Check his history! We need to deprogram all believers.
Man, you need to cool off... Instead creating enemies at every turn and depriving Pakistanis of the benefits of modern life, we should be finding ways towards peaceful coexistence and integration. No single viewpoint is ever right since everyone makes mistakes. To not respect each other as rational humans at a basic level is to sentence the human race to perpetual inequality and violence. Your bigotry disgusts me.
As much as you might like it to be true that being nice to someone will make them nice to you it simply isn't the case.
Grow up. Muslims don't think like you and I. Their faith is more important than their lives or any rational thought. You might want a peaceful coexistence but that is not an objective laid out in the Qur'an. We are an obstacle to be crushed not a potential ally. Mohammed doesn't teach people to play well with others just to destroy or assimilate.
I do not think its bigotry to be realistic about the potential for peace. You cant afford to open your arms and welcome someone who doesn't want to be your friend. You can turn the other cheek, I will take an eye for an eye - preferably pre emptively.
You go back to your salad and your human rights campaigns for our enemies and the rest of us will worry about your safety.
IRC is not British
Just to clarify, IRC has very clearly Finnish roots in its' early history (University of Oulu). SSH was first implemented in Finland (Helsinki University of Technology) and Linux (obviously used in lot of networking gear and servers) has its' beginnings in University of Helsinki.
Still, I find concept of "nationality", national ownership and control of open technologies amusing, to say the least.
Let them investigate.. blasphemy last time I looked wasn't a crime in the USA..which means he can't extradited to Pakistan.
if Pakistan could extradite someone for violating the laws in their country even though no crime has been commited in their country and it's not an offence in the country the guy resides in then they'd be able to arrest and extradite (and presumably kill by firing squad or stoning to death) literally hundreds of thouands of British men and women for committing adultery, for having sex without being married. And probably the odd million Americans too...and Europeans....
If Pakistan wants to be taken seriously then it needs to start behaving sensibly, pragmatically, show respect for the laws and cultures of other countries and pull it's head out of it's religious a**se!
And yes, I have spent time in Pakistan.
and also, why is zuckerberg being threatened with prosecution, just because he's the boss? He doesn't have day-to-day control of the groups/discussions that take place on facebook. If they're going after him, they're going to have to go for all facebook staff aren't they?
And why are all these posts being deleted be the moderators :S
Why do you think, you twerp?
Anyone who asks that kind of question should do this job for a day. It would be enlightening.
In the spirit of freedom of information...
It would be interesting for people to be able to read those comments, suitably anonymized and with swear words ******'d out.
I'm sure that most of them will be un-constructive trolling, but how can us normal (stop sniggering!) people know where the line is?
Maybe a 'reg uncut' toggle or rose-tinted Reg option or something?
Re: In the spirit of freedom of information...
Since I've seen....
...some fairly vicious posts that haven't been modded out of existence, I can't imagine what the ones that do get modded contain.
So, can we have an "asbestos specs" feed please, so we can gaze upon this unspeakable torrent?
It can't be any worse that some sites that deal with, how do I say this, other effluent!
Paris, well because.....
Also in the spirit of freedom of information...
It would be interesting to know why my post linking to the "Mohammed Image Archive" showing that, in the past, Muslims have often depicted Mohammed was first approved and then subsequently disapproved.
Perhaps without the link the mere statement of fact will be acceptable?
I wonder if
if it's an internationally recognised crime to insult religious figures?
Whilst I deplore the whole facebook day thingy - they had some pretty offensive pictures and showed very little tolerance towards a group of people - I think Pakistan has more to worry about than to "off with his head". I mean, talk about priorities, you know things like reliable electricity, well-built roads, etc etc. Hell, they don't even have the same "call to prayer" between 2 mosques.
As for elawyn's comment, are we saying that we should punish the entire population of a country for the misguided actions of a few vocal people? Hasn't that been tried before? And before you say things like "well why don't the locals be vocal as well", I think you'll find that Pakistan is such a poor country that the majority of the population is far more concerned about where their next meal is going to come from.
Grenade - cos we all know that a pakistani sleeps with one under his pillow. Oh wait, I meant to say that the tabloid media reports it as such.
Re illegal insults
A few years ago Pakistan, egged on by the Organisation of the Islamic conference, put forward a resolution to the UN Commission on Human Rights entitled "Defamation of Islam" in order to get the Commissioner to stand up to what they claimed was a campaign to defame their particular form of delusional quackery. It was actually adopted, but first changed to include all religions, and has been renewed ever since.
I recall it being extremely controversial at the time, with accusations that Pakistan was trying to twist the UNs arm to clamp down on freedom of expression. Presumably they had in mind something stronger than the UN delivered.
is not recognised as a religious figure. At most he's a cult leader.
The UN were petitioned by a number of muslim countries to have blasphemy recognised as a 'crime'. The UN, being the 'moderate' organ that it is, capitulated. Using this 'law' Pakistan can indeed request the extradition of anybody to face trail in Pakistan. You can have a watch of something here [ http://richarddawkins.net/videos/3630-freedom-under-fire-u-n-anti-blasphemy-resolution] through the Richard Dawkins site.
The law was passed in 2008, so is not new. Nor has it really been tested. Might this be the litmus paper ? There is a pretty good summary here [https://richarddawkins.net/articles/3330?page=1&scope=latest&type=articles] as well.
Enjoy your freedom while it lasts…..
Beware the EU arrest warrants....
Thanks to the utter feckwits (close but no cigar) of Nu Liebour. We are all subject to the EU arrest warrants. Now if Turkey joins the EU...they are adherents to that ironically termed Religion of 'Peace' (and death threats, exploding things and beheadings etc).
Anyway if Turkey joins the EU they can swear out a warrant for Xenophobia or blasphemy take your pick. Then this EU arrest warrant can arrest and extradite you from your own country to theirs.
Midnight Express man!
So zuckerberg and anyone else in the EU isn't safe any more.
So I say feck the ROP and the 12th century savages who beleive in that stuff.
While I still can!
Free speech is dead in the EU.
Ac for obvious reasons!
This is why Turkey will never be allowed to join the European Union.
Well, that and the fact that it's not in Europe. Plus of course the argument it had with a member country over Cyprus.
The Pakistani police seem to have the same "lawyers without borders" mentality that characterizes British courts trying libel cases. (And, to be fair, much of the US government, not to mention whatever the American Trial Lawyers Association now calls itself.)
But it seems unlikely that US courts will consider this an extraditable offense. And surely the interest on the interest of Mr. Z's bank accounts would hire him more and burlier bodyguards than ever Salman Rushdie had.
re: punishable by monotheism
The question is not "how many gods do you have," but "what kind of god do you serve?" or perhaps rephrased as, "to whom do you give your ultimate allegiance?"
Some people place it in an external deity, some people put themselves at the top of the tree.
First you need to check the theory behind the value-system. Then check the practice. Do they match? Is the practise a result of the theory, in spite of the theory or not addressed by the theory?
If the primary spokesperson for your value-system raises an army and uses force to make people carry out the correct actions, you're probably going to have problems later on too.
It isn't like atheist-humanists like Stalin or Mao hurt any one, is it? We've never heard of followers of Buddhism (a philosophy) or Hindus (polytheists) fighting have we? We never have to worry about spirit-worshipping Africans starting tribal warfare. The 95% non-church-going UK didn't seem that worried about re-electing a government it knew to have taken them into war of aggression on false pretences, did it?
When people get into power, they tend to use it to further their own view of things. Sometimes that view is "I will fight my god's battles for him," sometimes it is "I'm staying at the top of the pile for as long as possible."
Let's face it, people have a natural inclination to evil. Fortunately, it's only other people who are evil, so it's probably ok to either kill them or cut them off and leave them to rot on their own.
Usual "atheism just as bad as religion" fail...
...but at least you didn't try to claim Hitler was an atheist.
Stalin and Mao: atheists maybe*, but humanists? You need a new dictionary mate.
Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice. Stalin and Mao fit this how?
* in so much as they suppressed rivals to the official state "religion" -- the cult of personality based on themselves.