Changing the focus of AGABBIP.
drpa...@gmail.com
How many of you will support changing the name and purpose of AGABBIP
from a group against the blogspot ban to a group again internet
censorship in general? If enough people from this group agree, I'll
change the name and hence the entire focus of the group.
Suggestions for a new name will be welcome.
drpak.
NancyB
came out because they refer to the group with the url. See;
http://www.spider.tm/apr2006/main.html?pgsrc=szone&submenu=szone1&dirtarget=none.gt
Let's wait a bit and see if we can get more people to join to decide.
It is possible that we need 2 groups.
drpa...@gmail.com
independant of each other.
Dr. Awab Alvi
a month since we all started this campaign. What good will it do? by simply
changing the name or even creating a new group - AGABBIP has an amazing 102
members - that itself is no mean feat.
A number of publications have covered this group extensively and AGABBIP has
achieved some degree of recognition resulting in link-backs for those
inquisitive enough to explore
I personally think there has never been "an embargo" on what we can discuss
- freedom of speech in Pakistan SHOULD be actively discussed but the BRAND
name which was created on 3rd March 2006 - AGABBIP - should remain the same.
To be honest I may entertain a request after all the bans have been lifted
and the issue has blown over us, it then would be a good time to re-direct
the attention of 102 members into another project altogether - but until
then lets truly stick with the original name and the original group - talk
about anything - exchange emails discussing Freedom of Speech in Pakistan,
the 102 members anxiously await to learn more and some may be far more
passionate on this specific area and might become active in this topic
Everyone knows that in any marketing philosophy changing a brand name so
soon after it has slowly achieved recognition may be akin to committing a
brand suicide. I may be over exaggerating the impact but lets not make such
a mistake
Just my two cents into the mix
KO
How many of you will support changing the name and purpose of AGABBIP
from a group against the blogspot ban to a group again internet
censorship in general?
Plus the name AGABBIP is terribly unweildy. Teethmaestro, you ask what good just a name change will do - I think it will do a lot.
AGABBIP means that by explicitly seeking to unban only one particular site, the group is supporting the censorship of others. I know we've already gone into this in detail as to how that is not so, but to go all the way the name needs to change also.
regards,
ko
Ovais
much more than just lifting the ban on blogspot. As for the name, I am
with KO. But we may stick to the same acronym (AGABBIP), if someone can
think of a different name having the same acronym.
regards,
Ovais
Sabahat Ashraf
but the banning of sites around this mix anyway--or at least blogs
generally.
I'd even say let's not define it as being abou "Internet Censorship"
but have a formal mission to be an "Internet Watchdog, focusing on
censorship, free and equal access, etc." Sort of a Pakistani version
of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Electronic Sarzameen
Foundation anyone? ;)). Even if we continue to focus mainly on
censorship, it will keep our options open.
[Sarzameen is Urdu/Persian for Land/Homeland/etc., by the way; I know
not all of us speak those languages.]
If I may indulge in more branding thoughts:
* Mottos could include "Watching Pakistan's Frontiers in Cyberspace"
or something
* "CyberSarzameen"
* Electronic Pakistan Foundation/Commission/etc.
* ...more as I think of them; hopefully this might help get others
going in coming up with things, too?
What say? Are there any other bodies/groups/etc. in Pakistan working
on Internet rights? Groups/NGOs working on Digital Divide issues would
be natural allies, but not the same as us, right?
iF/SIA
--
[Sabahat Iqbal Ashraf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c: (510) 304 5927 www.ashrafs.org/iFaqeer
ash...@alum.rpi.edu pakistan.wikia.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit: http://pakistan.wikia.com/wiki/Earthquake_10-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://iFaqeer.blogspot.com Socio-Political Commentary
http://WadiWallah.blogspot.com Technology, Life & Silicon Valley
http://PakistanFutures.blogspot.com Possible Futures for Pakistan
http://Urdu-ke-Naam.blogspot.com Language, Poetry and Spirituality
http://Rickshaw.blogspot.com Rickshaw!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My religion is humanitarianism….. Which is basis [sic]of every religion
in this world.
Abdus Sattar Edhi (Pakistan's humanitarian phenom)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
drpa...@gmail.com
quite unwieldy. We've been around for more than a month now and I feel
that we should be coming here for a cause greater than a blogspot ban.
I didn't anticipate the level of participation we've seen here and I'm
thinking we could harness this group's energies for a wider, greater
cause.
More suggestions are welcome.
a sane voice
been lifted. The government has not said a word to those it has muzzled
in this fashion. It has not occurred to the government that it needs to
listen and say something, for the simple reason that so far no one
powerful enough has jpoined in. We do not want any politicians here,
but we do need behind the scenes support of those the government will
listen to. The number 102 as members may seem large to us in Pakistan,
but it is nowhere near enough to bring about a change in government
policy. It is just beginning to get noticed, and that too
overwhelmingly by the writings of the members of this group.
I can see that censorship is unworkable on the net, and the efforts to
curb it are hugely expensive. For these reasons I would not ask for
censorship, but the freedom of speech thing cannot be absolute. It
never is. Would a recipe on the net for bomb-making be freedom of
speech? Can a crime such as incest be extolled on the net under the
freedom of speech? It isn't that one has to go searching for indecent
things to find them. They come onscreen all the time, and the time and
energy to keep them off is quite tiring. As for the expense, we are
spending huge amounts already for the benefit of the US.
The other day I was looking to learn about the grasslands called
savanna or savannah. The search turned up a pornstar. Look, it is porn,
and the actresses in it are called stars - surely a great abuse of
language. It cannot be censored, but do we want all that goes by the
name of freedom in the West here, too? In the US, there was a talk
show where this family came onscreen. They are involved in incest -
father, mother, son, daughter, all of them. They were quite open about
it, and not only open, they were inviting others to join in. The porn
sites adverise and invite people in group and pervert sex. It is
sickening.
What is tolerated may become the norm. What is available in abundance,
begins to get used. Have alcohol in abundance, and people will use it,
and think nothing of it. Let pre- or ex-marital sex onscreen, and
gradually people will see nothing wrong with it in real life.
Maybe I am in the minority here. I believe in what Allah (swt) says in
the Quran. When He says that the nation of Lut (as) was destroyed for
overt homosexual behavior, I believe it. When He says the people of
Madyan was destroyed for unethical business transactions, I believe it.
When He says the people of Ibrahim (as) and Nuh (as) were destroyed for
idol worship, I believe it. I see these things being repeated in the
world, and in our people, and I get a fright.
And I believe in the authentic sayings of the last Prophet (saaw). When
he foretold the signs of the Qiyamah, I believe it. I see what he
foretold coming true, and I am frightened, for my family, my friends,
and for this greater humanity that in my belief, comes from the same
father and mother - Adam and Eve.
And Allah has condemned those who spread indecency, or support its
spreading, among other things.
drpa...@gmail.com
I think even the most liberal and open of societies recognise that
absolute freedom of speech is not an ideal to apsire towards. This
would undoubtably lead to hate-mongering extremists fanning violence
and mistrust, and any healthy society would shut these people up, which
is why Nazis are outlawed. I think the line is automatically drawn when
'free speech' is used to incite violence and hatred. There's nothing
wrong with that. It's not 'absolute freedom' that we're discussing or
aspiring to here and so your point, being rooted in semantics, is not
really relevant.
We should be aiming for much greater freedom of expression that we are
used to in this country. Unfortunately, our entire society is rooted in
a mindset of subservient obedience, not just to government, but to our
mullahs. This has prevented us from evolving and improving ourselves as
a society. How many people do you know who would publically challenge
and castigate an "islamic scholar" on some ridiculous 'fatwa' that he
announced. For the most part, muslims believe that they have no
authority to question these 'imams' in religious matters, because
supposedly these 'imams' have far greater knowledge in such matters. If
we lived in a more open society, we would be to engage in more critical
self-appraisal. This is fundamental to the evolution of a healthy
society. Freedom of speech is tool that a society uses to correct
itself.
There may be many detractors of the US these days, but just take a look
at how much heat Bush is getting these days. He's a president under
fire. Given the experiences the US has had over Iraq, you can be sure a
future American government will do everything it can to avoid getting
itself in such a situation again. The immense criticism Bush is
recieving these days will work one day towards creating an America that
is more likely to pursue the diplomatic track to resolve it's conflicts
in the future. This is how an open society operates. Before Bush,
Americans thought it was okay to pre-emptively attack another country.
Before Bush, Americans trusted their government when it told them an
attack on another country was necessary for national security. Not
anymore. Why? Because their open society worked to correct itself and
instill a political climate that would make an unjust war very unlikely
to occur again.
We need that self-correcting mechanism in our own society. How many
Pakistani's will openly say "to hell with Kashmir, let's just make the
LOC a border and end this 55 year old nightmare"? Can we say Pakistani
society as a collectivity has done anything to positively influence our
governments? If we had an open society, there would not be a media
blackout in Balochistan. The press would raise hell to get there and
find out what is really going on.
To say that we want 'freedom of speech' on our own terms is an
contradiction in itself.
a sane voice
:) I don't think it is semantics on my part.
You agree that "absolute freedom of speech is not an ideal to apsire
towards" and yet you accuse me of contradiction with this statement:
"we want 'freedom of speech' on our own terms is an contradiction in
itself."
I do agree that we need to be able to discuss openly many things that
this traditionally conservative society has kept locked up. We do need
to stop those in authority from perpetuating their their hold on power
and its benefits by branding all dissent as anti-state or anti-Islam. I
do agree with having a more open, participative and socially
responsible society.
My mphasis would be equally on these, not just freedom of speech, but
social responsibilty as well.
I disagree with "to hell with Kashmir" attitude, but I accept that you
(and others, including the much derided Mullah) have a right to discuss
this (and all possibilities) as an alternative without fear of being
intimidated.
As for the US, and the UK, etc. well, I really do not know how to put
my views across, but I will give it a try.
Many years ago, there was a war being fought by the US. There were
atrocities - carpet bombings, Napalm, defoliating agents.
And there was opposition to war - much opposition, throughout the
world, in the US itself. More than a million (maybe two million)
VietNamese died in the war. 58,000 Americans died too, before the US
called it quits. Some of us naively thought that the US would no longer
engage in such wars.
What we thought came out to be wrong.
Some years ago, a US President was caught lying. He decided to resign
so as to escape being impeached. We thought US Presidents would no
longer lie to their electorate.
What we thought came out to be wrong.
The self-correcting mechanisms of the established democracies have not
stopped them from exploiting the third world and waging wars on us.
stabani
yet the comments that you made here could have been censored as well. I
am more than happy to debate that with you in email, but currently
using thiis as a group to discuss freedom of speech is quite useless.
I actually talked about started a new group before. I actually suggest
doing just that. Look, people in this group are quite against the whole
blogspot ban, but yet they are pro-censorship.
I suggest opening up a "freedom of speech in Pakistan" (get a better
name though) group and asking people who believe in that to join.
People should be more than welcome to post things contrary to the
point, like a sane voice just did.
As for freedom of speech and the argument that if you let it be
available people will do it, It's quite a useless argument. If you have
faith in your religion, you wouldn't. I'm sorry, but you can't block
people's rights just because you don't have the faith and don't want to
spread that faith forward. Look, when I have kids, I will tell them
that porn is wrong, I'll tell them that violence is wrong. The
internet or no internet, it depends on how strong you foster your
children.
Claiming that the internet helps to spread this and make it available
is quite wrong. It's like claiming that EVERY single person living in
the U.S with free acess to everything is corrupt. It simply is not like
that.
As for the whole America/UK analogy, it's quite useless really.
Atrocities like the ones in Iraq are reported on the net, so are
atrocities Musharraf commits. Really, blocking of speech and websites
will not even cause the fire that it did before. It will completely
remove the whole threat that media posses and causes people to be
better, to keep a clean record. Simply do a google search for any name,
you'll come out with the history and geography of everyone, including,
in some cases, websites that they visit or frequently visit.
"The self-correcting mechanisms of the established democracies have not
stopped them from exploiting the third world and waging wars on us. "
Aren't third world countires exploiting themselves? Haven't you looked
at the history of Pakistan? One corrupt official after another! Do you
really worry about other countires when our own country is so damn
corrupt?
As for the self-correcting mechanisms, no government method is perfect.
None come close. Whether be authoritarian, millitary, or democratic,
government simply is not perfect. What do you think, that millitary
rule will save us all? Haven't you looked at the rap sheet of our
millitary? It's people who are corrupt, It's people who are not
perfect. This is a materialistic world. Deal with it. Trying to stop
the information will not end the problem.
And why is the West at war with people of Iraq, Iran and such? Because
their own governemnts have not been able to be powerful enough. We have
not fostered the things that are necessary for success. they tried to
fly down civil liberties, tried to be cruel. You live in a world, you
have a moral responsibility.. And all this coming from a guy who is
generally anti-West.
a sane voice
to make his point across, or is it you stabani. I will take it to be
myself. :)
Since you do not want to debate this here, I won't, but I will try to
summarise where I think I have not been able to make myself clear.
drpak agrees with me that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. My
point is that this implies limits on the freedom of speech. Do you
agree? If you do, who will set those limits? The standards for these
limits vary, from culture to culture.
Should we set our own, or should we copy the US or Europe?
As for your statement (my rephrase) that people won't be corrupted if
corruption is avaiable, I disagree. The more something is available,
the more normal it seems to engage in it. If it is a matter of choice
only, why are hard drugs prohibited. Why is there such a hue and cry
over the heroin trade? To take your argument forward, let freedom of
choice be available in this sphere as well.
You talk of people's rights. I guess you mean individual rights. A
society has rights, too. My neighbour considers it his right to dump
his garbage wherever he deems fit. Let us assume you are a strong
fosterer of children, but many are not as lucky or as strong as you
are.
I have not claimed, nor will ever claim, that everyone in the US is
corrupt but since you brought it up, FYI, the porn business in the US
is estimated to be of the order of $14 billion, and it is going to Wall
Street. Can you have a guess at the number of "stars" in this industry?
Add to this the number in the sex trade: call girls, pros, escorts,
masseurs, and you will be amazed. This does not include those who
engage in consensual sex without any payment. Have you any idea of the
number of single mothers in the US, in Europe?
Have you looked at how attitudes to extra-marital sex have changed over
the years?
I agree that many leaders of the third world countries are corrupt. I
was responding to the view of drpak that since the US is a democtracy,
the people will learn from what has been reported, and will not have
such a war again. He has overloked the fact that the US elected Mr Bush
again, with an increased majority to boot. Then I outlined that history
(and not too distant a history) should have taught these democracies
about not electing those type of people again. I am not against
democracy, but here again I am not taken in. Plus, as a Muslim, I think
that Muslim democracies should make their laws within the framework of
Islam.
There is a lot of lack of freedom we should have. There are some
freedoms we can do without.
Finally, I am not anti-West at all, but in the debacle of the third
world, there is considerable contribution from the West (and the USSR
in the past). Hvae you read the book: "Confessions of an Economic
Hitman"? It is worth reading.
I am sorry if this has come out to be a debate. You didn't want it here.
KO
One does not need the internet for perversions and access to porn.
As evidence, I give you every video store in Karachi. Might not be every store, but certainly the majority. Including those run by mullahs, families, and otherwise respectable people. The rupee is very powerfull.
I also point out, it is much easier for the govt. to stop the manufacturing and sale of porn in video stores then it is on the internet. The govt. will never succeed in the first, so it stands to reason they will also not succeed in the second.
You point out that the US spends 14 billion dollars on porn. The number is meaningless. It is a 11 trillion dollar economy. The US spends more money than that on just about anything you might care to name, from donating to charity to pet care.
Corruption is relative. Here in Pakistan we spend more on porn and less on health care.
By your corruption yardstick of measuring the amount spent on porn, the US is full of walking talking saints.
a sane voice
I agree that there is plenty wrong with our society, and we need to
work on those. There is something wrong in the West, too, and since the
West's economy (and military might with the hidden urge to use it) is
so large, we are affected by it. And the distinction between our
cultures is getting blurred. After all, the world is fast going global.
:)
How did porn come to Pakistan?
It was during the rule of Zia. He had throttled every means of peaceful
protest and expression. I don't know who, but someone
or some people suggetsed to him that the introduction of Indian movies
would make the masses docile.
The same introduction of docility happened in the UK (also in Europe)
when the unemployment rate became too much for the government to
handle. The creation of jobs just wasn't enough. In fact, the jobs were
shrinking. That was in the sixties, (called the swinging, liberal,
emancipated sixties). So, healthy unemployment benefits were doled out.
The dole was previously considered a shameful thing to be on. It was
advertised that this is a social responsibilty and right of the
unemployed individual. Beer was made cheap. Sexy adverts appeared
everwhere. The previously prudish British were maneuvred into becoming
more liberal. X-rated films beagn to be shown on the BBC. A BBC female
News anchor, previously the epitome of the posh British lady, showed a
lot of leg in a new TV business. The older lot were shocked, but soon
the new order took over.
Point is that these "entertainment" things are introduced to take the
mind of the population off its real problems.
The size of the economic slice and numbers in the sex trade are far,
far more than the porn section indicates. 14 billion dollars are not
insignificant. Add the rest as I said in my previous post, and you will
get an idea of the problem. Maybe you don't see it as a problem. I do.
I do not have the relevant data for Pakistan. Would be interesting to
compare.
For me, what Allah says in the Quran about those who spread or try to
spread such indecency is sufficient. I agree that technologically and
costwise the ban on anything produced abroad on the net is very
difficult to block. Note that child porn is illegal in many Western
countries.
When I look at the growth of such activities, I see a gradual increase
in perversion as the availablity increases.
You have not responded to the rest of my post.
humzaay
against censorship of anything right????????
a sane voice
2006:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1753327,00.html
KO wrote:
> Dear sane voice,
>
> One does not need the internet for perversions and access to porn.
>
> As evidence, I give you every video store in Karachi. Might not be every
> store, but certainly the majority. Including those run by mullahs, families,
> and otherwise respectable people. The rupee is very powerfull.
>
> I also point out, it is much easier for the govt. to stop the manufacturing
> and sale of porn in video stores then it is on the internet. The govt. will
> never succeed in the first, so it stands to reason they will also not
> succeed in the second.
>
> You point out that the US spends 14 billion dollars on porn. The number is
> meaningless. It is a 11 trillion dollar economy. The US spends more money
> than that on just about anything you might care to name, from donating to
> charity to pet care.
>
> Corruption is relative. Here in Pakistan we spend more on porn and less on
> health care.
>
> By your corruption yardstick of measuring the amount spent on porn, the US
> is full of walking talking saints.
> <br>
>
>
> ------=_Part_33159_3864474.1145105073600--
KO
When I look at the growth of such activities, I see a gradual increase
in perversion as the availablity increases.
Welcome to the future.
You have not responded to the rest of my post.
You already have a definite viewpoint of the world - I don't see how I can add further to it.
You talk of single mothers and how they are the signs of a depraved soceity - need I point out that here in Pakistan we kill women about to become 'single mothers' in the name of honor? And that makes Pakistan society less depraved? What about women trapped in marriages which they cannot leave out of fear? That also makes this society less depraved, I assume.
As for your statement (my rephrase) that people won't be corrupted if
corruption is avaiable, I disagree.
And I disgree with your statement. Hell, I think it is flat out wrong. If you go back to the Koran, it also disagrees with you. So does the Bible for that matter. Hell, Allah granted Satan a worldwide agency on promoting corruption. And the Koran goes on to say that the pure of heart will not be corrupted.
There is this city called Amsterdam, which legalized a few drugs some years back. It has now the lowest usage of those drugs in Europe, and shrinking.
Take a look at the Kama Sutra, and the history books dating back a few thousand years. Now I guess you'll say that those are Hindu, and hence not Pakistani. Well, then float down the Indus River, which is very much in Pakistan, and you'll see a couple of massive whorehouses dating back to Moghul times, frequented by the Moghuls.
Pakistan has a long tradition of porn, dating back many centuries. You can see some of those ancient porn shows being put on today, in any city, any night: what is a mujra but a soft-porn show?
Danial
What if I am a non-Muslim?
What if I am an atheist?
Is this state's responsibility to make sure that I think in the given boudaries of Holy Book even when I do not believe in the sacred text?
If some people think that state is responsible for restricting access to porn which is something dirty that people like me enjoy in our privacy. How about banning masturbation and making laws against it? how about censoring the clothes? Lets outlaw skinfits and the display of undergarments at the packaging of mercury underwear and banyan.
Danial
a sane voice
assalamu alaykum wa rematullahi wa barakatuhu
KO, yes I do have a worldview, based on what I have seen or read or
experienced in the East and the West, and what I have learnt from the
Quran and the Sunnah. Perhaps you have a worldview, too, and the point
of this interaction is to learn where we are coming from, if not to
convince. :)
I have already agreed with you that Pakistani society has a lot of
flaws that need to be corrected. Most of the things you have pointed
out (mujras, exploitation of women and others who are "weak", etc.) are
the result of our society's feudal background. You won't find me
defending Pak society, but there are pitfalls too in aping the West, so
you won't find me rooting for everything Western, either.
All societies have problems. Third world societies, particularly Muslim
ones, are passing through a transformation from feudalism to
capitalism, and that is an added difficult adjustment for them to make.
If we have lots of things to be ashamed of and to correct, should we
add to our society the things that are wrong in other societies as
well?
What I would like is that we should take what is beneficial, and reject
what is harmful; not copy the West without thinking.
I believe the Quran and Sunnah give us the yardstick with which to
judge what to take, and what to reject.
You are right in our having a Hindu past, and why would I deny it. My
ancestors were Hindu. I have the shajra to prove it.
I was very happy to see your bit about the Quran telling us that Satan
will try to lead us astray. I agree wholeheartedly, and have argued
with others that this will happen in all societies. Only our job is not
to make it easy for Satan but to keep trying so as not to let Satan
have his way. I had just explained how the video thing came to
Pakistan. Sorry, but the Quran agrees with me; it lays down that when
Ibaadur Rehman come into power, they enjoin good and forbid evil, (the
evil includes Fawahish).
Did you look at the Guardian article I gave a link to?
The effect of legalisation of drug usage needs looking into, but does
this argument mean the usage will go down if only we legalise what we
know to be wrong. So perhaps we should legalise everything - bribery,
theft, dacoity, ...
Friend Danial,
what are states or societies? Why do they have laws? What are these
laws to be based on?
There are societies which have (in theory) a complete separation of
"church" and state. They have constitutions, and lawmakers make laws
within these. When the electorate or the lawmakers think that the
constitution is "behind" times, these lawmakers can modify the
constitution, or the electorate may be asked directly for a revision.
It so happens that the majority of Muslims in this country (and that
includes me) regard the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah (related in
authentic Hadith) as our constitution, and that this constitution is
perfect, we cannot modify it.
That constitution does lay down some rules for society. However, for a
pretty long time, the people who have implemented this or are trying
to have it implemented, have not been able to see that in many cases
the constitution allows for a great width in making judgements. (This
was just an aside).
Isn't it a crime for bribes to be passed, even when it is in the
privacy of one's house?
By and large, Islam does not allow invasion of privacy. So what one
does in the privacy of one's home (watching porn, even extra-marital or
illegal sex) is not something for which mutawa (religious police)
should peep into one's house. Porn, however, does have harmful effects,
particularly on society. Even if it didn't, the fact that it falls
under "Fawahish" makes it forbidden in Islam. So while the religious
police shoouldn't raid any house to see if someone is watching porn,
the sale and distribution is prohibited, and that ban would be
implemented in an Islamic state.
What you think (and believe) is not the issue. We all should have
complete freedom in belief and thoughts. You may (and probably are) be
a better Muslim than me; but that is for Allah (swt) to decide on
Judgement Day. I have no desire to have a relative judgement on who is
a better Muslim and who isn't.
drpa...@gmail.com
would any of you actively object to a name/focus change? We could stand
for freedom of speech in general and use the blogspot ban as a rallying
cry for now.
We may have differences in opinion as to what constitutes freedom of
speech, but from the civil tone set by all the group members in every
post on this forum, even through disagreements, I'm sure all of us have
the much needed tolerance required to make an open society work.
stabani
Muslim Americans, not Americans in general.
As for the whole thing that something available will make it easier to
do and thus more likely, I do want to point out that some people
(psycholigists with degrees and years of research) have pointed out
that something unavailable to a person makes the person want it more.
Also, i would like to point out that once freedom is in place, there
are many "barriers" to it. Such as, if I might point out, underage
pornography is illegal, underage drinking, etc. etc. I agree, freedom
is not absolute in any way or form, but the "world" understanding is
quite that the right is valid until someone elses rights are not being
infringed upon.
I'm sorry you don't share my viewpoint in the issue. I simply see
Pakistan too corrupt and broken. You talk about enforcing a Muslim
state with Muslim ideals, I don't see it happening. MOST members of
parliament, and prominent leaders drink alchohol freely. The
availability of alchohol is more in Pakistan than it is in America.
I've even seen the so-called "religous" mullahs drink and enjoy
pornography. Don't get me wrong, if these things are freely enjoyed by
all these people, then there is something wrong with the society and
trying to say that Pakistan is trully a Muslim country would be a
fruitless argument. I don't think we can do much to change your
opinion, or you can do much to change my opinion, so let's just leave
it at that.
And as for my own personal desire to keep this debate out of this group
was mainly because I don't think think this is a good place for it.
Viewpoints are hard to counteract, especially between people who
already have very strong ones in the first place. This gropu is about
the blogspot ban and not of freedom of speech, let's leave it at that.
That being said, I agree drpak, we should move forward. I for one don't
think that this group should be renamed. Don't get me wrong here, I
think that a new group should be formed (as I stated earlier). That is
simply because I don't think we will find as many willing participants
in the "freedom of speech" category that we do in the "blogspot ban"
category. Just my two cents anyways.
> ------=_Part_34719_32149236.1145121364333
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2445
>
> <div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">When I look at the growth of such activities, I see a gradual increase<br>in perversion as the availablity increases.
> </blockquote><div><br>Welcome to the future. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">You have not responded to the rest of my post.
> </blockquote><div><br>You already have a definite viewpoint of the world - I don't see how I can add further to it.<br><br>You talk of single mothers and how they are the signs of a depraved soceity - need I point out that here in Pakistan we kill women about to become 'single mothers' in the name of honor? And that makes Pakistan society less depraved? What about women trapped in marriages which they cannot leave out of fear? That also makes this society less depraved, I assume.
> <br><br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">As for your statement (my rephrase) that people won't be corrupted if<br>corruption is avaiable, I disagree.
> </blockquote><div><br>And I disgree with your statement. Hell, I think it is flat out wrong. If you go back to the Koran, it also disagrees with you. So does the Bible for that matter. Hell, Allah granted Satan a worldwide agency on promoting corruption. And the Koran goes on to say that the pure of heart will not be corrupted.
> <br><br>There is this city called Amsterdam, which legalized a few drugs some years back. It has now the <span style="font-weight: bold;">lowest usage of those drugs </span>in Europe, and shrinking. <br><br><br></div>You ask How did porn come to Pakistan?
> <br></div></div>
>
> <br>Take a look at the Kama Sutra, and the history books dating back a few thousand years. Now I guess you'll say that those are Hindu, and hence not Pakistani. Well, then float down the Indus River, which is very much in Pakistan, and you'll see a couple of massive whorehouses dating back to Moghul times, frequented by the Moghuls.
> <br><br>Pakistan has a long tradition of porn, dating back many centuries. You can see some of those ancient porn shows being put on today, in any city, any night: what is a mujra but a soft-porn show?<br>
>
>
> ------=_Part_34719_32149236.1145121364333--
stabani
say that the Quran agrees with you.
I'm sorry for being harsh, but that's that. Unless you are a graduate
of an Islamic university with an Islamic degree, please don't
generalize that you know everything about Islam. I don't know your
background, thus can not comment whether your text is legit or not. Do
understand, that in some groups, Islam allows them to kill people,
innocent people. They claim that it is allowed in Islam also. Claims
are easy to make. Proving them is the hard part. I for one don't have
the Islamic knowledge to back it up, though If you want I can surely do
the research. But that's for another day.
Ice
could just vote it out in a simple Agree/Not Agree thread and go with
2/3rd majority?
Angelo Embuldeniya
cheers,
angelo.
Ghulamrasule Kureishi
in general
a sane voice
please see the thread titled "proof from the Quran about Fawahish and
Lagw"
NancyB
the group have spent a great deal of time trying to bring the facts to
the outside world and journalists outside of Pakistan. This group has
lately been engaged in a very spirited and gentlemanly debate about
freedom of speech issues, which are a great credit to the participants.
This group, which is open to view to anyone, could be an excellent
resource for journalists outside of Pakistan seeking easy research. As
eveyone here is united in Don't Block the Blogs, I would question
whether this is the best time to change the focus or divide the group
in light of trying to obtain foreign coverage.
Also, about voting about changing the focus of the group: I got
involved in this group simply because someone asked me to work on the
Wikipedia article on Internet Censorship in Pakistan. Since I am not
Pakistani, and do not have interests in Pakistan, I don't think I
should be able to vote, and I don't think it makes sense to let people
like me vote. I think as a preliminary matter it should be decided who
should be allowed to vote. If everyone wants voting for all, I think it
makes sense that unless a group participant has a genuine interest in
the outcome of a vote the participant should abstain. Whether voting is
by majority or by super-majority, some decision would have to be made
on how to calculate the winning percentage--would it be all voters or
voters choosing "yes" or "no."
stabani
Pakistan, which is a seperate entity all together.
http://groups.google.com/fospk
As for the idea of abstaining from vote, I think freedom of speech is
more of a world issue. I know that a lot of people outside of China,
and without interests in China, are campaigning for freedom of speech
in China.
We live in a world, and civil liberties are something that are
universal, whether you have interests in the country or not.
So yes, if any of you want to join in the new group, visit the link
above.