Our stance on 12 sites being banned?

[Zohare]

I realize that this may come as a shock to some people, but I am not
100% on what everyone feels regarding the blasphemy law issue, blocking
of only 12 sites that promoted the Prophet's pictures and lastly, what
free speech means to everyone here. we have been lobbying for a few
weeks but I think that perhaps we need to stop for a moment and reflect
on how we really feel about the issue, considering how enlarged and out
of hand it has gotten.

As far as I am concerned, I don't know what to beleive anymore. I want
to promote free speech because that is what allows us bloggers to blog.
at the same time, how do we as 'civil humans' living in a supposed
'civil society' put a cap / limit on free speech? is there such a
thing?

This is my last comment on the washington post issue with that fellow
Brian:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/03/pakistans_blog_blockade.html

"In pakistan and this link is working fine.

Brian, I am glad that you actually got things underway in the manner
that you did. It helps address many issues that people interpret and
how they do so. Sitting here opposite to where you might be in the
world, we have realized that there is a hypocrisy in the system by
which people claim free speech. To tell you the truth, this really has
deep rooted relations with trying to democratize countries that resist.
Essentially, it is quite undemocratic to create a democracy by force -
a contradiction really - but more importantly, we realize that there is
hesitation because of the potential concequences. the same formula cant
work in every country, especially newer ones. And I really believe that
anything done in a rush and forced down someones throat backfires like
vomit in a more vile and uinacceptable manner - take for example the
Taliban -- the original frankensteins of the US and Pakistani
Intelligence teams working to remove the red army. To seek good by
using bad against bad -- well i dont think the double negative method
will work again, especially since it didnt the first time.

in anycase, I find it unfortunate that your website has suffered and is
blocked by our government. Believe me, lobbying for the removal of the
ban is barely a start. the only fear, is the fear of death for people.
if charged with blasphemy in our own country, it is a no brainer
really. How many people had to die to give iraq its freedom? how many
americans believe those lives lost were in vain? what will free speech
take to accomplish in a muslim country? how many lives must be lost
over how much time before blasphemy laws are no longer a threat to free
speech? how far can you take the limits of free speech? Is it fair to
criticize the system of a country that tries to put civil limits on an
act (by means of laws that are intended to protect that which is held
sacred to billions) but then the country takes a step further to act
out of reason?

My objective posting here and being actively part of the Dont Block the
Blog campaign is for the sake of all bloggers. I am not here to offend
anyone or to be offended. Ironically, it is the offence that brings us
all together here. More importantly, what remains of an offence if some
dont appreciate the weight it bears on certain societies?"

His wife mentioned a very important element that I knew of but did not
think heavily about before. Being educated in the west, I realize how
important it is to watch what one says as it will come back to haunt
you when you least expect it, and potentially in a worse manner than
you would imagine. I believe that the lawyers petitions in the courts
are out of hand and well out of order. A very intelligent and
successful woman i know in the us wrote to me regarding an email i sent
to many people abroad and she said to me that it is frustrating to see
how this can be allowed (the ban), while the PM talks with tremendous
emphasis on how free speech in the media is growing.

This is certainly no longer an attack on bloggers and free-writers of
the world. this now, in my mind, becomes a case of impeding on civil
rights, especially at a time when our government speaks so highly of a
better future, ties wtih developed countries and then the ever-lasting
story of friendship with India. How can you make friends with a country
such as India if you cannot make friends with the people in your own
country?

Im Enraged! This is going to affect my gre score and i hold the
pakistan government responsible. Look to invest in the future of your
country, not the past Mr Prime Minister.

[KO]

There are far more than 12 websites blocked by the govt. of pakistan. Even not counting the millions of blogspot sites, the number is in the hundreds of thousands. (if not in the millions.)

The Mullahs are a cynical lot - the blasphemy law is just one more tool which gains powers from the faith of millions. Legally speaking, anyone can be indicted under the blasphemy law, as in practice it requires no proof on the part of the accuser. This has already happened many times in Pakistan, and continues happening today.

>>I am not 100% on what everyone feels
>>regarding the blasphemy law issue,

So far I've gathered that the majority likes censorship, wants it to continue, and would make bad noise about not censoring. I also think they have let their emotions hijack their brain, and haven't really thought much about it.

>>blocking of only 12 sites that
>>promoted the Prophet's pictures

ha ha! What only 12 sites?

>> and lastly, what free speech
>> means to everyone here.

Free speech is free speech. It's amazing hypocrisy when there are starving people in this country today, and the burning issue of the day is a bunch of cartoons.

>>how do we as 'civil humans' living in a supposed
>>'civil society' put a cap / limit on free speech?

You don't. It's called freedom. Get over it.
I suggest you read a few books on philisophy.

Or read up on places where there is freedom of speech. They seem to manage just fine with it.

regards,
ko

[a sane voice]

as I have said earlier, nine European countries have laws whereby
denial of the Holocaust is punishable by imprisonment, and it is
enforced. Would you call it free speech?

I think there is no such thing as absolute free speech.

The second point I made was about the arrogance of man to think that he
is learning from his past, is evolving, and does not need Divine
guidance. You may disagree with that, and it would be your right.

The hypocricy of the Mullahs and the govenment and many others is not
the issue. The laws in Pakistan, not just blasphemy laws, but many
other laws are cynically exploited. The blasphemy and other Shariah
laws do need a careful thinking through, as I don't think they reflect
truly what the Shariah is all about.

A would also agree that we as people have a lot of growing up to do.

That does not mean we should tolerate insults to the prophet (saw). Not
in a Muslim majority country.

[NancyB]

You have two issues here: one is a debate for American style freedom
of speech and the other is freedom of speech for blogs. If you want
your movement to be a large one, it would be easier to concentrate on
the "freedom of speech" for the blogs. More people would agree to
that, and more people make a better campaign. It is also defensible
from a standpoint of Government Policy and the Pakistani consitution.
It makes you good citizens rather than an enemy of the government.

While my sentiments are with ko, I think this campaign should be
limited to the blogs for merely practical reasons. The better future
depends on the Internet. and access to it via blogger.

I also think its a good thing to continue debating the issue generally.
Freedom of speech advocates believe that open debate, by itself,
creates freedom.

[Ice]

I am against the blasphemy (and some other shariah) laws as they stand.
As far as the 12 sites go, that shows incompetance, doesn't it? A
simple google search turns up more than enough links for anyone who
wishes to view the cartoons (which really makes me doubt if the cartoon
controversy was even the issue. I mean, surely noone could be that
careless if they were sincere in their aims to block 'controversial'
sites). And free speech, well, I would like for it to be tempered but
only because I see friends and family hurt over this issue. As for me,
I can live with absolute free speech (if there is such a thing), as
long as people can take back as good as they give (which, if you've
talked with the sort of irrational people I have, you'll find not many
can).

[NancyB]

I think any person working on the "Don't Block the Blogs" should be
allowed to have freedom of thought on the blasphemy issue. Members of
the group do not have to agree in order to be an effective force. I'll
give you a secret though. If you have been "talking with the sort of
irrational prople I have" (which I suspect might be on the Internet),
it often isn't worth the breath it takes to bother giving them anything
back at all. Free speech generally means that the crazy folks can have
their say, but no one sure needs to listen.

[Zohare]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. Just to clarify, KO, i appreciate
your direct answers to my very vague questions. Although they were
personal concerns, I was hoping for insight. I dont see how picking out
fine points i what i wrote really answers many of the much larger
concerns. I was talking directly about the 12 sites that brought the
issue up altogether. I am not an idiot -- I do realize millions of
sites are affected by the ban.

I was not looking for an answer to life and its many mysteries, I have
quite a fair amount of philosophy below my belt, so in principle i just
wanted to know how others feel about the issues i raised. A tickler if
you will...

I wasn't looking for a specific answer to putting a limit on free
speech either ... If i may suggest, you probably shouldn't read so
closely and take things literally =) -- try 'figure of speech'

"You don't. It's called freedom. Get over it.
I suggest you read a few books on philisophy.

Or read up on places where there is freedom of speech. They seem to
manage
just fine with it. "

You should read the stuff i have written about religion on my blog if
you ahve the time and you would understand how well over "it" i am. I
get the feeling you think i may be on the contending side, but let me
assure you I am certainly not. Feedback is one thing, but being flat
out presumptuous about any shortfalls in my competence regarding
freedom of speech is uncalled for. I raised the free speech issue as a
general concern. Once again if my articles are read, you will realize
that:

a. I am very open with what i write and how i write it because i can
and will continue to do so
b. i constantly stretch the limits with which freedom is expressed from
my side to help others realize they can be as free as they want to be.

Many times people are afraid to be the one to raise in opposition of
something, an act Dr. Alvi has been kind enough to lead us all with.
Anyway this is not intended to be an attack, im just a little
disappointed at the response i addressed above so i apologize for any
trouble.

[KO]

Well, you asked for feedback :-)


ko

[Ice]

'...it often isn't worth the breath it takes to bother giving them
anything back at all.'

You're right. I only got that after trying to reason with 2 of them.
Sigh.

[Pia K.]

Ok firstly calm down boys - personal comments of the acerbic variety
are what disintegrate intellectual discussions into mere unproductive
rows!

I think this whole blogspot banning censorship thing has raised 3
interconnected yet separate issues.
1 - is the fact that blogspot was banned indiscriminately and I figure
what we are campaigning for is to get it un-banned! This is what this
"Group" is about right?
2 - is the nature and legalities of internet censorship in particular
and censorship in general in Pakistan.
3 - is the nature and use of blasphemy laws in this country.
The common thread that links these three issues is that of free speech.

Well as far as blasphemy laws are concerned - any country, which has an
official state religion, has blasphemy laws, which are by nature
prejudiced and irrational. We do not live in the worst country in the
world though we often like to think so - blasphemy laws are weird
everywhere, consider the whole Salman Rushdie fiasco in the UK, a
country touted as "truly" multicultural, but where something is only
considered blasphemous if it offends Christianity! It isn't just
prejudice against Muslims either - consider the Sikh community in
Birmingham last year who failed to get a play banned, which showed a
rape, occur in a Gurudwara! I wonder how Muslims would have reacted in
a similar situation - by burning down the theatre? So if we think we
can get blasphemy laws changed I think that's just naive because it is
soooo not going to happen! It hasn't even happened in countries where
democracy is actually practiced.
The whole problem with the concept of blasphemy, for me personally, is
that if someone doesn't believe in something, does not have that faith,
then if they say or do something contrary to the laws of that faith, or
even ridicule it, how can it be considered blasphemous? They did not
buy into that truth, so have no duty to safeguard or revere it!

As far as free speech goes - it is something that you cannot have half
way, either, there is free speech or there isn't - there isn't a middle
road! Voltaire put beautifully: "Sir I disagree with what you say, but
I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Therefore, in answer to your question Zohare - in a "civil" or at least
a civilized society we have to realise that free speech cannot and
should not be capped, even if that means giving someone the right to
say something which hurts us to the depths of our soul. Either, you are
prepared to take that on or you are not - in my humble view the way to
combat any fallacy (blasphemy included) is by exposing it as a lie not
to ban it or cover it up like we are afraid to face that which is
contrary to our beliefs. It is only the weak faith that is afraid to
stand up to questioning or even ridicule!!

Of course, if you live in a particular country you've entered into a
covenant in which you have given up the right to total freedom in
return for the relative security/opportunities, which the country's
infrastructure grants you, so you follow the laws of that country even
if they aren't completely inline with your own moral worldview. Thus
anyone living in the ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan has no right to
insult Islam by exercising their free speech - but that does not apply
to some guy living oceans away in Denmark, no matter how morally and
religiously repugnant we find his actions!
- but I think this is a whole other debate altogether!!!

Ok this reply is getting rather long now so I'm gonna stop now!