Free speech in Bangladesh?

[solicitr]

After repeated delays, the trial of a Bangladeshi Muslim editor arrested for advocating ties with Israel began in Dhaka on Wednesday.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz, an English-language newspaper published in the Bangladeshi capital, is facing a series of charges that include sedition.

If convicted, he could be sentenced to death.

In November 2003, Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka's international airport just prior to boarding a flight on his way to Israel, where he was scheduled to deliver an address on promoting understanding between Muslims and Jews. His visit to Israel would have been the first by a Bangladeshi journalist.

Hanif accused Choudhury of being anti-Islamic, and said that he had "praised Jews and Christians" and defamed Bangladesh. The hearings were then adjourned.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Death seems the penalty for one's opinions in all parts of the world unfortunately.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_ ... h_shooting

[solicitr]

Tosh, that is a really, really thin attempt at moral equivalency. You really want to put the act of one deranged nutcase on a par with the official act of a government through its laws and courts?

[vison]

I agree with you, solictr.

But on the other hand, I don't quite see the point of your first post. It's not news to anyone here, in case you were in doubt.

[Dave_LF]

I don't know; I tend to think deranged nutcasery is deranged nutcasery regardless of whether it's carried out by lone nutcases or a whole bunch of them. Shari'a is what you get when people like Jim Adkisson attract followers and find their way into positions of power.

[solicitr]

Yes, Dave; the problem is that Shari'a already has a position of power and millions of followers. If Adkissonism were similarly situated I'd be worried about it, too. But it isn't.

[Dave_LF]

That's right, but it is perfectly appropriate to point out that the psychology behind Shari'a isn't limited to radical Muslims, especially in a thread whose only purpose seems to be to point out how bad Shari'a is. Something we all know already, right?

[superwizard]

Oh it really drives me up the wall when words are misused especially when it comes to religious terminology.

First of all the law of the land in Bangladesh is not 'shariah' but rather some strange mixture of English common law and (usually in the case of family law) some perceived opinions on Islamic law. The person in question (of course I needn't point out that I think this whole this is ridiculous and that he should be released immediately) isn't being tried on the basis of 'shariah'.

Ok so the biggest misconception on shariah is that it is some sort of old stagnant code of law for centuries back that some Muslims want to follow. The truth of the matter however is far different. There is definitely no 'one' shariah and just because one person or a group of people at a certain time claim that something is part of shariah law does not mean that everyone agrees with them. Shariah law was never codified until very recently when it was heavily influenced by western law during colonialism. Before then each judge interpreted it based on his own understanding of the matter which allowed it to change quite significantly from one place to another and from one time to another. I'm sure what I believe shariah law should be is quite different then what extremists believe but that does not mean that they have a monopoly on the understanding of shariah. If instead of using the word shariah the phrase 'extremist's interpretation of shariah' was used I'd truly be grateful.

note: I do not advocate for the 'implentation of shariah' (whatever that really means) here in the US at all. Its sorta sad feeling the need to always put disclaimers like these...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If instead of using the word shariah the phrase 'extremist's interpretation of shariah' was used I'd truly be grateful.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. I'm going to edit the title of the thread.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

If Adkissonism were similarly situated I'd be worried about it, too. But it isn't.

Er, didn't Oklahoma City have some problem with a similar outlook or was that due to a lone nutcase too?

ETA and medical clinics have been bombed on religious grounds too.

[Teremia]

Superwizard -- I'm always grateful when you step in!

[vison]

Superwizard -- I'm always grateful when you step in!

So am I. It's always a good thing to hear from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

I don't equate acts such as the Oklahoma bombing or the bombings of abortion clinics with oppressive laws, though. The acts of individuals or even groups are not the same as oppression and tyranny by a state. It is one thing for a nutcase to kill someone he disagrees with, that doesn't alter or remove the right of free speech in the USA: even if the killer wants that right removed, or wants the law to force his point of view on everyone or rather wants the law to prevent any other point of view from being heard.

[solicitr]

Let's also get a sense of proportion here, Tosh:

Oklahoma City: 168 dead
Abortion clinics: 7
The Unabomber: 3
Random right-wing crackpots: less than a dozen

[vison]

Let's also get a sense of proportion here, Tosh:

Oklahoma City: 168 dead
Abortion clinics: 7
The Unabomber: 3
Random right-wing crackpots: less than a dozen

It's not the number of victims that counts, although it's one difference, surely.

The important issue to me is not the number of victims, but the fact that these were not state actions. They are illegal acts.

[sauronsfinger]

If we are keeping track of right wing acts of violent intolerance, just how far back is it fair to go in US history? I think you can up with massive figures without looking too deeply. Just the number of lynchings is staggering.

[vison]

If we are keeping track of right wing acts of violent intolerance, just how far back is it fair to go in US history? I think you can up with massive figures without looking too deeply. Just the number of lynchings is staggering.

The point is, those were not the acts of the US government. They were illegal acts, regardless of how they might have been condoned or approved of or popular or whatever.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize US governments, both present and past. But the violent and savage acts of private individuals and civilian groups such as the KKK, etc., have nothing to do with it.

When American citizens are arrested and put to death for writing or speaking, then the comparison will be fair.

[Dave_LF]

There's nothing magical about governments or laws; state actions are nothing more than aggregations of individual actions, and illegal is whatever the people in charge say it is. The best you can say is that the deranged nutbars have more power over there than they do here. Whether that's relevant or not really depends on the point of the thread...

[vison]

There's nothing magical about governments or laws; state actions are nothing more than aggregations of individual actions, and illegal is whatever the people in charge say it is. The best you can say is that the deranged nutbars have more power over there than they do here. Whether that's relevant or not really depends on the point of the thread...

I disagree, although I see your point.

[Dave_LF]

Let me elaborate: If the point of this thread was to say "Look how much worse life is in Bangladesh. Clearly liberal democracy is a better choice than radical Islamic theocracy", then I agree wholeheartedly, and the Knoxville shooter becomes supporting evidence since he was a lone operative. But if the point is "Look how much worse life is in Bangledesh. Clearly we're a better sort of people than they are", then I call BS, and it is quite appropriate to offer the Knoxville shooter as contradicting evidence.

[vison]

Let me elaborate: If the point of this thread was to say "Look how much worse life is in Bangladesh. Clearly liberal democracy is a better choice than radical Islamic theocracy", then I agree wholeheartedly, and the Knoxville shooter becomes supporting evidence since he was a lone operative. But if the point is "Look how much worse life is in Bangledesh. Clearly we're a better sort of people than they are", then I call BS, and it is quite appropriate to offer the Knoxville shooter as contradicting evidence.

Oh, yes. There is that, but I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt.