Out Of Touch With Reality

Date: August 16, 2012
Reporting From: Carthage, Tunisia

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has made an admirable habit of enraging western governments over the last few years, particularly the United States.

Most notably, his release of classified diplomatic documents in 2010 proved ruthlessly embarrassing, shining a spotlight on the absurd, petty little world of international relations.

Ever since, the US government has done everything it can to stop him. Short of assassination. They shut down his website, but mirror sites instantly popped up. They sought legal action, but their efforts have been impeded by the bureaucratic deftness of his attorneys. They froze his bank accounts... but donations have poured in from all over the world.

Along the way, Uncle Sam co-opted a number of allied nations to set aside their principles for the sake of US interests-- Switzerland rolled over immediately and shuttered Assange's bank accounts.

Australia (his home country) has remained conspicuously silent on the matter, raising not a single word of protest in his defense. One high ranking Aussie politician even publicly suggested that Assange should be killed.

Sweden has happily played along, trumping up dubious allegations about Assange and issuing an international arrest warrant.

And now there's the UK, where Assange has been based. The British government located and arrested him, yet after his legal team was able to secure bail and delay extradition, Assange sought refuge at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. He's been living there for two months in violation of his bail.

Assange knows that, if extradited to Sweden, he'll be shipped off to face the death penalty in the US... so the stakes are clearly high. He even petitioned Ecuador's president Rafael Correa for political asylum, and just hours ago, Correa agreed.

Swarms of British police have now descended on the Ecuadoran embassy in London. This, on the heels of the British Foreign Ministry issuing a warning letter to Ecuador's government threatening to "take actions in order to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the [Ecuadoran] embassy."

Such a move would be appalling, to say the least.

Embassies are hallowed sovereign ground, not to be trespassed. Ever. This is the most sacrosanct, fundamental, inviolable principle of international relations, explicitly codified in both the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).

Article 27 of the latter, for example, states that "the receiving State [the UK in this case] shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the consular premises, together with the property of the consular post and the consular archives."

International law seems pretty obvious here. Yet British police stand ready to storm the embassy, arrest Assange, and tear down decades of diplomatic precedent.

In a way this is almost poetic. Assange is the man who exposed western diplomacy for the fraud that it is. That he would be sent to his death by an egregious violation of its most fundamental principle seems strangely appropriate.

Regardless, the whole affair is perhaps the foulest example that western governments will ignore their own laws, or selectively apply them, whenever they see fit.

Legal precedent means nothing. Rule of law means nothing. Free speech means nothing. Their own treaties mean nothing. It's unbelievable. Anyone in the west who honestly thinks he's still living in a free society is either a fool or completely out of touch.

If that seems too radical an idea, consider that ECUADOR is now the only nation which stands to defend freedom and human rights against an assault from the United States, the United Kingdom, and their spineless allies.

The west has just become a giant banana republic. Have you hit your breaking point yet? If not now... when?

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black
Senior Editor,
Sovereign Man

Good Job On The Internet Blackout

The American SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was marketed by the American politicians to sound like it was doing the public a favour -- stopping pirates (think one-eye-patched robbers of the seven seas) from their online activities.

After all, it was Hollywood and some of the big music labels who were affected by the user-to-user sharing. Such a travesty of human rights. Not.

It wasn't the end of free distribution of copyright material that most people objected to.

It was the way the government was trying to nail potential wrong-doers down. Anyone could have been a suspect based on various degrees of involvement.

Very much like Section 114A which we protested yesterday.

The SOPA was shelved, in spite of the subtle way it was portrayed. Americans, God bless their souls, could spot the potentially nefarious invasion of privacy.

But I think we made our opinions public yesterday, given that CNET and Global Voices Online have picked it up.

I don't particularly want to know much about what the PM Najib thinks or says, but there was this nauseatingly "concerned" message saying that he had "asked the Cabinet to discuss Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950 ...."

Well.

I'm trying to look past the posturing but it's hard to say what will transpire. But at least we have made our stand, and for that, I am proud to be Malaysian.

The Muzzled Media Appeared Completely Ludicrous

I meant to get online and blog about recent events a lot earlier than this. However, I have been following up on the shenanigans of the ruling coalition UMNO, and its pathetically sorry machinery.

First up, I have to apologise for my incorrect assessment of the goons who call themselves the Malaysian government in assuming they would be less brutal in dealing with the public.

Seriously, I thought that they would have learned from past experience, but really, these guys are beyond teaching. Someone ought to send them out to green pastures and put a big sign out in the animal farm (or National Feedlot, if it hasn't been closed down yet) to warn against mad cow disease and foot & mouth.

Or in this case, foot IN mouth -- a phenomenon that they have single-handedly elevated into an artform.

You think I'm being unkind? Overly harsh? Mean?

Let's examine the evidence.

1. Nick Xenophon is an Australian senator. Against his better judgement, he decided to observe the BERSIH 3.0 rally in person. He had no idea what he was in for -- he got tear-gassed and witnessed rampant human rights abuses. Consequently, he spoke out against it. So the government-owned mainstream media was tasked to vilify him. Sorely lacking in ideas, they wrote blatant lies about him by switching words -- effectively putting his life in danger.

We hope he takes them to task (he has mentioned suing them). They offered a weak and insincere apology, but this is what puts him and consequently BERSIH 3.0 and the Malaysian protestors squarely on higher moral ground, in that they had to be falsely vilified to be seen as wrong.

2. BBC was outraged that its news reports were doctored and censored by Astro. The agreement between BBC and any broadcaster is that the full report should be aired in its entirety. Astro, the Malaysian satellite broadcaster, firmly breached this agreement when they removed certain sections. Instead of hanging their heads in shame, Astro claimed to be disappointed that BBC failed to understand their 'situation' as they were 'merely complying with local regulations'. Oh really?

3. BBC wasn't the only news channel to be offended. AlJazeera is appalled to discover news reports were also similarly doctored and censored by Astro, particularly because it showed excessive use of force by the police against demonstrators and damage of equipment belonging to sympathetic journalists.

And Malaysia calls itself a democracy? How could the government expect to be taken seriously when they resort to outright lies and manipulative attempts to spin the truth?

I do take exception to that, but not as much as to the Malaysians who are still bleating in weak protest against the mainstream media, saying that they have the right to speak out against tyranny.

I cannot understand why one would waste one's breath. The government-owned mainstream media deserve neither the time of the day nor any rebuttals. They are a waste of paper, airtime and energy. Heck, they are parasites; pimping oxygen.

So if you find yourself compelled to explain why you went out to protest on the 28th of April 2012, please do me a favour: DON'T.

Just do the right thing and ignore the mainstream media.

Related: Astro, give some respect to your customers please!

The Economist Censored With Black Markers!

This is an interesting, must-read article from The Economist because the print version was censored by the government:

MALAYSIA is one of South-East Asia’s stabler nations; but a rally in Kuala Lumpur on July 9th in demand of electoral reform turned surprisingly nasty, leading to the arrest of more than 1,600 people. The police fired tear gas and water cannon into the crowd, and one man died of a heart attack.

All those arrested were released fairly quickly, but Amnesty International, a London-based human-rights group, called it “the worst campaign of repression in the country for years”. The government’s reaction showed a lot of nervousness about how much opposition it can tolerate.

Read the whole article: Taken to the cleaners

A while back, the Far Eastern Economic Review was banned in Malaysia by Dr Mahathir for less-than-flattering comments about his administration.

The Economist probably fears the same eventuality.

A spokesman for The Economist said: “I can confirm that any apparent censorship of The Economist in Malaysia last week was not of our own doing. However we won't be commenting on the matter any further.”

RELATED: Malaysia censors Economist article on protest -The Telegraph

Born This Way

Dear Lady Gaga,

Congratulations on the release of your single "Born This Way".

I read somewhere that it has achieved the number-one spot in many countries and was the fastest-selling single in iTunes history - selling one million copies in five days!

It has played on some of the radio stations that I listen to.

Apparently, certain lyrics have been edited to suit Malaysian sensitivities, especially since they revolve around sexuality, which happens to be the prime Malaysian obsession that everyone naturally denies.

More so, when it involves same sex relationships.

The grapevine tells me that you're outraged about the censorship.

'What I would say is for all the young people in Malaysia that want those words to be played on the radio, it is your job and it is your duty as young people to have your voices heard.

'You must do everything that you can if you want to be liberated by your society. You must call, you must not stop, you must protest peaceably.'

- Lady Gaga

Thank you for your concern about our country. However, I am rather intrigued about what you mean by "protest peaceably".

Since recent times, Malaysians have taken to the streets to peacefully voice their dissatisfaction about the governance of our nation and to protest the travesty of justice that is practised by our nefarious government. All in a non-violent manner.

Our gripes fell on deaf ears, but our actions were duly noted and reverted to with tear-gassing and spraying of chemical-laced water.

If our legitimate objections over a draconian law were completely unheeded, I doubt any plea for gay rights would catch the attention of our authorities - peaceable protest or otherwise.

Please do not take it personally, but the editing of your lyrics are hardly something we would risk our health and well-being for.

With that out of the way, I would like to bring to your attention a piece of legislation that has since been applied mainly on political opponents.

It is the Penal Code 377A which is defined as committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature. I do not want to go into details here, but any homosexual would instantly be guilty of this crime.

In this country, to be gay is a crime. The punishment may go up to 20 years imprisonment, and is liable to a fine and whipping.

Freedom of expression is also not a right accorded to the average citizen.

I do however, appreciate that in noticing our predicament, you have widened your horizons to something beyond dance routines, video clip productions, diet/fitness regimes and fan clubs.

Yours sincerely,
Crankster

Facebook Blocks Politically Sensitive Sites

 

TIME magazine has this to say:

An American may have invented Facebook, but when it comes to social networking, we can't touch Malaysia.

A study showed that Malaysians have the most friends on their social networks, averaging at 233 digital friends per user.

Malaysians were also the heaviest users of social networking sites, spending a whopping nine hours per week on average communicating with their hoards of online friends.

So it is a grave mistake for Facebook to block the publishing rights of the page “Malaysians for Beng Hock”.

The administrators of the above-mentioned page have this to say:

The arbitrary and undemocratic governance of Facebook on its users is not only tyrannical in itself, it is open to manipulation by authoritarian regimes to shut down facebook activism by making a lot of or high-powered complaints.

From our knowledge, at least two other politically-critical pages - ‘Justice for Beng Bock’ and ‘save Jamal on Air’ pages were also terminated by Facebook without reasons.

As both the death of Beng Hock and sacking of 988 deejay Jamaluddin Ibrahim are highly controversial issues in Malaysia, these raise the legitimate suspicion if such blocking was the outcome of some backdoor crackdown operation on new media, made possible by Facebook’s arbitrary governance.

It is entirely expected that our scum-of-the-earth government would pressure Facebook with a request like this, but very surprising that Facebook would accede to that.

After all, Facebook have the highest number of users in Malaysia and you don't want to piss them off.

Censorship And Book Banning 528

The promise of access to censored stuff certainly clinched my presence at the KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

I didn't stay for the entire session, but I certainly wasn't disappointed with the offering either.


It confirmed a lot of things which I had suspected about government censorship - the whole harassment and banning routine which is the hallmark of a dictatorship government.

Young talents like Sharon Chin told their side of the story. She had researched it in depth and she knew her stuff.

More info on her exhibitions and the government shenanigans can be found at her blog.

To date, about 1446 books have been banned in Malaysia.

But it's not just the books that get banned - movies aren't spared either.

I did a series on the morality police in 2007 and touched briefly on Amir Muhammad's latest offering then, a movie called The Last Communist, which loosely depicted the life of Chin Peng, the Malayan communist leader post WWII.

What was notoriously spectacular is that the movie was banned for having insufficient violence. I credit the civil servant who had that brainwave.

Only in Malaysia, folks. Only in Malaysia.

There are legitimate reasons why you should not wash down your morning packet of nasi lemak with a substantial mug of milo-ais-kao-kurang-manis, even if that routine conjures up a gastronomic delight.

This is one of them, especially if you're a civil servant.

But I digress.

The excuses may seem funny and we may dismiss it as standard government stupidity.

But at some point, our rights to have access to those books and movies are being violated by those who deem themselves as the guardians of our minds and morality.

The Morality Police - Political Movies

At this point even I have to admit it's not about morality anymore.

I deliberately chose to avoid commenting on Schindler's List and Prince of Egypt in my previous post because I felt they deserve special mention.

It is no secret that Schindler's List which revolved around the Jews during Holocaust was directed by Steven Spielberg, also a Jew.

That somehow offended the Film Censorship Board. It was deemed as Zionist Propaganda and consequently banned.

Not that anti-semitism is anything new.

Last year, Bernama reported that Umno Youth will release a list of brands and international companies with operations in Malaysia that are known to be supporting the Israeli regime financially.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said if there was truth to the claim, the people must be told so they could make their own assessment whether they wanted to continue supporting the company which has a chain of shops in the country.

In other words, BOYCOTT Israel.

Again, nothing new. My passport does not permit me entry into Israel anyway.

Prince of Egypt managed to find itself hurting Muslim sensitivities. Don't ask me how. Moses appears in Islamic history the last time I checked.

It's not just Hollywood-produced-Jewish-related movies that have been banned. A local director fell afoul of the Senseless-ship Board over his movie, Lelaki Komunis Terakhir, loosely translated as The Last Communist. It revolved around Chin Peng, the leader of the Malayan Communist Party.

Amir Muhammad, who is Malay Muslim, believes the controversy surrounding his film, like so much else in this country, may be less a matter of ideology than race.

The ban appears to have resulted from the pressure applied by 'Berita Harian', a paper whose politics Mr. Amir classified in a recent blog entry as "verging on the ethnocentric and semifascist."

One of its editorials advised Mr. Amir to stick to documenting the lives of Malay heroes. (Most Malaysian Communists were of Chinese descent.)

Racist are we?

My maternal grandfather was shot by the communists when my mother was but a few months old. I never knew him.

As a result, there is NO love lost between me and the communists - regardless of race, but I resent the restriction of my individual right to watch any movie about communists or communism.

After a screening was held for Malaysian members of Parliament, the home minister, Radzi Sheikh Ahmad, said the real problem was that the absence of violence in the documentary could create the misconception that Chin Peng was not himself violent.

WTF??

Mr. Amir said, "I think this is the first time a film has been banned for not being violent enough."

Hell yeah. They're running out of decent excuses, too.

The Morality Police - Movies

Oh yes, the bane of every self-respecting, remotely intelligent individual.

Apparently, someone thinks you are TOO STUPID to make decisions for yourself, so someone has taken it upon themselves to make it on your behalf.

The Malaysian censorship board is a prime example.

They consistently outdo themselves with Idiotic Reasons To Ban A Film.

Top on the list is Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me for too much sexual innuendo. It was a goddamn spoof, for crying out loud.

Anyone with a desire to emulate Austin Powers or worse, shag him would be in dire and desperate need of some serious counselling already - I doubt there'd be room for further damage potentially caused by watching the movie.

So why did the National Film Censorship Board ban it?

"In order for us to instil good morals and values in our people, we have to stop importing films that are not appropriate for our country," Board chairman Shaari Mohamad Noor commented.

Information Minister Tan Sri Khalil Yaakob adds his two cents worth. "One must consider the "social damage" caused by certain movies especially when "a certain trend of thought is embodied in the film".

Yeah.

We really need all that protection, you know.

Good ole Kylie Minogue got the cold shoulder as well.

TV programs aren't spared. Two episodes of Friends, The Video Tape, and But I'm A Cheerleader, as well as an Ally McBeal release, The Queen fell victim to the Senseless-ship Board.

Of course, The Hours was predictably banned for showing women kissing other women.

The head of the Film Censorship Board said it was protecting "the interests of the country and people from bad influences and negative elements shown in films".

You know, I'm really so OVERWHELMED by all this concern for me and my morals that I've lost the key to unlock my chastity belt.

And then there are the Truly Moronic Reasons For Banning Movies.

Take Zoolander, for example. It was banned in Malaysia because it included a plot to assassinate the country's prime minister. It would be ridiculously generous to think that the Censorship Board is even vaguely familiar with the notion of humour.

Let's not neglect the religious issues.

Bruce Almighty was shown the door because it revolved around a man challenged by God to take over the running of the world – found offensive to Muslims. A minister declares, "We cannot equate ourselves with God Almighty even as a joke."

Daredevil was banned for being too violent and in some quarters, having a name which sounds, well, satanic.

Violent? Heck, we Malaysians could TEACH the world a thing or two about violence.


Related: TV and Film Censorship in Malaysia