Comments on: More sites to be blocked?

By: mahmood

mahmood — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:50:34 +0000

Well, one step at a time I guess.

0 0

By: Arab Church

Arab Church — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:47:56 +0000

I haven’t been notified about that, I might try to assure what you said. But the problem is bigger than that, the site is still blocked from KSA, Kuwait, UAE and Syria, and contacting them have no effect at all, I didn’t even get a reply from any of them… sadly…

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:28:29 +0000

Actually it’s unblocked this morning in Bahrain! Keep writing to ask for explanations though, as is your right, because if it is on the official block list they can block it again at any time without any explanation.

0 0

By: Arab Church

Arab Church — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:20:40 +0000

I am the owner of http://www.arabchurch.com and our site is a christian site that has nothing to do with political issues, and I am wondering, why they blocked our site?
I sent them few e-mails asking the reason of blocking us, but I got nothing in return, which is sad!

0 0

By: Chimi^

Chimi^ — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:37:37 +0000

Here’s a bit of an update :

img*numbers*.imageshack.us seem to be blocked O_o, I can only access images hosted on imageshack via TOR.

Silly or not? your choice.

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:56:50 +0000

ah AKKAD, you did indeed write that, but in another topic and it got displayed the first time!

yes, in any case, I agree.

0 0

By: Akkad

Akkad — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:27:12 +0000

Thanks. I had written something which is like:-

The suggestions you made are good. They deal with many ills. But they leave out the root cause of all ills. By that I mean the Law of Journalism, Printing and Publishing (No.47/2002).

Because Bahrain proclaims itself as a constitutional monarchy, it should repeal the existing said law and replace it with one which is substantially as befitting a constitutional monarchy. Say the law Denmark has, itself a constitutional monarchy, with a decent people – http://www.freedominfo.org/countries/denmark.htm.

But until we have such a thing, there is no reason to interpret the existing Law of 2002 the way the Minsitry of Inforamtion does. It is not only available for the Ministry, Bahraini press, its people at large and all the judiciary, including in particular the DPP to stop interpretting that law in the spirit which prevailed during the past era and start to do so in the spirit prevailing after the return to constitutional life which has recently been augmented by Bahrain’s accession effective 17/7/2006 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by means of Law No. 56/2006.

It is true that Article 19 allows the state to curtail press freedoms but only as is absolutley necessary to preserve National Security, Public Order, Public Health or Public Morale; as well as for the protection of the rights and reputation of theird parties.

That the letter of the specific law (47/2002) is still as was the case under the state security environment before the return to constitutional life is hardly understandable. But that the same interpretation as in that environment should prevail despite the return to constitutional life and accession in the Covenant is totally abhorrent.

0 0

By: anony

anony — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:29:11 +0000

http://tubli.net is blocked also

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:48:23 +0000

I released a comment that was in the queue, but didn’t find anything else in there that was from you amongst the hundreds of spams. Would you kindly re-post?

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:32:53 +0000

let me check the spam queue… it has become VERY aggressive of late for some reason, blocking a lot of comments entered from Batelco’s IPs.

0 0