Comments on: Retooling the press law

By: cvt

cvt — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:40:00 +0000

“It makes me really wonder – once again – if the government, represented by the Cabinet, is doing its damnest to thwart the wishes of the king of the land, on purpose!”

or could it simply be good cop-bad cop?

btw,you’re not a citizen, you’re a subject.

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:35:41 +0000

Looks like these “amendments” are actually far worse than what we currently have according to my sources! There appears to be deliberate gaps through which a freight train can trundle through, leading to clear “elevation” of these transgressions directly to the Penal Code – even though it is not specifically mentioned – and that all journalistic trespass now automatically leads to the Criminal court rather than the much anticipated Civil one.

So, it looks like these amendments, much as I suspected, are designed to derail – or at least delay – the Shura Council-sourced ones yet again.

The tug of war, this time publicly between HM The King and the Cabinet continues. At least this is how I personally read the events so far.

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:28:35 +0000

There is something about the Internet and how it ensures that only the good ideas and sound logic ultimately prevails, and that is all attributed to “peer review”. You will see that if those “few headless chickens” do cackle, they are more than welcomed and engaged to put substance to their arguments, if they can’t, or if those arguments leak, you will find that they will ultimately be completely ignored and they will disappear in the netherworld of the Internet.

So I wouldn’t really be too concerned about people babbling, let them babble all they want, but I guarantee you that if their logic does not hold water, they will babble only to themselves.

0 0

By: Capt. Arab

Capt. Arab — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:48:11 +0000

Thanks Mahmood, and Yes I totally agree with you. But can you get compensated for damage already done, plus when you mention strong religions and criticism you wil find a few headless chickens babling about religion without even knowing their facts..
Thanks for the enlightenment all the same..

0 0

By: mahmood

mahmood — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:38:18 +0000

got to run to a meeting, so briefly, if it does not promote hatred, condone and espouse violence, it should be allowed.

citizens and others have the full right to take a journalist or a writer to court for libel or defamation, and it’s the court’s prerogative to assign penalties to the writer if deemed he or she has in fact defamed the other party purposefully without levying prison sentences.

As to criticising religion, it should most definitely be allowed. If a religion is strong, it (or its adherents) should not be afraid of criticism. In fact, criticising it could very much lead to better understanding and more faith.

0 0

By: Capt. Arab

Capt. Arab — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:58:48 +0000

I have a question Mahmood, which after reading your blog has baffled me further.
What liberties are expected in journalism? If the “as long as” did not exist, whether in it’s exact context or expressed differently. Don’t you think that we will end up with people slagging off others, libel suits, deframation, and last but not least crossing the journalism boundries with writings about Allah and the Holy Prophets which will ultimately lead to further secterian issues (which we all know is there). So I don’t quite understand your point, nor the funn or fuss about this new law.
One last thing… Who and How will offenders be held accountable for their so-called “freedoms of expression”?
I mean can I start a blog and just dedicate my life to writing about you, true or false or assumptious, who is there is define that fine line. On the other hand, what “peace of mind” do you have that whatever I write or express, is that exact image of you, and not fabricated to ruin you. Or is it considered as my freedom of expression?
I wish you would enlighten me…

0 0