Death of Free Speech Update: "Singaporeans charged with sedition over evangelical publication," from AFP (thanks to Abandon Skip):
SINGAPORE (AFP) - - A court has charged a Singaporean couple with sedition for distributing an evangelical Christian publication that cast Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, in a negative light, a newspaper reported Wednesday.Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, had two charges lodged against them in court on Tuesday -- one under the Sedition Act and the other under the Undesirable Publications Act, The Straits Times reported.
Police declined to comment and court officials could not be reached.
The report did not provide details about the couple's alleged publication but said the couple had distributed it to two people, one in March last year and another in October.
A sedition charge for showing something to two people!
Singapore, a multi-racial island nation, clamps down hard on anyone seen to be inciting communal tensions.In 2005, two ethnic Chinese men were jailed for anti-Muslim blogs.
The following year, a Singaporean blogger received a stern warning after posting cartoons mocking Jesus Christ on his online journal, police said at the time....
A stern warning for mocking Christ, a sedition charge for casting Muhammad in a negative light -- to two people.
Just imagine the brave soul who dares to screen "Fitna".
Tyrants always protect one another.
Mock and ridicule Mohammed!
I would be in trouble in Singaporeif I was running a poll like I am on my blogif I had my blog in Singapore
http://sexreligionandpolitics.blogspot.com/
ran asking the exact question was Mohamed a profit
A well organized and highly profitable police state. One rule: When in Singapore, do not rock the boat, or the rice bowl may get broken.
So the Chinese anti-mahometan bloggers get jail and the Jesus-mocker gets a "stern warning"?
Seems like fair and equal treatment to me.. nothing to see her.. everybody move on..
BOYCOTT SINGAPORE!!
Wow, our guys go hug and kiss commies and muslim thugs and Massachusettes votes them in as Senators and the others are idolized as the left wing 'saints' or 'gods and godettes'.
Cast mohamad in a negitive light. LOL! Since Satan is a spirit being and capable of appearing as an angel of light. (a huge negitive light eg. appearing to mohamad) I fing it quite funny. The truth hurts, and Satan hates to be mocked.
Could they let me have the words to sound respectful about a 54 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl? I'm struggling with "paedophile".
Wonder how long it will take for some "free marketeers" to drop into this thread and blab about how great Singapore is? Sort of like how the Croats like to drop in occasionally and bitch about the Serbs.
"When people chew gum in Singapore, they know what to do about it:caning!"
-generic pre-911 American conservative
Crusader asks "...was Mohamed a profit?"
No, but the hostile takeover of the pagan pilgrimage franchise in Mecca has certainly turned into a nice little earner.
If they are going to charge people for 'casting Muhammad in a negative light' then they ought to ban Ibn Ishaq's 'Life of Muhammad' since (to non-Muslim readers, anyway, who haven't been brainwashed into thinking that whatever the Dear Leader did, no matter how ghastly from the point of view of normal human morality, was Right and Good) it does an excellent job of 'casting Muhammad in a negative light', all by itself.
Rapes!
Torture!
Pedophilia!
Broken treaties!
Assassinations!
Armed robbery!
Mass murders of bound and helpless captives!
All there in black and white, gloatingly described in every horrid detail.
Oh, and the Hadith are the same, so they, too, should be banned...
Singaporean authorities had better have a look in the libraries of the mosques. Do they permit the Muslims to read Ibn Kathir, Ibn Khaldun, al-Jalalayn? plenty in those that - to Infidels - puts Muhammad, and Islam, in a very, very bad light indeed.
I am puzzled.
I thought the Singaporean authorities kept a tight rein on Islam? But this story seems to suggest that they're just as scared of offending Muslims as every other government in the Infidel world (as shown by the disproportion between the punishments for offending Islam [a sedition charge! jail!]), as opposed to the mere 'warning' for offending Christians).
If they had any sense they'd turn the evangelicals loose to evangelise the Muslims all they wanted to - since the Christian community in Singapore is peaceful, stable, literate, industrious, thoroughly Chinese in culture and language, and heavily represented in medicine, science and education; whereas the Muslims (both Malay and Indian) are a perpetual source of worry.
Any 'instability' and 'communal tensions', as we all know so well, tends to originate with Muslim aggression and sense of grievance, rather than with their neighbours.
Why punish Christians for discreetly sharing a perfectly well-founded and factual criticism of Islam? Why not, instead, leave them be and devoutly hope that Christians can transform aggressive, fatalistic, whinging, troublemaking, seditious and jihad-hatching Muslims into happy, peaceful, productive Apostates who will be Good Citizens?
Robert,
You insinuated that Singapore applied double-standards by punishing those two couples more strongly than the Jesus mocker but, despite not having read the contents of either, I'm fairly certain it is due to the severity of the offensive speech in either case.
All state-recognised religions in Singapore are protected under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. It matters not if whatever the couple published was the truth or even if they published it for their own amusement and no-one else's -- the point here is that they published it in full contravention of the law and had to accept the consequences.
If someone had published the equivalent of Piss-Christ or that homosexual rendition of the Last Supper, he too would be charged with sedition.
Consonantly, Robert, your books are banned for sale here in Singapore (although I get them through Amazon just fine) but so too are jihadist literature.
Singapore's government realised decades ago that taking a laissez-faire approach to its multiracial, multi-religious citizenry isn't gonna work; and as we see in Europe and elsewhere, they were right.
Religions are acknowledged as the bedrock of Singaporean society, and it is common to see the leaders of nine religions praying together at State events, but religion is also protected. I would not have it any other way.
Isn't this double standards?
http://vivavoxdei.blogspot.com/2008/04/couple-charged-under-sedition-act-for.html