Libya bans religious parties!

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Libya bans religious parties under new law

image

Libyan authorities on Tuesday passed legislation governing the formation of political organizations which rules out religious, regional and tribal platforms and bans foreign funding.

"Political parties and associations should not be built on the basis of regional, tribal or religious affiliation," a member of the ruling National Transitional Council told AFP.

"They cannot be an extension of a political party abroad or receive foreign funding," said Mustafa Landi, a member of the legal committee.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/25/210076.html

Libya puts a bans on religious parties and foreign funds

23:13 24 APR 2012

(AGI) Tripoli - Libya greenlighted a new bill to regulate the setting up of political parties while banning religious, regional and tribal political organizations, as well as their financing from abroad. A member of the Libyan National Transitional Council explained that " political parties must not rest on a regional, tribal or religious basis," and he also added that they will not be allowed to receive funds from abroad. . .
http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201204242313-pol-ren1108-libya_puts_a_bans_on_religious_parties_and_foreign_funds

I've said a lot of negative stuff about the Middle East, Islamic countries and the Arab Spring, but I'm seriously surprised by this! This is great news and I hope Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood will not disappoint us later this year.

Will Libya soon be a more secular country than the US?
image

I don't share your enthusiasm I'm afraid. Religiously oriented parties do have issues in the US, but they're not always an issue. The Catholic Centre Party in Germany works just fine as far as I can tell, and I don't think the moderate Islamists who won the elections in Egypt have done anything westerners would consider distasteful.

While I don't agree with the sentiment of limiting what you can associate politics with, I absolutely see the necessity of it given the situation. I'd say it's definitely a positive sign that Libya won't devolve into an Islamic theocracy, like a lot of people's worst fears. I suppose it's a form of separation of church and state.

this is possibly a good thing if its worded carefully. Foreign religious organizations have a NASTY habit of coming into third world countries and trying to convert them to a fundamentalist state.

They did it with Africa.

If they worded it correctly, the zealots wont be able to get in.

DJjaffacake:
and I don't think the moderate Islamists who won the elections in Egypt have done anything westerners would consider distasteful.

Lololol, moderate Islamists. Yeah right.

It's better if you keep up with the news.

Egypt bans porn sites for 'destroying religious belief'

An Egyptian administrative court has banned internet porn sites, describing them as "poisons in spreading immorality." The move has some liberal activists worried that Egypt may be moving towards Sharia law.
The court's verdict said X-rated sites "destroy all religious belief, ethics and moral values." It also stated that not blocking them would "destroy values," and the decision could not be considered within the frame of freedom of expression because the material shown on the websites "harms the country's higher interests and its national and social security."
The ruling means that Egyptians are now banned from surfing the web for porn, while it has ordered the websites to be blocked.
http://rt.com/news/egypt-ban-porn-sites-808/

Egypt's new politics make Israel ties a target

CAIRO (Reuters) - To mark the day Egypt regained control of the Sinai peninsula from Israel, a group of protesters pledged they would this week cover a memorial to Israelis killed in the war with an Egyptian flag bearing the words: "Sinai - the invaders' graveyard."

The gesture will be one of the most public expressions of anger against Israel since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, marking the emergence of a long-repressed hostility among many ordinary Egyptians.

Under him, public antipathy towards Israel - a nation with which Egypt has fought four wars - was kept in check, often brutally. It changed when the anti-Mubarak uprising erupted on January 25 last year. Egyptians now openly voice frustrations and are demanding Egypt's new political class listen.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/egypts-new-politics-make-israel-ties-a-target-287576.html

Egypt comedian found guilty of offending Islam --- Updated 54m ago

CAIRO (AP) - An Egyptian court on Tuesday upheld a conviction against one of the Arab world's most famous comedians, sentencing him to jail for offending Islam in some of his most popular films.

The case against Adel Imam and others like it have raised concerns among some Egyptians that ultraconservative Muslims who made gains in recent elections after Hosni Mubarak's ouster last year are trying to foist their religious views on the entire country. Critics say the trend threatens to curb Egypt's vibrant film industry and freedom of speech.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-04-24/egypt-comedian-islam/54511724/1

Sounds like a good idea, but in the context of Libya, tribal and regional are even more important, because tribes still contend with one another. It's hard to form a coherent state that way. As shown by the way Khadaffi was deposed: it started with rivalling tribes and his own tribe stood with him untill the end.

Banning tribal representation altogether might be a way for the new people in power who are from a tribe in the eastern part of Libya, to slowly overcome tribal boundaries.

Then again, that's a process far more complicated than 'ban tribal representation, voila, done'.

Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

Istvan:
Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I love limiting democracy.

Danyal:
Shnip

You may not agree with them doing this, but they were elected, like it or not, that's how democracy works. I don't think banning porn automatically makes them some sort of totalitarian regime.

Oh and by the way: "Lololol moderate Islamists, yeah right"
Way to generalise, have you ever heard of diversity?

I don't know, I mean if Libya wants to be secular like Turkey that would be cool but I don't think the Libyans would go for that but I could be wrong.

Danyal:

Egypt's new politics make Israel ties a target

CAIRO (Reuters) - To mark the day Egypt regained control of the Sinai peninsula from Israel, a group of protesters pledged they would this week cover a memorial to Israelis killed in the war with an Egyptian flag bearing the words: "Sinai - the invaders' graveyard."

The gesture will be one of the most public expressions of anger against Israel since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, marking the emergence of a long-repressed hostility among many ordinary Egyptians.

Under him, public antipathy towards Israel - a nation with which Egypt has fought four wars - was kept in check, often brutally. It changed when the anti-Mubarak uprising erupted on January 25 last year. Egyptians now openly voice frustrations and are demanding Egypt's new political class listen.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/egypts-new-politics-make-israel-ties-a-target-287576.html

What, exactly, does this have to do with extremist Muslims?

There are plenty of secular reasons why Egyptians(and Middle Eastern countries in general) hate Israel.

Edit:

Danyal:
Egypt bans porn sites for 'destroying religious belief'

An Egyptian administrative court has banned internet porn sites, describing them as "poisons in spreading immorality." The move has some liberal activists worried that Egypt may be moving towards Sharia law.
The court's verdict said X-rated sites "destroy all religious belief, ethics and moral values." It also stated that not blocking them would "destroy values," and the decision could not be considered within the frame of freedom of expression because the material shown on the websites "harms the country's higher interests and its national and social security."
The ruling means that Egyptians are now banned from surfing the web for porn, while it has ordered the websites to be blocked.
http://rt.com/news/egypt-ban-porn-sites-808/

Come to think of it, this isn't really an Islam-specific issue either.

Seekster:
I don't know, I mean if Libya wants to be secular like Turkey that would be cool but I don't think the Libyans would go for that but I could be wrong.

What makes you say that?

Hmm. I can see the obvious benefits of this, but I'm skeptical. While it's certainly a good thing that Libya won't have problems with parties based around xenophobia, it kind of goes against the idea of a democracy. If the people elect a government, why shouldn't that government be in power? The main reason would be minority rights issues, but I wonder if there's not some way to preempt that problem without outright banning certain political parties. Regardless, I can see the benefits.

Taking religion out of politics...what do you know, Libya is progressing fast, now if only the rest of the world would remove religion from politic, religion should have absolutely no say in politics.

Istvan:
Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

I would say there is a Difference between a Conservative Party and a Religious Party. A Conservative party is not necessarily based on a Religious Ideology (For Example, the Republican Party of America was not based on Religious Ideology, although today you can claim it is), while a Religious Party is not necessarily Conservative (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I am certain there are).

OT: I think this is great news for Libya! It really shows that they do want Democracy, not a Religious Dictatorship. I guess it took a Bloody Civil War to show them that setting up a government that would pretty much tell them how to run all of their life and to not question it, like Gaddafi Did, wasn't what they wanted.

What, no Christmas parties?!

Okay, more seriously I'd like to see a good definition of what constitutes a religious party. Obviously one that declares itself as such would be banned. But what are the specifics to stop sneakier influences from arising?

While I am glad that Libya looks like they'll be doing better then Egypt in coming years, I kind of dislike how they are going about it. However its better then the country being flooded with Islamic fundamentalism. Though I am still nervous as this may give them a reason to fight.

I totally misread the title as "Libya bans religious panties!" and thought "Libya's banning Mormonism?" /silly

So uh, good for Libya, I guess? What's with the regional/tribal thing? Trying to make sure politics are inclusive?

evilneko:
I totally misread the title as "Libya bans religious panties!" and thought "Libya's banning Mormonism?" /silly

So uh, good for Libya, I guess? What's with the regional/tribal thing? Trying to make sure politics are inclusive?

Well one thing about the regional tribal thing is they could be worried about what happens when tensions occur between parties. That would kind of cause tensions between the tribe or the region and others, no? If it were to end up along those lines I can imagine that conflict would be more likely.

If this works out... Libya could become a major player in the region in the mid-future.

Tribal issues are a big obstacle to creating a large and coherent nation in that part of the world; I imagine that it is something like the squabbling between the colonies and early states in the USA's infancy, and it also took a civil war for the USA to sort that out.

I see potential for either a powder keg or a stabilizing factor. Wait and see would be a good approach here.

Istvan:
Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

It's not about banning conservative parties. It's about (reasonably) placing limits on democracy. Every democratic state should have these limits - it should not be OK for a majority party to, say, make murder legal, or get rid of due process and voting.

Huh, sounds like they are afraid of regional squabbles and religious civil wars, perhaps? They are afraid for the stability of their country and probably for good reason.
While I can understand the sentiment, I'm not exactly in favour.
From the sound of it, it's too broad. I fully support banning anti-democratic parties, such as religious extremists running on a despotic platform or whatever. Parties that are incompatible with a democratic constitution. But banning religious parties altogether seems to go too far in that regard, considering there are always levels.
For instance, the CDU in Germany is nominally the "Christian Democratic Union". They are, for all intents and purposes, a secular party and not anti-democratic or incompatible with our constitution. Would an equivalent of the CDU be banned in Libya under those rules?
Although I suppose one could question in how far a party like the CDU has religion as "its basis". Maybe the ban is more clear and more narrow than we give it credit for?

Seekster:
I don't know, I mean if Libya wants to be secular like Turkey that would be cool but I don't think the Libyans would go for that but I could be wrong.

.
They also have that tribal identity going on with their Religious and nationalist one, so I dunno how it will end. Anyway, Muslim based parties aren't bad. It's the ones that are only based on laws of Islam that are illogical and can't compromise.
.
.
.
And think Israel trains sharks to attack tourists in Egypt.

randomsix:
If this works out... Libya could become a major player in the region in the mid-future.

Tribal issues are a big obstacle to creating a large and coherent nation in that part of the world; I imagine that it is something like the squabbling between the colonies and early states in the USA's infancy, and it also took a civil war for the USA to sort that out.

.
Though if by a stroke of luck they get some social ideas in their heads and go to nationalizing their oil, we might get a new Iran.
.
.
.
Go USA.
Go.
Go... the f*ck away.

I'm actually more impressed by the measure forbidding parties from accepting foreign money. That shows some real foresight. Or perhaps I only perceive it that way because American politicians have lowered my expectations that much.

I, for some utterly stupid reason assumed that you meant religious celebrations. Then for another utterly stupid reason, I scanned down to see you impressed by this action. Luckily, I made a double-take and read further before posting.

This is nice, but nobody should overestimate the effects of this. Lasting change is still a long way off.

Wouldn't the main reason for them to do this to curb lobbying from Iran and other idealogically aggressive nations in the region?

Bertylicious:
Wouldn't the main reason for them to do this to curb lobbying from Iran and other idealogically aggressive nations in the region?

That was my first thought, yeah.
But I do like it.. I wonder what Libya looks like in 20 years.

Mr.Mattress:

Istvan:
Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

I would say there is a Difference between a Conservative Party and a Religious Party. A Conservative party is not necessarily based on a Religious Ideology (For Example, the Republican Party of America was not based on Religious Ideology, although today you can claim it is), while a Religious Party is not necessarily Conservative (I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I am certain there are).

You're neglecting the fact that the Republicans used to be considered a liberal party. I racked my brain for a while for a single example of a conservative party that wasn't religious and I came up with a single hit - The Russian Communist Party, though they quickly became born again Christians hoping to broaden appeal.

Conservatives wish to set the clock back, for humanity to devolve, and this always entails a greater reliance upon religious institutions to cope with the misery and to uphold virtuous living in place of real solutions.

Mr.Mattress:

OT: I think this is great news for Libya! It really shows that they do want Democracy, not a Religious Dictatorship. I guess it took a Bloody Civil War to show them that setting up a government that would pretty much tell them how to run all of their life and to not question it, like Gaddafi Did, wasn't what they wanted.

Gaddafi was a communist, he was very much against religious thought getting prominence. This action is in line with his behaviour, and while this may be necessary I don't think it should invite loud cheers for the democratic and freedom-loving nature of it.

Istvan:
Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

Is it undemocratic to ban strong anti-democratic influences?

While there's something to be said for not banning parties, obviously, in cases like these one has to be realistic at some point and realise that if such parties gain power, it will destroy the democracy that created them.

Yes, the mob may want that now because their priests tell them that's what they are supposed to be think, but when the religious police starts chopping off various body parts and whipping people, people change their minds, but then it's too late.

In that light, I don't think limiting anti-democratic movements like those is undemocratic.

Blablahb:

Istvan:
Isn't banning conservative parties undemocratic? Not surprised to find Danyal cheering at that though.

Is it undemocratic to ban strong anti-democratic influences?

While there's something to be said for not banning parties, obviously, in cases like these one has to be realistic at some point and realise that if such parties gain power, it will destroy the democracy that created them.

Yes, the mob may want that now because their priests tell them that's what they are supposed to be think, but when the religious police starts chopping off various body parts and whipping people, people change their minds, but then it's too late.

In that light, I don't think limiting anti-democratic movements like those is undemocratic.

You don't need to convince me of the practical things of banning conservative parties from obtaining influence, I hate them as much as any lefty, but my point that it is undemocratic remains.

captcha: bruce lee.

I love it when a group of members of a certain discriminated group prove a bunch of Internet bigots' uninformed notions about their group wrong, and the best the bigots can come up with in response is, "Whaaaa!!! Well they must be really different from the rest of their kind then!" One wonders if these same people, if they had grown up in the 50's, wouldn't have been going, "Whaaaaa!!! That Martin Luther King guy is so eloquent! And he's not raping any white women! He's so different from his kind!"

Katatori-kun:
I love it when a group of members of a certain discriminated group prove a bunch of Internet bigots' uninformed notions about their group wrong, and the best the bigots can come up with in response is, "Whaaaa!!! Well they must be really different from the rest of their kind then!" One wonders if these same people, if they had grown up in the 50's, wouldn't have been going, "Whaaaaa!!! That Martin Luther King guy is so eloquent! And he's not raping any white women! He's so different from his kind!"

Please stop being so unclear and just say who you are referring to and what exactly those people said that you mean specifically, because it is really annoying to see so many of your posts criticize this subforum's community in large and/or unspecified swaths (so, no, it definitely isn't about this post specifically; I've just noticed a theme here and feel the need to say it). What I'm saying is that your vagueness does not help with the overall forum's climate, the thing that you seem to have such a problem with in the first place. I at least do not appreciate it, regardless of whether I might or might not be one of the addressees of your various rants. I don't mind your tackling a specific issue or post (that's what this forum is for, after all), but more often than not you seem to just throw inflammatory vagueries out there and that doesn't help one bit.

I suspect Katatori is referring to posts like the "moderate Muslims lololol" one.

And in this instance, I certainly agree with him.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked