Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Deported From Bahrain Over Facebook Posts

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the bah-humbug dept.

Australia 188

An anonymous reader writes "Australian English instructor Tony Mitchell recently moved to Bahrain where he was offered a job at the state-run Polytechnic University. He described himself as a witness of the various horrifying events in the struggling country (see The Atlantic's four-part series). Mitchell was eventually fired, evicted, and forced to flee because of posts he made on Facebook."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38603426)

Call Rupert in on this one. Oh wait, he's an American now.

When in Rome (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603496)

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.

Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

Re:When in Rome (-1, Troll)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603624)

Not in the USA (where he's from), we live and breath the 1st.

Re:When in Rome (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603682)

He's not in the USA.

Re:When in Rome (2)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603830)

Nor is he from the USA. I'm inclined to think that the GP is trying some very subtle troll, cause it's obvious from the summary that the dude is Australian.

Re:When in Rome (3, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604000)

I'm inclined to think that the GP is trying some very subtle troll

I don't think so. American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners and there has been a bunch of case law saying that you can't take away free speech from people just because they aren't citizens. This is a thing which quite a few Americans are rightly proud of. Recently there has been a bunch of outrageous stupidity with things like Guantanamo (indefinite detainment without trial for foreigners) and SOPA (taking away domains from foreigners) but mostly these are outright abuses of the law and the government there still tries to avoid such things getting to court because there is a good chance they would lose.

I think the grandparent was just, as he should pointing out that there are other countries, such as the USA (or Iceland or in fact the whole EU etc.), which are superior to Bahrain in that they support everybody's right to free speech even if they are just visiting.

Re:When in Rome (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604464)

Sorry, but when does USA law apply to Bahrain? Despite what the USA likes to believe, it had borders and its law have limits (which is a "Good Thing"(tm) considering what the USA is trying to ram down everyone's throats of late).

Re:When in Rome (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605060)

or in fact the whole EU

Not quite, while most speech is free here, we still criminalize some at least in part of the countries. For example in Germany, where denying the holocaust is unlawful (and in fact, such laws were first imposed by the US Army when they took control after WWII - apparently, Free Speech only counts back home).

Re:When in Rome (3, Interesting)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605632)

Free speech only counts back home, but only because there was a huge portion of the German populace that refused to believe it happened. Cult-like indoctrination of a country is a long process which Hitler successfully performed, and it takes drastic measures to undo said indoctrination.

Re:When in Rome (0)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605966)

And the government of Bahrein is just taking drastic measures to ensure the internal stability. That line justifies just about any governmental abuse.

They did it because they didn't give a fuck about any rights and knew the majority of the US population wouldn't give a fuck either.

Re:When in Rome (2)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605564)

"American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners>
I think there is still a lot grey areas when it comes to dealing with non-resident foreigners.
Guantanamo has always been a half ass and reckless way of handing a problem that doesn't really fit into any existing US judicial system. Those captured on foreign territory engaged in hostilities against the US has caused the problem. The US judicial system is not a real good option. Any terrorist detained in the US do have the right to the same US judicial system and protections that all citizens have. It's those detained in foreign countries that is presenting the problem. Technically they are prisoners of war and the normal process in wartime is to re-patriot them to their home countries after hostilities have ended. This type of system does not really apply either because the hostilities have not ended and I doubt the hostilities will end anytime soon. In addition the International Geneva Conventions allows for the summary execution of those captured during war that bear no insignia or other identification that proves they are agents of the state governments involved in the war. I believe this item was targeted at spy's and grew out of WW2 and the cold war eras. The US has tried to release a majority of the prisoners but no country is willing to accept them. The US has even used bribes to encourage a country to accept the prisoner without much luck. I don't know why the US just doesn't strap parachutes on those being released and air drop them back where they first captured and be done with.

Re:When in Rome (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603872)

He's not in the USA.

No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what. This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.

People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.

Re:When in Rome (-1, Troll)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603902)

But if the culture of the country you are in doesn't respect freedom of speech aren't you being culturally insensitive by imposing your quaint right to free speech on the people in that country?

You need to be more culturally sensitive, what are you a Retardican?

Re:When in Rome (1, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604042)

In a way this is an example of why third world countries don't improve to first world standards. Their best people leave to first world countries. As a result the third world country is run by third world leaders supported by third world voters. First world guy drops in to get a job, discovers that the place is badly run and follows emigrants from that country back to his own first world country.

So if you want to see improvement in Bahrain, don't allow immigration from that country at all, for at least a generation. People with the ability to change things will be forced to do it on their own turf.

Re:When in Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604682)

There is no voting... mostly it's dictators, monarchs or military strongmen.

Re:When in Rome (3, Insightful)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604694)

That is, of course, merely curtailing another fundamental human right to resettle. Beyond that, it was tried (and didn't work) for the USSR.

Re:When in Rome (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605932)

In a way this is an example of why third world countries don't improve to first world standards. Their best people leave to first world countries. As a result the third world country is run by third world leaders supported by third world voters.

Ha!
Bahrain is a third world country supported by the US of A.
The same goes for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, and Qatar.
(I may have missed a middle eastern country or two, there are a few asian ones I didn't include)

As long as they're with us on Oil, Israel, and the Global War on Terror, we give them free reign to act like assholes to their own citizens.

Re:When in Rome (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606072)

Without the USA the countries you list would just go back to living in tents, riding around on camels and cutting each others heads off. (to paraphrase a line from Syriana [wikipedia.org] ). It won't make a difference to their third world status.

Re:When in Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604098)

Quaint right to free speech? All people should have such a quaint right you idiot.

Re:When in Rome (2)

treeves (963993) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605090)

...and if the cultural norm is to shoot people for peacefully protesting, we should just accept that cultural difference and be happy.

Re:When in Rome (3, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604100)

No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.

Agreed, although I would go one step further to say that, while this is a fundamental right that nobody has the right to take away from you, that doesn't mean that people with power won't try, nor does it mean that you will not (possibly) suffer for attempting to exercise that right. There is a subtle distinction between "This is the way it should be" and "This is the way it is."

This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.

People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.

Agreed, without reservations.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604184)

freedom of speech ... is a ... ancient right

ROTFLMAO.

which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what

Multiculturalism believes that all cultures are just as valid as "Western Judeo-Christianity", and their culture says, "don't insult the Sultan".

[sarcasm]Multiculturalism FTW!![/sarcasm]

Let them eat cake (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604474)

He's not in the USA.

No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.

Of course freedom of speech allows you to say something that is so blatantly wrong, but it also allows me to correct you... In some countries there is some degree of freedom of speech but nothing like in the USA.

As an example, in France making a sexist or racist joke can lead to jail time. And France is not Myanmar. Canada has also strong laws regarding "hate propaganda" and antisemitism.

When you say that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, you remind me of a child that does not understand that their poor neighbor can't afford a Xbox like they do.

Re:When in Rome (2, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604888)

freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right

[citation needed]

Seriously - name a country that had such a right before 1776.

Re:When in Rome (3, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605376)

Actually, it does date back a long time [wikipedia.org] . The concept was not an invention of the US consititution.

Re:When in Rome (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606060)

The idea that it's wrong to harm someone physically or deprive them of their possessions based merely on something they said, especially if it's true, can be traced all the way back to the idea of proportional response, and even to the Golden Rule. These concepts are among the oldest principles of justice around, predating even the concepts of nations and governments, much less political philosophy and formally recognized rights.

Re:When in Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604998)

Try waving a US flag in Mexico, or saying things against it's government...you could find yourself staring a a brick wall in a mexican cell with no expectations of being free for a long time.

Re:When in Rome (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603726)

I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities. Same goes for any other countries.

Even the US has its standards and if as somebody here on a visa one does something that pisses off the government one shouldn't be surprised if one isn't offered a renewal.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603852)

True, my point is he was raised different, its not uncommon for people who move to different countries later in life, struggle culturally. In this case, the government controls the culture with fear, so clashing with the culture = clashing w the government, make sense?

While we can make an argument for how arrogant it makes us Americans, but we are used to having the 1st amendment shielding us and having lived w it your whole life, you come to expect it.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603900)

Point taken, though he's still not American.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603984)

Not sure why I thought that, I did read the article for once :P

I guess he's just kinda dumb for doing what he did either way.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605026)

I completely agree he should've kept his mouth shut, or at least expected consequences. Bahrain isn't known for its tolerance of dissent.

Re:When in Rome (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603972)

Show no pity or sympathy for the Aussie. Westerners are paid big bucks to work in those oil-rich kingdoms, and this prick did nothing but bite the hand that feeds him. It was his decision to teach there.

He's like a street whore who made the choice to be a rich pimp's bottom bitch, [wikipedia.org] then talked shit about him when he slapped another ho and was thrown back out on the street.

As others have said, the Aussie is lucky to have escaped intact.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604744)

Show no pity or sympathy for the Aussie. Westerners are paid big bucks to work in those oil-rich kingdoms, and this prick did nothing but bite the hand that feeds him. It was his decision to teach there.

If, as is the case here, the hand that feeds you is part of a repressive regime of questionable legitimacy that one, in all good conscience, should be opposing rather than supporting- I don't see anything morally wrong or ungrateful with someone biting that hand. Quite the opposite. I'd rather they f****** bit it right off.

Arguably what the guy did wrong was to overlook the repressive nature of the regime in the first place and work in that country under the leadership's terms in exchange for their "big bucks".

Re:When in Rome (5, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604170)

I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities.

That's not the question. The question is:

Your company sends you for a one year contract in Iran; you see your male neighbor rape another female neighbor. Then he reports her to the police. Now she, the rape victim, is going up for trial for adultery and likely to be stoned to death. Do you say it's wrong?

You never intended to badmouth the Iranians; You wanted to support their culture and be open; but now you are faced with the bad side of it. Are you really saying it's a better person who lets the rape victim be stoned to death without a word?

Re:When in Rome (2)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604680)

Wow. That was a face slap of cold water...but well put.

I'll bite on this for a moment and play the "what would I do" game. Given what you said, I would quietly make plans to get out of the country quickly, but with reason. I'd tell my local boss I have family issues that need addressing at home and it wont take long. Before male neighbor or female neighbor truly discover I witnessed this atrocity I am on a plane, back for home. My next stop is to call a recruiter to begin looking for a new job, because no matter what the outcome, I am screwed. I tell the home office it is impossible for me to go back to Iran because I was witness to a crime that was legal in that country, but goes against everything I believe in. If I don't value my life I then go to the press and report my story knowing it may create back lash against me, but brings out the sad tale. If I do I shut up, pray I don't get fired and hope the recruiter can find me a new job.

Personally, I would never take a job in a country like Iran, no matter how beautiful the country may be, how friendly the general population may be. It is not the general population I fear, it is the government and in such a place, I have no protection...period.

You really raised a good point, one people in countries like the US, Australia, England, at el miss. When we provide aid to overt dictators (be they religious or secular) we grant them some level of value, of power they do not deserve. There will always be people who will do anything for money. Given your example, that person in Iran would look the other way, say thank you for the big check and live with no conscious.
   

Re:When in Rome (2)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604734)

It's risky. I have family in Saudi Arabia, and they are afraid enough of Saudi courts and the monarchy that they would never criticize anything on the record. People are treated inhumanely, especially women, and few people say anything about it. If I were to ever visit a country like that I would keep my mouth firmly closed while on the record. Even if I left, vowing never to return, I would be scared to openly criticize much.

Re:When in Rome (1)

ekgringo (693136) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605862)

I did a semester of school in Saudi Arabia in an ASL (Arabic as a Second Language) program. None of the instructors would say anything but glowing praise about the government (if they bothered to mention it at all) except one. He would tow the party line loudly for a minute, get up, close the door, then speak in hushed tones in a slightly less-enthusiastic manner than the usual "rah rah rah King!" After a few minutes of not-quite-praise of the government, he would open the door and move on with the rest of the normal lesson.

Re:When in Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38603750)

At least until someone mutters terrorist and bundles you into a black SUV.

Re:When in Rome (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603856)

Yep, Live and Breath [google.com] the 1st....

Re:When in Rome (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604298)

You know I should add, I know I'm trolling, but I'm bitter the movement was shut down so fast. You know they used the %@#$ Patriot Act to crack down on the protestors? I was really hoping it would go somewhere. Change the National Narrative. I wish I could say it was nice while it lasted but it didn't even last that long...

Re:When in Rome (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604620)

Yeah because all the people carrying obama is hitler signs are in prison.. oh wait..

Re:When in Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604886)

Can I travel to the US and make 9/11 jokes at the airport?

Re:When in Rome (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605108)

Probably, you'd get a bunch of pissed of people looks and some TSA would probably ask you to keep moving and if you didn't, he'd take you to the office on disturbing the peace, let you sit for an hour and tell you to gtfo. Don't expect a black bag and a beating though.

Did you hear the one about American Airlines new deal? They’ll fly you straight from the airport to the office.

Re:When in Rome (3, Insightful)

inzy (1095415) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603684)

on the other hand, some would say he had balls for standing up to the oppressors. he stands up for what he thinks is right, and you say "well, it's your own fault" when he gets deported? perhaps if more people stood up, not less, we wouldn't have these problems, regardless of having crossed some arbitrary boundary like a nation-state border. we're all humans, irrespective of where we are. show some backbone and stop being so subservient to power

Re:When in Rome (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603704)

If one feels that strongly about it, one probably shouldn't be taking a job there. Pissing off the government in somebody elses country then accepting deportation as punishment is hardly something that's going to do much for the quality of life of the people living there.

Re:When in Rome (5, Interesting)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604114)

on the other hand, some would say he had balls for standing up to the oppressors.

He does.

he stands up for what he thinks is right, and you say "well, it's your own fault" when he gets deported?

It is. They are not mutually exclusive.

I support people standing up for whatever they believe in, and I certainly support this guy's cause. At the same time, I have no idea where this notion that one should be free from consequences if they are doing what they feel is right has come from. It is not a thing to be proud of, but it is a reality. Black people were arrested and beaten constantly standing up for their rights in the civil rights area. I'm sure none of them wanted to be, and but I also don't remember them going on about how they were in disbelief that they were arrested for breaking the law. They expected it. That was their way of standing up and drawing attention to how bad things were.

So yes, he is welcome to stand up to oppressors, but he has to also be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. That's pretty much the crux of the whole "taking a stand" thing; if you're only doing it with the expectation there will never be consequences, you're not exactly going out on a limb are you? Frankly he should be quite happy with the results. Things aren't too bad for him and he has made the news nationally and internationally. That's damn close to a best case scenario for people hoping to effect change.

Re:When in Rome (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603794)

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.

And if you do, you had better be the mad Jester in the court. Otherwise don't get too attached to that whole "breathing" thing.

Re:When in Rome (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603846)

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.

Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

Or the people that run the government.

Look it's not a problem. They are our allies. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603908)

The navy needs them, so they can do what they like.

Re:When in Rome (1, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603968)

And yet, checking the immigration status of people arrested is somehow racist...

Re:When in Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604376)

Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

Ummm, no. Let me fix that for you:

When you're in an Arab country with no human rights, you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

There are many expatriates who make a lot of money working for a rich Gulf state. But you have no rights. Conduct yourself accordingly.

Re:When in Rome (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604634)

Some of us walk on eggshells, some of us throw eggs. If the worst that could happen is deportation, I could egg a tyrant.

Get out of fail free card. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38603518)

When a tyrannical government buys you a ticket out of their country, you take it.

Re:Get out of fail free card. (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603842)

Government: Here's your plane ticket. Get out.

Dissenter: Screw you, man! I'm standing up for FREEDOM!!

Government: We could shock your balls instead.

Dissenter: Which flight was that again?

He is lucky (4, Insightful)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603548)

Under the new NDAA bill, he would simply "disappear" without due process. God bless democratic Bahrain.

Re:He is lucky (4, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604452)

For a love of.... We are talking about Bahrain, not US. It is getting old. Push your message about evil NDAA and POSA in other forums. This one already knows that.

Re:He is lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606042)

Woosh...?

GP knows he's talking about Bahrain - NDAA is a US bill. The joke was in the comparison that if he had done the same thing in the US... oh forget it.

Re:He is lucky (1)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604754)

Why do you think all his friends and co-expatriates nervously suggested he leave sooner rather than later?

Derp? (4, Insightful)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603566)

I'm not saying what happened to him is right. There's a lot of wrong in this world, but a lot of this wrong is fact.

If you go to a country, with a government who performs these acts, while in a public position that's easily identified and, well, damn it's public man.

You're out there easy to see, you're visiting on the basis of the job, and you draw attention to yourself in a country where police damage property and people disappear all the time?

Did you think your justice shield would protect you? It doesn't matter if you're right, it's still not in your best interest to do it.

Wait until you leave the country and don't ever plan / intend to go back (They might be waiting for you) before you start commenting and throwing around any ego (Specifically his comment about wait till after the 30th and I'll tell you)

When you say something like that, it's a slap in the face to the people you're protesting. They told you they want you out, and you know they're watching facebook, so you tell them even tho I promised not to say anything, I'm going to do it as soon as I leave?

Bad idea to show your cards there.

I'm just glad you took the chance to get out and your family is safe. Places like that can get scary very, very fast.

Re:Derp? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603686)

Yep, from the article sounds like they black hood people over there, v for vendetta type shit. Dunno, not much we can do, the people over there have to take action somehow. The government is trying its best to prevent this by going as far as monitoring social media.

Re:Derp? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604770)

Well, if America wanted to express displeasure with Bahrain, it could start by finding somewhere else to base the Fifth Fleet.

That's why you don't hear nearly as much from the media about Bahrain as you do about Syria or Iran: because Bahrain is a US military ally. That means they can do pretty much whatever they like in their own country.

Re:Derp? (1)

tsiene (1649895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604508)

Did you think your justice shield would protect you? It doesn't matter if you're right, it's still not in your best interest to do it.

Perhaps this is the line that he chooses to cross, in the name of truth and love, that so many others fear to. His best interests are not yours and you should respect his decision.

I'm just glad you took the chance to get out and your family is safe. Places like that can get scary very, very fast.

There is much evil in the world, but when someone threatens those you love, don't ever think that their innocent suffering for your good actions is your fault. It is that of the evil devising and carrying out such terrible threats. This is what true terrorism is all about: Using fear to control others.

Always remember, if you bow to the demands of evil, you bow to your fear, and that evil will never hesitate to feed that fear again.

Re:Derp? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605240)

It's not in anyone best interest, because even if it's an act against an oppressive government, it's a piss poor way of doing it. It's like trying to stop a war buy running unarmed in the middle of the battlefield yelling "Stop!". It may be brave, but it's also stupid.

Re:Derp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605094)

It is your responsibility to claim your rights. If they can convince you not to use your rights, its just as wrong.

It is your responsibility to break unjust laws and resist violations of your rights at every opportunity. If you can, you have an obligation to do it for those who can not.

You'd think... (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603580)

...that, as an Australian, he'd be used to censorship on the internet.

If you are willing to go to an oppressive country. And in so doing contribute to their economy and success, then... it's just crocodile tears when you find out that that oppressive country is oppressive to you too.

Re:You'd think... (4, Interesting)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603986)

To be fair we never allowed that censorship law to pass. There are still forces at work to get the internet censored but currently it's uncensored here in Australia.

Re:You'd think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604146)

I wonder if the country is oppressive to the US Fifth Fleet.

Re:You'd think... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38604358)

"And in so doing contribute to their economy and success"

Like the entire US 5th fleet? We are in the lap of one sadistic regime (Bahrain) to protect the world from another sadistic regime (Iran). The point of all this is?

Re:You'd think... (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605268)

What do you mean "we", white man? Not everyone here's from the US, you know?

This is unfortunate. (4, Interesting)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603622)

This is unfortunate--there is a great deal that is quite wrong in the world, that is in effect only available on a pull-basis. I met a guy at a panel discussion a few months ago who had been personally tortured by Kaderov, the governor of Chechneya for Moscow. Why the hell do we waste so much time on what they put on the news, when you could actually be reporting that kind of thing on the news? Five to ten minutes a week that isn't a sound-byte, but is someone talking about an issue, would be a massive increase to the information most Americans receive.

The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603730)

I was a college student in 2002, and my university was one of the first to be offered the ability for students with an @xxx.edu email address to sign up for Facebook.

I signed up for it, looked at it, and saw what it did to my friends in the same dorm -- making them sit in front of the computer for hours at night, scrolling through pictures and comments posted by friends ..all without communicating with them. I also had some serious concerns about privacy, as I started to see various little dramas emerge on campus as a result of information gleaned on Facebook. Also, since you have to use your real, legal name , this becomes very easily googlable and archivable for the future -- so something that seems "cool" in college could later become an embarrassing footnote during a future job search,

I have always used various pseduonyms online, and I use Google+ today for the reason it lets me do this. In such a way, I can contribute comments with more impartiality, and without fear that someone can google it and gain information about my personality, and political preferences.

However, since this person did indeed "friend" folks on Facebook that provided this information, the issue becomes more -- maybe he needs a second facebook or other social networking account so he can air his opinions more honestly?

It seems to me like Facebook's strategy is to make all this information easy to access, and accountable to an individual person -- and they want it to be searchable, indexed, accessible to anyone. The long web of political associations, viewpoints and other issues expressed on Facebook is a treasure trove for investigators and extremely worrisome in totalitarian societies.

How easy would it have been for the FBI to dismantle the Weather Underground in the 70s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38603866)

How easy would it have been for the FBI to dismantle the Weather Underground in the 70s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!

If only!!!

Oh, I see, you are a fan of terrorists blowing things up.

***Walks away slowly***

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604010)

Replace "Weather Underground" with "Occupy Wall Street", or anything else ..I just intended it as a metasynthatic variable for any radical political group.

It's people who read things like my quote and assume I'm a fan of terrorists that scares me about Facebook postings being taken out of context and hurting people's careers....

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604652)

It's people who read things like my quote and assume I'm a fan of terrorists that scares me about Facebook postings being taken out of context and hurting people's careers....

No shit.

Here's a better example to use in the future, to avoid idiotic trolling:

How easy would it have been for the British Empire to dismantle the Sons of Liberty in the 1770s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!

Well, avoid trolls who don't hate America, anyway.

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604844)

That's certainly a more diplomatic and just as effective example.

I have to point out that had we been forced to use our "Real Names" on Slashdot, now data-miners have dirt on the both of us: Apparently, according to anonymous coward, I'm pro-terrorists, and you're racist against trolls and the type of person who enjoys calling people idiots.

Of course, that's not actually what happened, but my point is that with real names these little things can be taken out of context and made into something that it's not -- or affect peoples lives and careers. Not cool.

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605432)

Except that the weather underground really were terrorists. And the OWS folks really have had no shortage of people who have had murders, rapes, arson's, thefts, destruction of public and private property, tied to them either. The difference between then and now though is that people in the past who were private in say the US weren't looked at with suspicion. Today people who are private in the US are. Though in pretty much anywhere else in the world, the opposite hold true still.

You probably picked a poor example to make your point with, which is your own fault. But a name of an event, tied to a real name will tar you with the same brush all the same. The media does it whenever it feels like it. You just got it because some AC felt like it too. I just pointed out the facts that both the WU and OWS were both like they were. It doesn't matter if you think it was correct or not, or how you did or don't want it to affect or effect someones careers. If you live somewhere, where affiliating your name with something will have verifiable impact on your name, don't use your name.

And the only reason (-1, Flamebait)

ADRA (37398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603746)

That this got posted vs. the thousands of similar stories that happen in a given year was that it happened on Facebook... lame story. Moving on...

But how can it be? (2)

The Creator (4611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603876)

The lovely lovely democratic freedom loving state of Bahrain is on the US good guy list! (Along with Saudi Arabia)

The US even has troops in these countries so that their own troops can focus on upholding liberty and justice for all!

That Australian chap must have said something really really nasty! Nasty nasty! Must have deserved what he got!

Re:But how can it be? (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604270)

The US even has troops in these countries so that their own troops can focus on upholding liberty and justice for all!

Don't be stupid. The only reason we give a rat's ass about them is that precious fluid which powers the world's economy.

Re:But how can it be? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604416)

So you want the USA to invade Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?

Re:But how can it be? (1)

The Creator (4611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604782)

Wow, are you sure there are no other choices than support or invade?

As a general rule ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38603918)

As a general rule, you do NOT criticize a foreign nation while you are in it. This is even true if you are visiting a country with a strong respect for freedom and due process. The reason is simple enough: even though you are expected to obey their laws, you are almost never given the same legal protection as a citizen.

So yes, bring your issues up. Yet you should demonstrate enough patience to protect yourself and the people who you associated with in that country.

Re:As a general rule ... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605444)

Well...this is pretty much true, unless you're in a western country. Then it's perfectly okay. Try it sometime and see what happens, because in a "western nation" you'll be treated with kid gloves. Anywhere else, they'll put the kid gloves on you before they take a hand, or start lashing you, then deport you.

Nuke Bahrain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38603932)

End fascism

And how is this news? (4, Informative)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604024)

Bahrain beat and killed its own citizens because they dared to demand rights. The rulers are evil tyrants along the lines of Gaddafi, Assad, et al. Kicking an Australian out of the country for what he posted on Facebook is nothing compared to the far more vile atrocities they have committed.

Re:And how is this news? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605300)

Both are news. This involves FACEBOOK! therefore it's considered /. worthy, while the other isn't.

Re:And how is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605324)

"along the lines of Gaddafi and Assad"? As in, he has brown skin? While not meeting the western standard of good, you can just as easily lump Obama in the same category for failing to veto NDAA. Let's use a tiny bit of perspective.

Ladies and Gentlemen (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604188)

Welcome to Bahrain International Airport. Please set your watches back Five Hundred Years.

Yet more sensationistic articles (5, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604198)

Mr. Mitchell was not;
1. "deported" His job ended so he probably no longer had a valid work visa
2. "forced to flee". He was advides by his ex-boss to leave as soon as possible. He could have refused and stayed until he something happened.

How about a little truth in reporting. The issue is bad enough as it is without throwing falsehoods on top.

Re:Yet more sensationistic articles (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604768)

"Reading between the lines" and "recognizing subtext" isn't quite the same as "throwing falsehoods."

A threat's a threat, even if they don't wave the electrodes in your face.

What I think (1)

marketingwarrior1141 (2546664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38604546)

People should be careful of what they post now a days online. It could cost people their jobs.

Hey, we do that too. Worse, really (1)

rbrander (73222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605142)

All that US prosecutors have to do now is torture the facts until they reveal that your unpopular opinions constitute "material support for terrorism":

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/i-guess-posting-videos-online-can-make-you-terrorist [motherjones.com] ...you can easily see the Bahrain prosecutors turning "activism" into "terrorism" with a stroke of the pen and a few sad stories of injured policemen at the protests, and the "value of the advertising" of the Facebook page turned into "material support", the way the Bostonian's "free translation for Al-Qaeda" became material support for them.

It's becoming really difficult to find anything these countries do, that we used to be able to look down upon, that they can't now throw into our face.

Re:Hey, we do that too. Worse, really (3, Insightful)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605568)

a few sad stories of injured policemen at the protests

In Lybia, the goverment says that a lot of soldiers were killed during the protests, but in fact, they were killed by other soldiers because they refused to shoot people.

Being a soldier does not automatically make you a brainless killer.

An Austrailian teaching English? (2)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605438)

Perish the thought, I think I'm gonna faint.

I've been there; they barely even speak English.

(joking, just joking)

Re:An Austrailian teaching English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38605546)

At least they can spell....

Re:An Austrailian teaching English? (1)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#38605592)

At least they can spell....

Austrailian is phonetically accurate, as pronounced in Australia.

Plus "Preview" is suspiciously Australian in appearance, and there isn't an accurate version of that word in English.

Don't friend people you can't trust (1)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606028)

Good that he got out of there OK, honestly I would have left on my own accord after seeing some of that going on, but you would also think that after the first warning that some of his "friends" were monitoring him, that he would have removed all of his Bahrain "friends" or at least put on profile restrictions to restrict his Bahrain "friends" from seeing his wall or profile.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?