UK.gov moves to block Hamas kids site The Home Office is considering blocking a childrens' website run by the Palestinian group Hamas following suggestions it incites hatred of Jews. Liverpool MP Louise Ellman, chair of the Labour Jewish Movement, has called on ministers to block access to al-Fateh.net, a webzine launched by Hamas in 2002. Alongside baking recipes …
....is wrong with these people.
its not for gubberments to block access to any websites. Thats the job of a parent.
its small step away from censorship. if they are ever allowed to block a site because someone finds it offensive, the next thing is any site that opposes anything will be banned... say goodbye to vulture central...
a government controlled interwebs, yay, thats what we all want..... NOT !!!
By any reasonable definition, our last common ancestor would be classified as an ape. Modern cladistics don't you know. "Apes" is a group consisting of gibbons, chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans, and everything descended from the last common ancestor of all of them.
Humans *are* apes, and primates, and eutherian mammals, and tetrapods, and vertebrates, and animals, and metazoa, and eukaryotes.
Man is not descended from the *currently living* great apes, but given our massive genetic similarity to chimps and bonobos, and the relatively big genetic difference between us and orangutangs, our common ancestor with the chimp would have been a member of the ape family, something which had evolved after the split between the African Homonidae (gorillas, chimps) and the Eastern Homonidae (whence modern Orangutans).
Man is descended from apes -- the "missing link" being sought is when man ceased to be an ape and became man.
If "apes" is to be considered a valid phylogenetic group, then we ARE descended from apes, and we ARE apes too. Look up monophyletic group.
If apes is to be defined as all anthropoid primates excluding humans, i.e. a paraphyletic group, then... we'd still be descended from an ape anyway, even if we weren't one. But paraphyletic groups, e.g. "reptiles" are invalid phylogenetically, so don't waste time with them.
Anyway, even if it was technically wrong, that was not really the point of the original comment above.
Having suffered religious indoctrination from an early age and having taken some time and effort to get beyond it I wholly agree.
Given that the basic premise of all major religions seems to be 'if you believe as we do then you are superior to all of those who don't' and given their adherents' propensity for blowing each other up, the sooner we remove any tacit or overt support of spreading religion to anyone under the age of consent the better. This stuff has no place in schools. I don't advocate the censoring of the net but schools are probably a special case; surf whatever your parents deem fit at home. 'Aint ever gonna happen mind, most politicos seem to have a messianic streak and an affinity for rigid dogma.
I distinctly remember being taught about the martyrs of my particular religious infliction at my religious school and longing, as teenage boys are wont to do, for the opportunity to fight for the cause! If the IRA had made their fight a catholic fight rather than an Irish one they'd have found a willing, very English recruit in the teenage, catholic me and at least one of my school friends would probably have formed a cell with me.
I saw a poster in a school recently proclaiming 'Science asks how, religion asks why' and that was in a secular school! My experience of religion is that it asks nothing but tells you lies.
AC 'cause I'm employed in education and don't want the nulab thought police to come knocking!
"its not for gubberments to block access to any websites"
if you read the article, they wouldn't _BE_ blocking it
they'd just be adding it to a list that parental control apps use (i.e. the parent has chosen) or that schools use (and they have a perfect right to control internet access they provide)
No they are just adding it to a quasi-official list of sites to be blocked by schools, parents etc.
Of course schools don't have to use this list, the teachers can just explain to the Daily Fail why they are letting peado-internet-terrorists have access to the dear sweet little children.
It's like not banning games/movies, you just 'classify' anything you don't like as "XXX evil = only a deviant pervert would watch this" - you aren't a deviant pervert are you?
So you wouldn't be wanting to watch this would you?
....by the idea of a Labour Jewish Movement. This country is in DESPERATE need of some legislation for the seperation of church and state.
Political parties have no business hosting religious movements of any stripe; they're more than capable of coming up with made-up, bigoted, racist bullshit without any help from churches!
"This country is in DESPERATE need of some legislation for the seperation of church and state. Political parties have no business hosting religious movements of any stripe"
Indeed. The problem with the whole church and state thing is that you have aging Imperial Britards claiming that churchgoing, Christianity and Sunday School is the bedrock of British society. Then various other Britards chime in and say that they don't like "the influence" of some other religion or culture. Although the logical response would be to say that it's really a secular country and that no religion should be favoured (or even promoted) by the state, and make common-sense pronouncements based on that, the aforementioned Britard groups then want to drag Jesus and the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the Pope, or an unholy mixture) back into it.
Now it would be unreasonable (and contrary to various rulings and laws) to push only the flavours of Jesus that the Britard traditionalists favour, causing much unrest amongst everyone who doesn't subscribe to those flavours or to anything Jesus-oriented, and yet such traditionalist whiners must apparently be pacified. The result is a compromise involving an unhealthy dose of everybody's favourite belief system being foisted on everybody, occupying unproductive swathes of the curriculum in schools (amongst other things) and generally encouraging everyone to play some religion card in every public debate.
I don't begrudge anyone who wants to safeguard the culture and traditions of any group of people the opportunity to remind the government and the public of their obligations of ensuring that tolerance and respect are the order of the day. The "Labour Jewish Movement", or maybe the author meant the "Jewish Labour Movement", appears to encourage the acceptance and tolerance of all cultures (including Jewish culture, obviously), and this should obviously be applauded.
What is somewhat unfortunate is that the organisation invokes the "Jewish" branding while pursuing issues pertinent to the modern state of Israel. Although there is a degree of overlap (and a degree of responsibility on Britain and, especially, on other nations for their historical role in mixing religion, identity and politics to cause such an overlap), once again we see the same old unfortunate problems with "church" and state in politics and the temptation to combine the two: what Israel does should be considered as completely separate from any person's Jewish identity; it is precisely the kind of failure to understand such matters which leads to the kind of idiocy that is paraded continuously in front of the captive audiences of the likes of Hamas.
Ultimately, this isn't about religious influence - you usually get that from whiny Christian groups in Britain - but it involves religious tolerance and the way idiotic political agitation can end up invoking religious intolerance.
I don't understand why you would want to brainwash a chi... I mean teach any religion to a child in the first place anyway.
Looks like another busy body within our governement wants to butt their nose into other nations business, obviously because over here we know best, with this bed of fucking roses that Labour have created for us. Fucking Labour MP's. Know what's best for everyone, including subjects they know fuck all about. As fucking usual.
Here, take this fork from me as i'm incapable of feeding myself without stabbing myself in the eye.
I thought that was what our Goovermin was playing with in it's affart to join up it's political thinking.
What about the labour Anarchist movement, don't we get a say ?
Why can't the goovermin spontaneously combust, fry an egg, tie it's shoe laces, without the help of the Isrealis ?
Oh yeah, they are writing all our surveilance software for us, RIGHT !
ALF
and everything to do with enabling some dimwit MP to say "VOTE FOR ME because I single-handedly took on Islamic Terrowarriors on T'Internet" in seeking the votes of people that don't have a basic understanding of how the internet works. Now that she's asked the question in Parliament and (presumably) issued a press release ("Ellman calls for UK government to stop terrorists targetting our kids"), expect the whole issue to die a death. She has no intention of trying to actually block access because that's not practical - the purpose of the exercise is to get her name in the papers. A general election is approaching - expect more of this stuff.
Jeez, I find it amazing that some people can be so naive. For starters, the whole Israeli campaign is not to get websites blocked or banned, they know that is a largely pointless as there are plenty of hosters willing to host anything well out of the reach of the UK or EU (why do you think the site is in Russia?), and plenty of people like the posters here who will dress up anti-semitism as "free speech". The idea of the Israeli campaign is to highlight the fact that Hamas is trying to brainwash the children of Gaza with genocidal hatred from the earliest age possible, which hardly bodes well for the EU plan of two states living side by side in peace, and makes it harder for the anti-semites to claim that Hamas is serious about a peace deal.
The MP involved is trying to look tough on Islamic extremists, but probably only because she doesn't have a large Muslim Asian constituency. Other NuLab MPs with such constituencies have been much quieter in their criticism of extremist groups such as Hamas.
Before the expected anti-Israeli dribblings, please remember the following:
1. There are no Israeli settlers in Gaza.
2. The wall has massively reduced the capability of Palestinian terrroist groups to mount suicide ops against Israeli citizens.
3. Israel mounts targeted assassination operations against known terrorists in Gaza. Hamas simply targets Israelis of any age and celebrates when it kills children.
Let the dribbling begin!
Brown knows what is best for your brains?
I am glad I live in a country other than Britain where I am free to look at anything, although some downloads might be a illegal. I think most parents are capable of exercising good judgement.
Besides, any viewers of banned web sites can simply use a proxy such as Google's.
Register readers really hate Israel.
I'm not a big proponent of censorship or anything, but taking down a site that instructs children to kill people is cool with me. Telling someone they can't yell fire in a crowded theatre isn't censorship, sorry.
But hey, the person that said it was a JEW, and we know what the average El Reg commentard thinks of them and Israel.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
