Seditious Threads

Dragon

*
Administrator
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
37,609
Reaction score
1,539
Typical double standards from our moderators perhaps?

Suan their own religion = ban.


Suan other religions = warnings at most....

You are taking things out of context.

User i_ish_not_troll was hurling vulgarities left right center on top of his anti-religion comments, hence warranting an immediate ban.

If you feel that any specific user should be banned too, kindly report him/her to our attention accordingly. Thanks. :)
 

lyfeforce

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
18,532
Reaction score
30
I think some of you are confused on the type of action we can take. There is no immediate ban to be implemented (except for spam bots). For any other offences, we issue warnings or infractions depending on the severity of that offence.

For bans, posting trends are taken into consideration before any ban is suggested. Any bans that occur are often due to accumulation of infraction points. That's why sometimes you see members banned and others not.

Another misunderstanding comes from assuming that a member was banned for a certain thread whereas he or she may have been banned for an unrelated reason. Then, of course, all the unwarranted calls of bias come out with no basis.

The infraction system has been explained quite clearly here.

On another note, not every report is deemed to offensive. So some reports are not acted upon. The action for those valid reports are taken by any of the moderating team, and there are records of action taken. All moderators are expected to take the same stance and they still do.

Meanwhile, if you do feel that a particular post is offensive, please do report it. The moderating team will take action where necessary.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
623
Reaction score
0
On another note, not every report is deemed to offensive. So some reports are not acted upon. The action for those valid reports are taken by any of the moderating team, and there are records of action taken. All moderators are expected to take the same stance and they still do.

Meanwhile, if you do feel that a particular post is offensive, please do report it. The moderating team will take action where necessary.

Could you perhaps make yourself clear on what YOU think is offensive and what isn't?

It's your chance to show people here you are not just cherry-picking posts to be acted on. Just saying.
 

lyfeforce

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
18,532
Reaction score
30
Could you perhaps make yourself clear on what YOU think is offensive and what isn't?

It's your chance to show people here you are not just cherry-picking posts to be acted on. Just saying.

Let's take a look at 3 different quotes.

Do Muslims and Christians pray to the same God?

All Muslims are terrorists!

These Buddhists ***s are violent ****s!

The first post may seem insensitive but it's basically just a ignorant question. It could have been due to articles comparing parallels between the 2 religions.

The other 2 are straight-forward, aren't they?

We don't cherry pick posts, as you say. We cannot afford to but at the same time, we must be fair to members who just ask a simple question.

And we do know how to identify who's genuine and who's subtly trying to create trouble.

We do depend on members' reports to point incendiary content but please do not mistake reports as a guarantee of action. There are criteria for action to be taken as well.
 

aliciagreen369

Master Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
0
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/78848294-post281.html

When it comes to Islam, there is no freedom to choose.

Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.

This is not a religion by faith. This is blackmailing.

The whole book that they are reading is littered with war, killings, jihad, rape, incest and they call themselves,

The religion of peace. What a joke.

Some people may not like Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, but his opinion about Islam is right afterall.

Hi, sir(s).

I can't believe a user has to resort to a clone account to post seditious comments like these.

Please kindly help to act on this post.

Thank you.
 

hwzadmin

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
29,016
Reaction score
57
Dear Member,

Thank you for your report. The member's posts have been removed and he has been infracted.


http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/78848294-post281.html



Hi, sir(s).

I can't believe a user has to resort to a clone account to post seditious comments like these.

Please kindly help to act on this post.

Thank you.

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/78630908-post2.html



It appears that this user is a troublemaker, posting vulgarities.
 

aliciagreen369

Master Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
0
Dont forget to cover up all your women from head to toe. Pray to the wall then bomb the countries you are jealous at. Lol all the worst countries in the worls are mostly islamic, one hell of a cancerous religion indeed.

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/85767524-post157.html

Yeah yeah, beheading innocent citizens, stoning women and terrorists bombing are always right. Its all about peace and love. Lets embrace Islam guys! So we can enjoy 911 and these sandniggers everyday.

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/85767469-post155.html

See ? Both the Allah and Jesus figure are fairytales, and here two blind sheeps are arguing already.

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/85767268-post150.html

Thread -

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/if-u-want-good-scientist-u-believe-no-religion-4679527.html

Is these posts are not seditious, utterly disrespectful and insulting, I don't know what is.

Shall forward this to ISD. :zonia:
 

szupersub

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
0
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/78848294-post281.html



Hi, sir(s).

I can't believe a user has to resort to a clone account to post seditious comments like these.

Please kindly help to act on this post.

Thank you.
With all due respect, some of the comments posted by the forumers are seditious. On the other hand, some of the criticisms of religions are valid. Religions are merely ideas and insofar as they are ideas, we should be allowed to criticize them (with sound reasoning and proper evidence, of course). Why do we have to cherry-pick only the good stuffs of religious scriptures but ignore the controversial aspects? Fine, we can talk about the supposedly good aspects of religion but is it not true that apostasy is indeed punishable by death according to Islam (and thereby, supports the claim that there is no freedom to choose in Islam)? Is it not true that honour killings exist in Pakistan? Religions are supposed to be perfect but it's an irony that religious scriptures are so imperfect, flawed and open to multiple interpretations. Honest and open discussions about religions should be permitted in the forums (limits should be set, of course). I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about religions per se.

I get along well with people of different faiths and races. But I don't think it's right for you to report every single religion-related thread out here in EDMW. Mods, please stamp your authority and don't give in such complains merely because the threads/posts are related to religion. I repeat;if the posters can back up their criticisms of religion by appealing to sound and valid reasoning, I don't see why we should delete such threads.
 
Last edited:

aliciagreen369

Master Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
0
With all due respect, some of the comments posted by the forumers are seditious. On the other hand, some of the criticisms of religions are valid. Religions are merely ideas and insofar as they are ideas, we should be allowed to criticize them (with sound reasoning and proper evidence, of course). Why do we have to cherry-pick only the good stuffs of religious scriptures but ignore the controversial aspects? Fine, we can talk about the supposedly good aspects of religion but is it not true that apostasy is indeed punishable by death according to Islam (and thereby, supports the claim that there is no freedom to choose in Islam)? Is it not true that honour killings exist in Pakistan? Religions are supposed to be perfect but it's an irony that religious scriptures are so imperfect, flawed and open to multiple interpretations. Honest and open discussions about religions should be permitted in the forums (limits should be set, of course). I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about religions per se.

I get along well with people of different faiths and races. But I don't think it's right for you to report every single religion-related thread out here in EDMW. Mods, please stamp your authority and don't give in such complains merely because the threads/posts are related to religion. I repeat;if the posters can back up their criticisms of religion by appealing to sound and valid reasoning, I don't see why we should delete such threads.

Thank you for your post.

1) What is the actual purpose of these criticisms?

2) The fact that 'honor killings' and execution for apostasy do not exist in most parts of the world where many Muslims reside, tells you that most of these acts are tied to culture, lack of education and radicalism. So, why cherry pick on these in order to criticize the religion of Islam as a whole?

3) Radicals and extremists and terrorists interpret according to their own agendas of radicalizing and politics, Islam haters interpret according to their need to discredit Islam, moderate and peaceful Muslims interpret for their own good, as guidance for a life as a good human being human being, and a good Muslim.

Do you see the pattern now? Everyone has their own goal and uses for belief.

Can you touch on these 3 exact points and just these 3 points above? :zonia:
 

makav31i

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
36
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/e...income-tax-malaysia-4692965.html#post86042351

How many more of such thread do we need to see from the above Thread Starter? Why is there a lack of action from the mods?

Only until when kana pullies interview. Then balls will shrink.
Dunno leh, some people kinda don't learn until they experience it themselves.

how many of such stirring threads you want to create? last warning OP.
Thread closed.

The above quote is from PetPet on this thread..

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/e...hinese-declaring-jihad-cadbury-4690784-3.html
 

aliciagreen369

Master Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
0

szupersub

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
0
Thank you for your post.

1) What is the actual purpose of these criticisms?

2) The fact that 'honor killings' and execution for apostasy do not exist in most parts of the world where many Muslims reside, tells you that most of these acts are tied to culture, lack of education and radicalism. So, why cherry pick on these in order to criticize the religion of Islam as a whole?

3) Radicals and extremists and terrorists interpret according to their own agendas of radicalizing and politics, Islam haters interpret according to their need to discredit Islam, moderate and peaceful Muslims interpret for their own good, as guidance for a life as a good human being human being, and a good Muslim.

Do you see the pattern now? Everyone has their own goal and uses for belief.

Can you touch on these 3 exact points and just these 3 points above? :zonia:

Hi aliciagreen,

Thank you for your reply.

1) Contrary to what we've been taught during our early schooling years, we should be allowed to criticize religious beliefs. Beliefs are, after all, mere opinions/ideas (or the like). Insofar as beliefs remain as beliefs, and are not proven as facts, I don't see why religion should receive special treatment. But I also don't think it's right for debates about religion to be suppressed due to the aforementioned reasons I've listed. We can criticize communism, monarchism, LGBT movements, fascism etc. So why can't we criticize religious beliefs? Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that I'm not encouraging people to burn Qurans or the Holy Bible or burn down temples.

2) I agree that some honor killings are carried out due to cultural norms and not religious beliefs per se. But let's not ignore the cases where honor killings or execution of apostates do exist as a result of religious beliefs. We have cases where Muslim leaders explicitly call out for executions of apostates, homosexuals etc. Also, it is precisely because of the arbitrariness of ancient scriptures and possibility of multiple interpretations that permits us to criticize religion. After all, since religious scriptures are open to various interpretations, who's to say that the fundamentalists are wrong and that you are right?

3) As above.

Maybe we should carry on this conversation via PM. Forumers who are clearly bullying Muslims, Christians, Buddhists etc. should be firmly dealt with. But those who are genuinely partaking in an intelligent discussion of what is merely a belief, should be allowed to do so without any intervention by the moderators.
 
Last edited:

hwzadmin

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
29,016
Reaction score
57
Dear Member,

The thread starter has been infracted.

Dear szupersub,

Thanks for your feedback. It is a fine line to balance but we will do our utmost to advocate the discussion of religion for members like yourself with the maturity to handle such sensitive topics.

Chinese contribute almost 90% of the national income tax in Malaysia - www.hardwarezone.com.sg

How many more of such thread do we need to see from the above Thread Starter? Why is there a lack of action from the mods?



The above quote is from PetPet on this thread..

Bombing the Chinese, Declaring Jihad on Cadbury - Page 3 - www.hardwarezone.com.sg
 

aliciagreen369

Master Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
0
Hi aliciagreen,

Thank you for your reply.

1) Contrary to what we've been taught during our early schooling years, we should be allowed to criticize religious beliefs. Beliefs are, after all, mere opinions/ideas (or the like). Insofar as beliefs remain as beliefs, and are not proven as facts, I don't see why religion should receive special treatment. But I also don't think it's right for debates about religion to be suppressed due to the aforementioned reasons I've listed. We can criticize communism, monarchism, LGBT movements, fascism etc. So why can't we criticize religious beliefs? Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that I'm not encouraging people to burn Qurans or the Holy Bible or burn down temples.

2) I agree that some honor killings are carried out due to cultural norms and not religious beliefs per se. But let's not ignore the cases where honor killings or execution of apostates do exist as a result of religious beliefs. We have cases where Muslim leaders explicitly call out for executions of apostates, homosexuals etc. Also, it is precisely because of the arbitrariness of ancient scriptures and possibility of multiple interpretations that permits us to criticize religion. After all, since religious scriptures are open to various interpretations, who's to say that the fundamentalists are wrong and that you are right?

3) As above.

Maybe we should carry on this conversation via PM. Forumers who are clearly bullying Muslims, Christians, Buddhists etc. should be firmly dealt with. But those who are genuinely partaking in an intelligent discussion of what is merely a belief, should be allowed to do so without any intervention by the moderators.

Hi, thanks again for the reply.

1) Do you think political systems and gay movements, are the same, as religious beliefs?

Religious belief, to most moderate believers, provides guidance to individuals on how to live certain aspects of their lives, and what happens in this life, and the hereafter.

In certain countries, where the population is mostly made up of people who share the same beliefs, their political systems are shaped around the religions that they subscribe to.

Otherwise, the main tenets and pillars are the same, apart the fact that there are the different branches and denominations.

So, can you still say that religious belief, meant as guidance for individuals and communities but practiced a bit differently across countries, communities AND individuals, are the same as 'communism, monarchism, LGBT movements, fascism'?

What is it in it for you, to criticize a belief that YOU do not subscribe in?

If you want to argue with the same old things that many others in the various Christianity/Islam related threads, that you are perturbed by evangelizing Christians or Muslim terrorists - is it an everyday occurrence to you that all these Christians approach you everyday?

Do you personally know of any terrorists among your friends or colleagues or classmates?

Do you know of any of your friends who have been victims of Islamic terrorism?

Do you think of any Muslim Singaporeans who actually condone terrorism?

So, if not - what makes you think that the religion of Islam is actually deserving of criticism, whatever the intention (in criticizing) is?

A belief, is a belief.

A fact, is a fact.


Are they supposed to be the same?

So, I ask you once again - What is the actual purpose of these criticisms?, and how exactly does criticizing benefit atheists like you? How does it benefit everyone?

2) It is not about whether fundamentalists/extremists/radicals/terrorists being right or wrong, obviously.

It is about what that is DONE (or not done), that becomes right or wrong.

Fundamentalists/extremists/radicals/terrorists carrying out mass killings of innocents indiscreetly (including Muslims), beheading etc. due to their twisted interpretations of holy scriptures for their political and radical and extremist agendas, whether due to oppression or otherwise - how is that right?

I am not sure whether my points are clear enough for you.

If you would like a sincere, mature discussion, the best way is to tackle each point specifically, without ignoring points that do not help one in an argument.

I believe the commonly deployed strategy of ignoring points that do not help them, is what causes most discussions to derail, resulting in constant misinformation and misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Quoting for biased sources does not help too.

For example, of course one would find information that outrightly discredit a religion, if one constantly quote and get information from websites with clear agendas of putting down whatever religion they are against.

And the believer will counter quote from a website whose main objective, is to educate and share information about that particular religion, in order to benefit whoever chooses to believe in that religion.

So, honestly - which of these 2 different types of websites will be more 'biased' and have the tendency to be inaccurate or downright false and misleading?

Thanks. :zonia:
 

aliciagreen369

Master Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
0
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/muslim-arrested-after-smashing-3-300-yrs-old-buddha-statues-senso-ji-temple-tokyo-4709320-7.html

I hope HardwareZone Singapore does not condone the ridiculing and mocking of religions in Singapore.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A%221f6d9e4b-1cf1-4575-9480-da4bdeff9ef4%22%20Status%3Apublished%20Depth%3A0;rec=0

SEDITION ACT
(CHAPTER 290)
(Original Enactment: M Ordinance 14 of 1948)

REVISED EDITION 2013
(31st August 2013)
An Act for the punishment of sedition.
[28th May 1964]
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Sedition Act.
Interpretation
2. In this Act —
“publication” includes all written or printed matter and everything whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not containing any visible representation or by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial reproduction of any publication;
“seditious” when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies such act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency;
“words” includes any phrase, sentence or other consecutive number or combination of words, oral or written.
Seditious tendency
3.—(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a)
to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b)
to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c)
to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d)
to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e)
to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a)
to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b)
to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c)
to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d)
to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.
(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.
Offences
4.—(1) Any person who —
(a)
does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b)
utters any seditious words;

(c)
prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d)
imports any seditious publication,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of that person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
(2) Any person who without lawful excuse has in his possession any seditious publication shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and such publication shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
Legal proceedings
5.—(1) No prosecution for an offence under section 4 shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed:
Provided that for the purposes of this subsection a prosecution shall be deemed to be begun against any person when a warrant or summons has been issued in respect of any charge made against that person and based on the facts or incident in respect of which the prosecution afterwards proceeds.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4 without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor. In such written consent the Public Prosecutor may designate any court to be the court of trial.
Evidence
6.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Evidence Act (Cap. 97), no person shall be convicted of an offence under section 4 on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.
(2) No person shall be convicted of any offence referred to in section 4(1)(c) or (d) if such person proves that the publication in respect of which he is charged was printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported (as the case may be) without his authority, consent and knowledge and without any want of due care or caution on his part or that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency.
Innocent receiver of seditious publication
7. Any person to whom any seditious publication is sent without his knowledge or privity shall forthwith as soon as the nature of its contents has become known to him deliver the publication to the officer in charge of a police division and any person who complies with this section shall not be liable to be convicted for having in his possession that publication:
Provided that in any proceedings against such person the court shall presume until the contrary is shown that that person knew the contents of the publication at the time it first came into his possession.
Issue of search warrant
8.—(1) A Magistrate may issue a warrant empowering any police officer, not below the rank of sergeant, to enter upon any premises where any seditious publication is known or is reasonably suspected to be and to search therein for any seditious publication.
[21/73]
(2) Whenever it appears to any police officer, not below the rank of sergeant, that there is reasonable cause to believe that in any premises there is concealed or deposited any seditious publication, and he has reasonable grounds for believing that, by reason of the delay which would be entailed by obtaining a search warrant, the object of the search is likely to be frustrated, he may enter and search the premises as if he were empowered to do so by a warrant issued under subsection (1).
[21/73]
Suspension of newspaper containing seditious matter
9.—(1) Whenever any person is convicted of publishing in any newspaper matter having a seditious tendency, the court may, if it thinks fit, either in lieu of or in addition to any other punishment, make orders as to all or any of the following matters:
(a)
prohibiting, either absolutely or except on conditions to be specified in the order, for any period not exceeding one year from the date of the order, the future publication of that newspaper;
(b)
prohibiting, either absolutely or except on conditions to be specified in the order, for the period aforesaid, the publisher, proprietor or editor of that newspaper from publishing, editing or writing for any newspaper or from assisting, whether with money or money’s worth, material, personal service or otherwise in the publication, editing or production of any newspaper;
(c)
that for the period aforesaid any printing press used in the production of the newspaper be used only on conditions to be specified in the order or that it be seized by the police and detained by them for the period aforesaid.
(2) Any person who contravenes an order made under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the court to punish any person contravening an order made under this section for contempt of court:
Provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.
Power of Court to prohibit circulation of seditious publications
10.—(1) Whenever on the application of the Public Prosecutor it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the issue or circulation of a seditious publication is or if commenced or continued would be likely to lead to unlawful violence or appears to have the object of promoting feelings of hostility between different classes or races of the community, the Court shall make an order (referred to in this section as a prohibition order) prohibiting the issuing and circulation of that publication (referred to in this section as a prohibited publication) and requiring every person having any copy of the prohibited publication in his possession, power or control forthwith to deliver every such copy into the custody of the police.
(2) An order under this section may be made ex parte on the application of the Public Prosecutor in chambers.
(3) It shall be sufficient if the order so describes the prohibited publication that it can be identified by a reasonable person who compares the prohibited publication with the description in the prohibition order.
(4) Every person on whom a copy of a prohibition order is served by any police officer shall forthwith deliver to that police officer every prohibited publication in his possession, power or control, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
(5) Every person to whose knowledge it comes that a prohibited publication is in his possession, power or control shall forthwith deliver every such publication into the custody of the police, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
(6) The Court may, if it thinks fit, either before or after or without service of the prohibition order on any person, issue a warrant authorising any police officer not below the rank of sergeant to enter and search any premises specified in the order, and to seize and carry away every prohibited publication there found, and to use such force as may be necessary for the purpose. A copy of the prohibition order and of the search warrant shall be left in a conspicuous position at every building or place so entered.
[21/73]
(7) The owner of any prohibited publication delivered or seized under this section may, at any time within 14 days after the delivery or seizure, apply to the Court by originating summons for the discharge of the prohibition order, and if the Court, on the hearing of the application, decides that the prohibition order ought not to have been made, it shall discharge the order and shall order the prohibited publication delivered by or seized from the applicant to be returned to him.
[42/2005]
(8) Every prohibited publication delivered or seized under this section with respect to which an application under subsection (7) is not filed within the time aforesaid or which is not ordered to be returned to the owner shall be deemed to be forfeited to the Government.
[42/2005]
(9) For the purposes of this section, “Court” means the High Court.
Arrest without warrant
11. Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person found committing or reasonably suspected of committing or of having committed or of attempting to commit or of procuring or abetting any person to commit any offence under this Act or reasonably suspected of the unlawful possession of any thing liable to forfeiture thereunder.
 

sayang_pillow

Banned
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
3,773
Reaction score
0

leaving_footsteps

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
65,069
Reaction score
4,247
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top