Pakistani feminist banned by Facebook for criticizing those who victim blamed (on religious grounds) a 7-year old girl who was raped and murdered

The “Atheist Muslim” Ali Rizvi called attention to Facebook’s new ban on his wife, feminist activist Alishba Zarmeen, for an emotional but affecting post that, as he notes below, condemned those who blamed an 8-year-old Pakistani girl for her own rape and murder, as well as calling out some doctrines of Islam that enable this kind of victim-blaming.

Now we can only speculate why Facebook banned Zarmeen, but I’ve put her entire post below, and you can judge for yourself why Facebook suspended her for a month for violating “community standards”.

(Note: CNN reports the girl was actually seven.)

The post:

The upshot:

Now this is strong language, but no stronger than I’ve seen people post about Donald Trump on Facebook. If you took out the word “fuck,” and replaced it with something more innocuous, would she still have been banned? I have little doubt. Do readers think this violates “community standards”? If so, which standards?

What almost certainly happened here, and it’s happened to me, is that Muslims complained about this post and Alishba took the hit. I, too, will have to delete the automatic reposting of this from Facebook lest I be banned, too, although it appears on Ali’s site.

In the meantime, CNN has an article describing how Pakistanis (and Malala Yousafzai) are publicly protesting the murders of young girls (eleven of them now) and the failure of Pakistani authorities to do anything. Apparently it’s okay for Malala and others to protest these horrors, but not Zarmeen. When I wrote Ali asking for permission to reproduce his post, beside saying “yes” he added this:

I completely understand Ali’s and Zarmeen’s anger at how Islam leads people to blame a poor little girl for her own rape and murder.

Remember, too, that Facebook has allowed all kinds of vicious anti-Semitic accounts to remain on their site after people complained. You want proof? Check these links (h/t: Malgorzata):

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/cst-challenges-web-giant-to-remove-hate-1.435435

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/_kill_all_jews_now_is_an_acceptable_message_facebook_says  [JAC: Facebook eventually took this one down]

http://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/facebook-flip-flop-jewish-genocide-post

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3811993/Facebook-anti-Semitism-row-site-automatically-translates-anti-Nazi-post-vile-ATTACK-Jews.html

I’ve found many other such sites, too, but I’ll just refer you to a post I did on them a while back (see also here). Just like many Authoritarian Leftists, Facebook apparently thinks it’s okay to be anti-Semitic, but not anti-Islam.

Religion poisons everything. And Facebook helps dispense the poison. If they’re going to ban people for criticizing religion, they should do so evenhandedly.

31 Comments

  1. EliHershkovitz
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think it was ‘fuck’ that got her banned as I frequently reference ‘Fuckerberg’ on FB posts.

  2. GBJames
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    sub

  3. Posted January 25, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Has Facebook addressed this? IOW, have they explained why she was banned?

    I don’t have any doubts about the reason, just wondering if Facebook has said anything about it.

    Is there any way to put Facebook’s feet to the fire over this kind of crap? I don’t do Facebook, so am not familiar with the ways of the Face.

    • Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      As far as I know, Facebook has a policy of “never explain”. When I was banned for someone else’s post on the Global Humanist site (they not only shut that down, but shut my personal site down), I got no explanation. I only got mine reinstated by pulling strings.

  4. Heather Hastie
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Conservative religious groups (not just Muslims) get together on both Facebook and Twitter and target a particular person to complain about. If the number of complaints reaches a certain threshold, it seems an algorithm automatically bans that person for a time. (It works differently if you’re well known though.)

    • Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      OIC. It’s automatic for people who are not “well known”. Is there an appeal process?

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted January 25, 2018 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

        I don’t know.

  5. Randall Schenck
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    It’s ridiculous they have time to ban stuff like this, that should be said and yet they do almost nothing to get the Soviets and others off of their platform and twisting the brains of all the nuts out there on facebook. Maybe the owner of facebook is too rich to grow up.

    • Posted February 4, 2018 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

      The “Soviets”, as far as I know, do not criticize the beloved prophet of Islam.

  6. Liz
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    It could be a combination of content, tone, and language. I’m not sure. As much as I can’t stand what this person does (my brother) because it’s unsafe for him I think, I don’t think YouTube should have banned him for eating a hissing cockroach. This was a few weeks ago.
    https://www.maxim.com/entertainment/youtube-banned-food-vlogger-hissing-cockroach-2018-1

    YouTube is apparently giving guidelines violations to a number of competitive food youtubers because of the Logan Paul thing? That had nothing to do with food. I’m not sure. I don’t watch his videos because it’s unsettling/upsetting to me for his own welfare. I support him, though, in what makes him happy and I love him. I would think Zuckerberg for Facebook and whoever for YouTube would let these things stay up.

  7. Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    The horror show deaths of eleven young girls breaks “community standards” and the lack of concern by those that should be protecting them instead of blaming them, is a unfathomable sick community.

    Face(fuck)book are smearing shit all over their “face” with bits of shit grit in their teeth … as they smile ever so two-faced.

    I just read this tweet update via Matt Ridley:
    It is a video clip, titled:
    Canada: → Prominent imam preaches in the mosque that any believer who rapes and murders is far better than any non-believer who commits no crime.

    Is there any hope? not if you listen to this imbecile.

  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Do readers think this violates “community standards”? If so, which standards?

    If so, which fuckin’ community? Not one I ever wanna be part of.

  9. rickflick
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    sub

  10. Max Blancke
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    I have not been given any satisfactory explanation why progressives tolerate no criticism of Islam.
    My best example I know of was when the little girl was assaulted in Twin Falls in 2016. If I remember correctly, the girl was 4, and the boys were 14, 10 and 7. The 14 year old was filming, while directing the younger boys to forcible strip the girl naked, and perform various acts upon her, concluding in their urinating in her mouth while she screamed for help. It was stopped when a retired nurse heard her and interceded.
    This is horrible, and I hesitated to bring it up, but the interesting thing about it was how it was spun. The Right wing people claimed that the boys were Syrian and used a knife. There was apparently no knife, and the boys were Iraqi and Sudanese.
    But the progressive coverage, especially on Jezebel.com was that it was simply a case of “playing doctor” and it was not really rape. In any other situation, feminist writers are pretty broad in how they define rape. But they came to the vigorous defense of the boys in this case, apparently because the boys were Islamic and refugees, and the girl was White, although learning disabled and four years old. There really was no question that the girl did not consent to what happened. She was screaming .But I had my teenage daughter read the articles and comments, so that she could see for herself where she would stand in the hierarchy, should she find herself in a situation where she needed to rely on progressives to defend her.

    • Posted January 25, 2018 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      It seems you already know this, but the taboo on criticizing non-Caucasians seems to me to be a misfiring of the empathy impulse. Whites have historically held a privileged position, so now it is non-whites’ turn. Criticizing non-whites means you are selfishly trying to reassert your privilege. This consideration takes precedent over whatever behavior you might want to criticize.

  11. Posted January 25, 2018 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    The rape and murder of a 7-year old girl is barbaric, unconscionable and must be stopped
    somehow. Since the girl can’t speak for herself, I’m proud of Alishba Zarmeen for standing up for her. She should be lauded, not banned. And many more of the #me too women and all other women should join her. It is difficult enough to comprehend adult women being raped. It is horrendous for there to be a culture in which female children are not only raped and murdered, but also are blamed for it.

  12. Posted January 25, 2018 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Disgusting

  13. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    I’ve posted a link to this blog post to the Facebook help link where you can report a problem with a feature. I suggest everyone who is as outraged by this latest obscenity as I am do the same. I put in “other” in the “select a product” dropdown list of things that might not be working and put in the following text along with a link to this blog post:

    Why does this keep happening? Can Facebook not adjust its “community standards” algorithms to ignore reports from Islam dominated pestilential hell-holes like Pakistan? It seems “Atheist Republic” is also blocked every other month probably due to reporting campaigns by Islamist fanatics.

    • Posted January 25, 2018 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

      Good grief. Do you really think an appeal to them with this bit of nicety; “… Islam dominated pestilential hell-holes like Pakistan” is going to be effective at getting them to play nice?

      • Gordon
        Posted January 25, 2018 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

        Computer says no

  14. Harrison
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    I always hold out hope the social media age will someday be an embarrassing but distant memory. I absolutely hate living in it.

  15. nicky
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    No words for this, Facebook’s complicity in child-rape, and murder. Talk about vile shit-holes.
    Malgorzata’s Daily Mail reference has also a nice experiment, worthwhile.

  16. David Evans
    Posted January 26, 2018 at 4:48 am | Permalink

    My guess is that it was the reference to Mohammed that drew the complaints. A derogatory reference to Christ, as distinct from an attack on the actions of particular Christians, would probably also get complaints.

    That’s not to say that Facebook doesn’t need to think about its policies. It certainly does.

    • Posted February 4, 2018 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      I immediately thought the same, and wondered whether anyone would bring it up.

      Several weeks ago, there was a report on a US site (can’t remember which one) about a hijabi teacher who was allegedly harassed by her special needs students. It said, among other things, that she had graduated college at 18. I commented that this made me think she hadn’t valid teaching credentials, because at this age, one normally has graduated only high school. Other commenters said that she graduated early because she was very intelligent, unlike me. I remarked that if she was such a genius, she would probably not be so eager to parade her adoration of a medieval head-chopping pedophile.

      This comment disappeared two or three minutes after I posted it. Then my earlier comments were deleted as well, and then I couldn’t even view other people’s comments.

  17. Posted January 26, 2018 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  18. Posted January 26, 2018 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Facebook is a for profit corporation and has no obligation to allow any particular message to be propagated through its server are to disallow any particular message. The same applies to other social media companies. Yet Facebook has become one of the primary channels by which people get information about the World.

    It’s a matter of real concern to me that the current situation applies. I’m beginning to think social media is a real cancer on society.

  19. Posted January 26, 2018 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    I’m guessing that it is an emergent effect of:
    1) language
    2) topic
    3) someone reporting it

  20. Kevin Lawson
    Posted January 26, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    “Facebook apparently thinks it’s okay to be anti-Semitic, but not anti-Islam” These concepts are orthogonal. The equivalent of anti-Islam is not anti-Semitic (which is racist) but anti-Judaism, which is a rational objection to ideas, not people.

  21. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted January 26, 2018 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Disgusting, all around.

    And, as Sam Harris (and others) has pointed out, if this is what AI can do and does do now, what might it do with more significant power.
    Unintended consequences.

    “in the test chamber”

  22. Jonathan Dore
    Posted January 27, 2018 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    If Facebook is employing people to monitor or adjudge complaints, I suspect the opinion profile of the people doing this job is the reason this is happening. There are presumably a significant number of them who agree with the complainants, and who have no problem applying the “Community Standards” of rural Balochistan to anyone opining about Pakistan. Same with the Arabic speakers who are presumably adjudicating on complaints about Arabic-language content, leading to the extraordinary levels of toleration of anti-Semitic statements they show. Facebook, it seems, has a studied determination to have no standards of its own, so is quite happy to let the loudest and most reactionary voices impose their own.

  23. Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    fb should explain …. why is she banned? is it her language or her point of view? and still they talk abt social independence….


%d bloggers like this: