Oxford graduate Imran Khan was an international cricketer before he entered politics. Now as Pakistan's prime minister he has a plan which is definitely not cricket.
According to a report in MailOnline Imran Khan has a plan for Muslim-majority countries to force Western governments to criminalise insulting the Prophet Mohammed which he claims will work .
He said "lobbying Western nations, the EU and UN to adopt blasphemy laws with a warning of a trade boycott if they do not do so will be 'effective' in achieving their goal.
"He said leaders of Muslim-majority countries should call on the West to 'stop hurting the feelings' of Muslims across the world with their current freedom of speech laws, reports Pakistani newspaper Dawn."
Britain's former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind told MailOnline that trying to force Western countries to bring in such a ban would be 'a pretty foolish decision. It is not countries that insult the Prophet Mohammed, it's individual citizens'.
Meanwhile, International Christian Concern highlights the case of "a Christian accused of blasphemy in Pakistan [who] was tortured into making a false confession while spending more than two months in police custody."
Such reports are not uncommon.
In As Good as Dead, the impact of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Amnesty International concluded:
"Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are routinely used to target vulnerable people on the basis of false accusations. There is broad scope for their abuse which means that anyone can level an accusation of blasphemy, which can lead to criminal charges. Inadequate safeguards then mean the accused have few means to defend themselves. In a perversion of the justice system, the accused are often presumed to be guilty, on the basis of little or no evidence."As the accused struggle to establish their innocence, they often face serious threats to their lives. Many people have been threatened and killed in revenge attacks after accusations of blasphemy were made against them. As Pakistan’s Supreme Court has acknowledged, the majority of blasphemy accusations are false. However, this does not prevent angry crowds, aroused by clerics and their supporters, from taking the law into their own hands while the authorities routinely fail to prevent these abuses and, by doing so, enable a culture of impunity.
"This report documents cases which illustrate the broad scope for human rights violations and abuses, in order to highlight the need for urgent repeal of the laws and – until their repeal – the need for effective procedural safeguards to be put in place."
Need one say more!
'He said "lobbying Western nations, the EU and UN to adopt blasphemy laws with a warning of a trade boycott if they do not do so will be 'effective' in achieving their goal.
ReplyDelete'He said leaders of Muslim-majority countries should call on the West to "stop hurting the feelings" of Muslims across the world with their current freedom of speech laws, reports Pakistani newspaper Dawn.'
I think Imran Khan's crying for the moon in making this suggestion. Since the French revolution in 1789, though at varying paces in the different nations, Europe has retreated from enforcing historic legislation against blasphemy, on the wholly reasonable grounds that (a) there should be freedom of speech and opinion and (b) that if God is indeed omnipotent and omniscient, he hardly requires his 'ransomed creation' to intervene to defend him from insult. The only demonstrable purpose of blasphemy laws is to exercise a version of social control. That social control should be exercised in defence of religion in an increasingly secular society is wholly unreal.
Admittedly Britain hasn't been in the forefront of that retreat from prosecuting blasphemy; it's not all that many years since Mary Whitehouse and her 'National VALA' were attempting to resuscitate blasphemy laws still on the statute book in order to to censure 'Gay News' and 'The Romans in Britain'. But she was entirely unsuccessful.
The notion that Europeam nations would tighten up the blasphemy laws in order to give special protecion to a religion which has no historic roots in Europe other than in small parts of the Balkans is entirely fanciful.
And no part of the Islamic world is as yet significant enough in trading terms for a trade boycott to be effective - even if one could be orchestrated; Islamic nations hardly have a track record of unanimity in policy.
If China were to propose such a thing it might be a different ball-game. But then China's hardly likely to rally to the defence of the Prophet!
Blasphemy, what is it? I was brought up as a Christian, and, as such, I was taught to Blaspheme, was to take the Lord's Name in Vain. An example, "By God I will do......." and not doing it. Another example would be, "Jesus Christ, .......". We, Western Countries have accepted such comnments into Modern Language, although they hurt followers of Christ. It is time for Islam to enter the Modern World, and accept not all will accept Religion regardless if it is Christianity or Islam, both will be exposed to painfull comments, be they appear to be Blasphemous or not. We have to rise above it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, you tell 'em QP, they'll listen to you, surely?
DeleteI still want to know by what means one could possibly insult a plundering pillaging murdering torturing raping slaving paedophile warlord?
ReplyDeleteI suppose by calling him a plundering, pillaging, murdering, torturing, raping, enslaving, paedophile, warlord!
ReplyDeleteSeymour