Source: DW
Denying the Holocaust is an illegal offense in several European countries and offenders can end up in jail. Imran Khan would like the same punishments meted out for those who blaspheme against the Prophet Muhammad.
Those in the West, incl extreme right politicians, who deliberately indulge in such abuse & hate under guise of freedom of speech clearly lack moral sense & courage to apologise to the 1.3 bn Muslims for causing this hurt. We demand an apology from these extremists.
— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) April 17, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Pakistani PM sees similarities between insulting the Prophet Muhammad and denying the Holocaust
Western governments should penalize Holocaust denial and insulting the Prophet Muhammad in the same manner, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan said Saturday.
Denying the Holocaust is an illegal offense in several European countries — including Germany and France — and offenders can be sent to prison.
Khan wants to see governments take an equally harsh position on those who blaspheme against the Prophet Muhammad.
“I … call on Western governments who have outlawed any negative comment on the holocaust to use the same standards to penalise those deliberately spreading their message of hate against Muslims by abusing our Prophet,” Khan tweeted.
“We Muslims have the greatest love & respect for our Prophet,” he continued. “We cannot tolerate any such disrespect & abuse.
Source and more: Pakistan′s Imran Khan equates insulting Muhammad with Holocaust denial | News | DW | 17.04.2021
Categories: Anti-Semitism, Asia, Free Speech, Muhammad, Muhammad, Pakistan, Prophet Muhammad
interesting approach. Imran Khan would need to be as good as the world-wide Jewish lobby to make this work.
Good point.
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
interests of national security
territorial integrity or public safety
prevention of disorder or crime
protection of health or morals
protection of the reputation or the rights of others
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Guarding the Respect for the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon Him) should be adopted as a law by all the countries of the world: All known Prophets are messengers of God and deserve very high respect. Irrespective of the fact that many groups of the human race do not accept these prophets but the degradation of any Prophet should never be permitted by any country. Jews never accepted Jesus Christ (a.s) but we never witness the degradation of Prophet Jesus (a.s) by Jews. The same should be the practice for the Prophet of Islam. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Budha, and other know religions do accept the Prophet of Islam but this does not mean this great Messenger of God should be degraded. What IK of Pakistan is demanding sounds more or less the same except that he is connecting it with some historical event. However here he should also try to put in order the things in his own country. Very frequently media reports religious-based Pakistani atrocities committed against, Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus, and few other minorities. If the Prime Minister of Pakistan can not control his own country for religious-based hatred-oriented events, how he can expect it from others.
Yes, but it is possible to buy a wife in Afghanistan and he does not move his lips to condemn it. Insulting an imaginary entity is more important for this former cricket player than the rights of people.
India had many Muslims in top executive positions. Can Pakistan said that about non-Muslims?
No, it cannot.
Polygamy is accepted, as it is in most Muslim countries, but freedom of speech is not.
The name of a dead man is protected. The rights of women are not.
What morals should be protected?