Pakistan's PM: Insulting Mohammed should be treated the same as denying so-called "Holocaust"

[Lamprecht]

In much of Europe, people are fined and/or imprisoned for questioning the official WWII narrative of 6m + gas chambers. Although I don't think either should be illegal, he makes a good point. I mean, if you're going to ban research of the "Holocaust" religion why not ban criticism of Islam as well?

Note also how the article refers to these pushing this as "radical Islamists" but the media never refers to Jews pushing for "Holocaust denial" laws as "radical zionists" or "Jewish extremists".

Article snippet:

Pakistan PM: Insulting Islam’s Prophet Should Be Same as Denying Holocaust
By Ayaz Gul
April 17, 2021 04:59 PM



ISLAMABAD - Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is urging Western governments to criminalize any insulting remarks against Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and treat offenders the same way they do those who deny the Holocaust.

Khan spoke Saturday after violent nationwide protests this week by a radical Islamist party demanding expulsion of the French ambassador over the publication of cartoons in France depicting the prophet, an act condemned as blasphemous.

Khan tweeted: “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 apologize to the 1.3 bn Muslims for causing this hurt.”

He also called on Western governments that have outlawed negative comments about the Holocaust "to use the same standards to penalize those deliberately spreading their message of hate against Muslims by abusing our Prophet.”

Many European countries have laws that criminalize the Holocaust denial, an act of negating the Nazi genocide of European Jews, and offenders can end up in jail.

Activists of the radical Islamist party Tehreek-i-Labaik Pakistan protested in the streets Monday shortly after Pakistani authorities arrested their leader, Saad Rizvi.

Officials defended the arrest, saying Rizvi was planning to march on Islamabad, with thousands of supporters set to besiege the capital to pressure the government to expel the French ambassador.

Thousands of angry protesters blocked key highways, causing traffic jams, paralyzing business and routine life for three days in Pakistan. Police attempts to disperse the protesters sparked violent clashes that killed four law enforcers and injured more than 600 others.

The demonstrations were eventually dispersed, but the unprecedented direct attacks on police provoked the government Thursday to outlaw TLP for indulging in terrorist attacks against the state.

[...]

Full article: https://archive.fo/pWQtQ | http://web.archive.org/web/202104172102 ... -holocaust

---

Recommended:

French Pres. Macron claims to support 'Free speech' as "deniers" (musicians, poets, rappers, artists) are persecuted
viewtopic.php?t=13510

Official list of Revisionist scholars persecuted / imprisoned for questioning the "Holocaust"
viewtopic.php?t=12642

The rapid proliferation of Holocaust skepticism across the world
viewtopic.php?t=12194

The Jewish Role in Censorship
viewtopic.php?t=13441

[Werd]

In much of Europe, people are fined and/or imprisoned for questioning the official WWII narrative of 6m + gas chambers. Although I don't think either should be illegal, he makes a good point. I mean, if you're going to ban research of the "Holocaust" religion why not ban criticism of Islam as well?

Note also how the article refers to these pushing this as "radical Islamists" but the media never refers to Jews pushing for "Holocaust denial" laws as "radical zionists" or "Jewish extremists".

There are enough guilty whites in Europe that they make take this recommendation seriously. Obviously you and I, and all of codoh recognize that unrestricted free speech is the best. But we sure as hell don't need anyone to come after criticism of Islam since WE ALREADY DON'T HAVE criticism of the holocaust. Europe IS DYING and it NEEDS to have free speech about Islam and Muslims and their disproportionate crime rates and welfare leeching.

[Hektor]

I agree with the heading:
"Pakistan PM: Insulting Islam’s Prophet Should Be Same as Denying Holocaust"
But not with the message he conveys:
"Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is urging Western governments to criminalize any insulting remarks against Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and treat offenders the same way they do those who deny the Holocaust."

This should as a matter of freedom of speech and religion be permitted.
And well, freedom of enquiry in historical matter should be one of the highest goods in a society, now shouldn't it?

"Insulting the prophet" - what's that supposed to mean? Is it when one points out to certain features and descriptions in their own text about criminal, political, sexual practices about this Profit? Make a point of calling one's boar Mohamed, perhaps?

Why is this prime minister of Pakistan anyway concerned about how other countries "punish heresy"? Isn't he busy fixing things for his country in the right way?

[Lamprecht]

I agree with the heading:
"Pakistan PM: Insulting Islam’s Prophet Should Be Same as Denying Holocaust"
But not with the message he conveys:
"Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is urging Western governments to criminalize any insulting remarks against Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and treat offenders the same way they do those who deny the Holocaust."

This should as a matter of freedom of speech and religion be permitted.

They should both be legal in my view, but it's far easier to make the "Freedom of speech/expression" case for "Holocaust denial" than for "Insulting Islam's Prophet" - as I stated in one of the recommended threads:

I do not think that drawing cartoons of Muhammad should be banned, but if someone is going to talk about "Freedom of Speech" it is easier to make the argument that such cartoons should be banned than "Holocaust" research.

Mostly, drawing these pictures is just a matter of trying to be offensive for its own sake, it's not much of a political or ideological statement. Advocating research into a historical event - along with sharing political ideas - is what the USA Founding Fathers meant when they said "Freedom of Speech and Expression." They weren't talking about speech which is obscene solely for the purpose of being obscene.

Here's a page on this topic:
Obscenity and the First Amendment
https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/social ... ndment.htm

In 1973, in Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15), the Supreme Court wrote the following for factfinders attempting to determine if a given material were obscene:

"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

In Kaplan v. California (413 U.S. 115), decided in tandem, it was held that the contemporary community standards of the area in question were the relevant standards, and the prosecution need not establish a "national" standard against which to evaluate material for obscenity.

There's a lot more to this if you want to research it, I just quickly searched Gogle and found this. Mostly this stuff applies to things of a sexual nature, but the case of these anti-Islamic cartoons they often are of a lascivious nature. Check some out for yourself:



There are plenty more just like this. What exactly does this achieve? I wonder if it's just a way for Macron to say "See? You have freedom of speech, you can draw obscene pictures of Muslims and Mohammed - even though it will obviously inspire violent attacks!" It makes people think they have freedom of speech when actually they will be imprisoned for publicly questioning the official "Holocaust" narrative.

Again, I don't think these cartoons should be banned, but I don't see why anyone would want to draw them in the first place. It's not a political statement it's just being rude against a minority (many of them extremely religious) that has flooded into the county by the millions in the past few decades.

It should all be allowed, including "Holocaust" research. Revisionist scholars actuall put in the research. Some have taken gas chamber wall samples to be measured in labs. They measure buildings, analyze documents and blueprints and testimony, do mathematical calculations, and publish them in journals or as books and documentaries reviewed by their peers. There are of course "Holocaust" cartoons that are similarly rude made by trolls on the internet, but they're not being plastered on the side of buildings for everyone to see.



I'd say the Holocaust Handbooks - which you cannot distribute legally in many European countries - are more important to the public interest than some ridiculous cartoons.

Either way, it's a good thing that this public figure is reminding people in the Western world that scholars are literally imprisoned in various "free and developed" countries simply for publishing research on a historical event.

[Merlin300]

Prime Minister Imran Khan makes sense- If blasphemy laws protect one religion, why not blasphemy laws to protect Islam?

[stinky]

Prime Minister Imran Khan makes sense- If blasphemy laws protect one religion, why not blasphemy laws to protect Islam?

I prefer the inversion;
If Islam is on the chopping block, why not the hoax and jews?

None should be above criticism / inquiry