Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain Tuesday said freedom of expression has no bearing on the sacrilegious movie intended against the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him).
Talking to media outside the Parliament, the Q-League leader termed the profane movie as a brazen act of terrorism.
Demanding the government to pressurize the US for direct action against those who made such a heinous film against Islam, he said disrespect to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is gross act of terrorism and all those responsible should be given the severest penalty.
“The matter necessitates not just verbal protest, but pressuring the US for direct action,” he added.
The United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), he continued, should vehemently raise their voice in this regard as well as take up practical measures.
No one had heard of the video until we ourselves made it an issue.
Did he say anything about the terrorism of blasphemy law in his own country , that does not even spare children with downs syndrome or killing of ahmadis on a regular basis , or forced conversion of young Hindu girls or kidnappings of people for ransom , I’m sure those a lording to him are unimportant issues since this is the issue he wants to talk about
I thought the following may help Muslims to understand why Americans cannot punish people for saying bad things, even if they want to:
“Well, if they think it’s bad and against their values, why didn’t they stop it or punish those who produced it?” The standard response is that we Americans don’t suppress or penalize ideas we regard as wrong and even dangerous; in accordance with the First Amendment, we tolerate them and allow them to present themselves for possible purchase in the marketplace of ideas.
But that means that protecting the marketplace by refusing to set limits on what can enter it is the highest value we affirm, and we affirm it no matter what truths might be vilified and what falsehoods might get themselves accepted. We have decided that the potential unhappy consequences of a strong free speech regime must be tolerated because the principle is more important than preventing any harm it might permit. We should not be surprised, however, if others in the world — most others, in fact — disagree, not because they are blind and ignorant but because they worship God and truth rather than the First Amendment, which not only keeps God and truth at arm’s length but regards them with a deep suspicion.
Dear Observer, i am impressed by your rational reasoning and strong writing skill. Please elaborate on why "the First Amendment keeps God and truth at arm’s length and regards them with a deep suspicion". Does belief in God and truth, in your personal opinion, deserve a second place to the First Amendment? Is protection of the marketplace more important than the protection of human feelings and moral values? Please help us sort this out. In my opinion (right or wrong) protection of human feelings and moral values should be more important than protection of the marketplace. Please find time to reply. Regards.
Aijaz, my last two postings have the answer to your question .
Comments are closed.