Pakistan PM Imran Khan urges Muslim-Majority Countries to Boycott the West

[History Learner]

Do you mean this part:


Cause if you do that's incredibly dumb, as comparing free speech to the holocaust is incredibly stupid. A person is completely in their rights to offend whatever god or religion they want, as long as they don't physically hurt them. In contrast, Islamists take the opposite approach: no one can offend our religion and we get to hurt anyone we want.

No, I meant this part:

“My way is to take heads of all Muslim countries into confidence. Together, we should ask Europe, the European Union and United Nations to stop hurting the feelings of 1.25 billion Muslim like they do not do in case of Jews. I want the Muslim countries to devise a joint line of action over the blasphemy issue with a warning of trade boycott of countries where such incidents will happen. This will be the most effective way to achieve the goal.”​

We do have hate speech laws in several Western nations concerning Anti-Semitism in general, not specifically related to the Holocaust. Indeed, in the United States in particular many states actually have legislation on the books that concern the BDS movement; if it's fair to do this, why not for Muslims and their Prophet? This is not to say I agree with either, but he does make a sound argument, at least in that vein.

As it were overall, however, just as we have the freedom of speech to criticize Islam-and I support that-we also have to recognize in return that they have the right to respond in kind, such as being advocated here.

 

[Abhorsen]

to stop hurting the feelings of 1.25 billion Muslim like they do not do in case of Jews

@History Learner
When he's talking about this, he's referring to the holocaust vs. the blasphemy. And no, those are different (although neither should have laws enforcing it). One is a fact that people deny for political reasons, the other is just blasphemy, which people have the absolute right to do. Denying facts is frequently not considered part of free speech, including in the US, where it allows for the defamation/libel exception (although focusing on specific facts would run into problems). Blasphemy does none of this.

 

[Marduk]

We do have hate speech laws in several Western nations concerning Anti-Semitism in general, not specifically related to the Holocaust.

Hate speech laws suck. We should have less of them, not more. Then again, those that exist are usually designed around left's pet peeves, including being structured about group identities.

Indeed, in the United States in particular many states actually have legislation on the books that concern the BDS movement; if it's fair to do this, why not for Muslims and their Prophet? This is not to say I agree with either, but he does make a sound argument, at least in that vein.

That, and also Holocaust, regard very much real world political alignments, events or actions of current or relatively recent significance, so a very different case.
What they are asking for here is not something new and unusual, it is in fact something very old and known. Blasphemy laws. AKA what they have in Islamic countries. And what most of Europe also had. But most of it doesn't have now. There certainly were reasons to lift them regarding even the religion that most of their very own citizens belong to, so, why shouldn't the same reasons apply to the external demand for them?

As it were overall, however, just as we have the freedom of speech to criticize Islam-and I support that-we also have to recognize in return that they have the right to respond in kind, such as being advocated here.

Umm, no, that's again something much different from criticism. A multinational trade boycott is a bit of a whole level above mere criticism (just like what BDS wants is, though on different scale), i'm pretty sure. Nevermind the invitation to escalation this would create.
Do you think that if such a boycott took any significant scale, the targeted country, especially if ruled by someone with a spine, would not make it a tit for tat situation? For example, a lot of these Islamic countries do receive a lot of aid of all sorts from western countries, would be a shame if that suddenly got cut off over something stupid...
And then there's immigration, conflicts, finances. Its a can of worms no one wants to open, and Pakistan's politicians are threatening it right now purely due to their current internal issues with hardcore extremists.

3 killed as police crack down on hard-line group in Pakistan

Pakistani police and a party spokesman say a crackdown by security forces on protesting supporters of a banned Islamist party has left at least three people dead and at least 20 others injured

abcnews.go.com

Pakistan: TLP chief Saad Rizvi released after a week-long violent protests across country

Saad Hussain Rizvi, the chief of the recently proscribed Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), was released from Kot Lakhpat jail on Tuesday. The move has been taken as people in Pakistan got angry with Prime Minister Imran Khan after he fails to fulfill the demands of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, a...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Doing it now is a bit of a peace offering (in addition to releasing some people, including their leader, as linked ) to these circles, as Pakistan has too many of them and not enough bloody stubbornness to go full Assad on them.

I'd also like to note a similarity of such demand for international censorship to China's pressures for that regarding several of their actions and pet peeves... And that's a country really willing to throw its full, massive weight around for such things. But consider how did that influence their image and relations with the west. So, as i said, one hell of a can of worms here.

 

[Culsu]

Given how much dependent Muslim countries are on foreign trade as a source of hard currency, and given the lopsided situation (broadly speaking, Germany can do without Pakistani-made shirts by simply producing the clothes themselves, if for a steeper price, but Pakistan probably can't do without western-made industrial goods), it's the usual Muslim shit-talking ignoring their own weaknesses...

 

[Cherico]

Given how much dependent Muslim countries are on foreign trade as a source of hard currency, and given the lopsided situation (broadly speaking, Germany can do without Pakistani-made shirts by simply producing the clothes themselves, if for a steeper price, but Pakistan probably can't do without western-made industrial goods), it's the usual Muslim shit-talking ignoring their own weaknesses...

To be fair betting on willful western weakness has been a pretty solid bet for how many decades now?

 

[History Learner]

Hate speech laws suck. We should have less of them, not more. Then again, those that exist are usually designed around left's pet peeves, including being structured about group identities.

That, and also Holocaust, regard very much real world political alignments, events or actions of current or relatively recent significance, so a very different case.
What they are asking for here is not something new and unusual, it is in fact something very old and known. Blasphemy laws. AKA what they have in Islamic countries. And what most of Europe also had. But most of it doesn't have now. There certainly were reasons to lift them regarding even the religion that most of their very own citizens belong to, so, why shouldn't the same reasons apply to the external demand for them?

Umm, no, that's again something much different from criticism. A multinational trade boycott is a bit of a whole level above mere criticism (just like what BDS wants is, though on different scale), i'm pretty sure. Nevermind the invitation to escalation this would create.
Do you think that if such a boycott took any significant scale, the targeted country, especially if ruled by someone with a spine, would not make it a tit for tat situation? For example, a lot of these Islamic countries do receive a lot of aid of all sorts from western countries, would be a shame if that suddenly got cut off over something stupid...
And then there's immigration, conflicts, finances. Its a can of worms no one wants to open, and Pakistan's politicians are threatening it right now purely due to their current internal issues with hardcore extremists.

3 killed as police crack down on hard-line group in Pakistan

Pakistani police and a party spokesman say a crackdown by security forces on protesting supporters of a banned Islamist party has left at least three people dead and at least 20 others injured

abcnews.go.com

Pakistan: TLP chief Saad Rizvi released after a week-long violent protests across country

Saad Hussain Rizvi, the chief of the recently proscribed Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), was released from Kot Lakhpat jail on Tuesday. The move has been taken as people in Pakistan got angry with Prime Minister Imran Khan after he fails to fulfill the demands of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, a...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Doing it now is a bit of a peace offering (in addition to releasing some people, including their leader, as linked ) to these circles, as Pakistan has too many of them and not enough bloody stubbornness to go full Assad on them.

I'd also like to note a similarity of such demand for international censorship to China's pressures for that regarding several of their actions and pet peeves... And that's a country really willing to throw its full, massive weight around for such things. But consider how did that influence their image and relations with the west. So, as i said, one hell of a can of worms here.

If we're taking Libertarian principles on speech than there is no reason they can't on economics. If you want to take pleasure in killing civilians by cutting off aid, that's on you.

@History Learner
When he's talking about this, he's referring to the holocaust vs. the blasphemy. And no, those are different (although neither should have laws enforcing it). One is a fact that people deny for political reasons, the other is just blasphemy, which people have the absolute right to do. Denying facts is frequently not considered part of free speech, including in the US, where it allows for the defamation/libel exception (although focusing on specific facts would run into problems). Blasphemy does none of this.

In other words, proving his point. Either we need a consistent free speech ethic or not; someone denying the Holocaust has no more material impact on Jews than insulting Muhammad does to Muslims, regardless of the motivations, although both are pretty obviously political in nature.

 

[Marduk]

If we're taking Libertarian principles on speech than there is no reason they can't on economics. If you want to take pleasure in killing civilians by cutting off aid, that's on you.

Western countries have no duty to fund public services and comforts, including lifesaving ones, in sovereign and on top of that, unfriendly states. Its their duty as sovereign states to worry about the quality of public services and infrastructure that serve their civilians. Aiding them in that is a kind of favor, which many western countries provide very generously to many poorer countries like Pakistan, not something these countries are owed or entitled to. If favors and charity are met with threats and cold demands, it is not only acceptable, but rightful to cease providing them.

In other words, proving his point. Either we need a consistent free speech ethic or not; someone denying the Holocaust has no more material impact on Jews than insulting Muhammad does to Muslims, regardless of the motivations, although both are pretty obviously political in nature.

I'm not a big fan of laws against Holocaust denial, even though the people most interested in that tend to be very interesting characters with very "funny" plans in reinterpreting real world history of less than century ago. Then again, that's the business of every country's citizenry and legislature rather than third parties, their country, their law of the land, even many of the countries who do have such laws understand it. No one is threatening USA, Ukraine or Japan with trade boycotts over lacking such laws, which would in fact be an accurate analogy to Pakistan's demand, rather than mere existence of such laws in countries that want to have them.

 

[almostinsane]

Western countries have no duty to fund public services and comforts, including lifesaving ones, in sovereign and on top of that, unfriendly states. Its their duty as sovereign states to worry about the quality of public services and infrastructure that serve their civilians. Aiding them in that is a kind of favor, which many western countries provide very generously to many poorer countries like Pakistan, not something these countries are owed or entitled to. If favors and charity are met with threats and cold demands, it is not only acceptable, but rightful to cease providing them.


I'm not a big fan of laws against Holocaust denial, even though the people most interested in that tend to be very interesting characters with very "funny" plans in reinterpreting real world history of less than century ago. Then again, that's the business of every country's citizenry and legislature rather than third parties, their country, their law of the land, even many of the countries who do have such laws understand it. No one is threatening USA, Ukraine or Japan with trade boycotts over lacking such laws, which would in fact be an accurate analogy to Pakistan's demand, rather than mere existence of such laws in countries that want to have them.

On that note, blasphemy laws in Pakistan have been the justification for flat out lynching, beating, imprisoning, etc. any non-muslim unfortunate enough to be accused of even the most minor "blasphemy'" or "desecration."

 

[Jormungandr]

Probably every right winger in UK: "Would you please tell your compatriots over here that they absolutely should not forget to boycott our country too?"

There's actually quite a bit of bad blood/stereotypes towards Pakistanis at the moment due to the sex scandals and elements of their communities preying on young White girls. And, no, that's not racism or pearl-clutching -- they specifically targeted young, British White girls, teenagers, and vulnerable young women. I don't think that stigma is going to fade, as we Brits can hold a grudge.

It also doesn't help elements in our police and government tried to cover these elements' tracks multiple times because they "didn't want to rock the boat"/be accused of racism.

Anyway, the "Muslim Solidarity" thing is Bull. A lot of Muslim countries see the advantages of doing business/being friendly with the West and vice-versa, while others act like rabid zealots that like to hide in foxholes, awaiting some invasion (not so vice-versa -- actually, is Israel considered part of the West? I'm genuinely curious as their political, social, and geographical locations make them an odd case? And in their case, it's not so much paranoia when it's happened repeatedly in the last seventy or so years [quick edit: Just realized my post implied that Israel was rabidly zealot; not my intention!]). And between those countries? IF you believe the Prophet said A instead of B while another group says B instead of A, they'll try to kill the opposite group.

They'll laugh him out of his clown court.

Plus, Pakistan does a lot of trade with things like cheap clothing, textiles, and materials used for garments. It's a massive industry for them.

Double plus, tell a Pakistani that they can't play or watch cricket with/against Western teams? That idiot will find themselves booted into a meat-grinder by morning. They LOVE cricket.

 

[Terthna]

There's actually quite a bit of bad blood/stereotypes towards Pakistanis at the moment due to the sex scandals and elements of their communities preying on young White girls. And, no, that's not racism or pearl-clutching -- they specifically targeted young, British White girls, teenagers, and vulnerable young women. I don't think that stigma is going to fade, as we Brits can hold a grudge.

It also doesn't help elements in our police and government tried to cover these elements' tracks multiple times because they "didn't want to rock the boat"/be accused of racism.

Plus there's the current mayor of London; Sadiq Khan who, I'm given to understand, has been pushing a lot of far-left extremist policies ever since he got into office.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I disagree. They must stand against this blasphemy. Proactively if needbe! Boycott the West! Cut off trade. Refuse foreign aid. They should cut off the flow of migrants as well. Stop enriching the cultural diversity of the West with Muslim faithful. This brain and labor drain must come to an end!

Oh and boycott World Cricket.

 

[Jormungandr]

Plus there's the current mayor of London; Sadiq Khan who, I'm given to understand, has been pushing a lot of far-left extremist policies ever since he got into office.

A lot of his decisions have been unpopular, despite his tendency to back-peddle.

Sadly enough, London isn't what it used to be.

 

[LordsFire]

I disagree. They must stand against this blasphemy. Proactively if needbe! Boycott the West! Cut off trade. Refuse foreign aid. They should cut off the flow of migrants as well. Stop enriching the cultural diversity of the West with Muslim faithful. This brain and labor drain must come to an end!

Oh and boycott World Cricket.

True. I support this plan too. Close all trade relations, it's a good plan. Certainly nothing could go wrong.

 

[The Phule]

I often confuse Mormons and Muslims. Sorry. Could someone help explain the difference?

 

[Cherico]

A lot of his decisions have been unpopular, despite his tendency to back-peddle.

Sadly enough, London isn't what it used to be.

you mean it isnt full of corrupt bobbies, drugs, and political activists who work to undermine the countries traditional values?

 

[The Phule]

Sadly enough, London isn't what it used to be.

you mean it isnt full of corrupt bobbies, drugs, and political activists who work to undermine the countries traditional values?

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit
and the vermin of the world inhabit it
And it's morals aren't worth what a pig can shit
And it goes by the name of London.

 

[ShieldWife]

No, I meant this part:

“My way is to take heads of all Muslim countries into confidence. Together, we should ask Europe, the European Union and United Nations to stop hurting the feelings of 1.25 billion Muslim like they do not do in case of Jews. I want the Muslim countries to devise a joint line of action over the blasphemy issue with a warning of trade boycott of countries where such incidents will happen. This will be the most effective way to achieve the goal.”​

We do have hate speech laws in several Western nations concerning Anti-Semitism in general, not specifically related to the Holocaust. Indeed, in the United States in particular many states actually have legislation on the books that concern the BDS movement; if it's fair to do this, why not for Muslims and their Prophet? This is not to say I agree with either, but he does make a sound argument, at least in that vein.

As it were overall, however, just as we have the freedom of speech to criticize Islam-and I support that-we also have to recognize in return that they have the right to respond in kind, such as being advocated here.

People have the right to insult Muslims, Islam, or Mohammed, they also have the right to say that the Holocaust didn’t happen, to insult Jews and/or Israel, and to boycott Israel. Those are rights that every human has and any country that restricts those rights is oppressive in doing so. Two wrongs don’t make a right just because some Western nations have laws violating aspects of free speech doesn’t mean we should restrict speech any more.

When Islamic countries stop executing people for apostasy then maybe they would have a little firmer ground to stand on when it comes to Westerners drawing pictures.

 

[ShieldWife]

I often confuse Mormons and Muslims. Sorry. Could someone help explain the difference?

Both are Abrahamic, don’t like alcohol, allow for multiple wives, are based in hot arid regions, and venerate a weird profit. Muslims kill people who draw pictures of their profit and Mormons just roll their eyes, that is a key difference.

 

[Airedale260]

great West Bangladesh is bitching again.

FTFY.

Hate speech laws suck. We should have less of them, not more. Then again, those that exist are usually designed around left's pet peeves, including being structured about group identities.

That, and also Holocaust, regard very much real world political alignments, events or actions of current or relatively recent significance, so a very different case.
What they are asking for here is not something new and unusual, it is in fact something very old and known. Blasphemy laws. AKA what they have in Islamic countries. And what most of Europe also had. But most of it doesn't have now. There certainly were reasons to lift them regarding even the religion that most of their very own citizens belong to, so, why shouldn't the same reasons apply to the external demand for them?

I'd also like to note a similarity of such demand for international censorship to China's pressures for that regarding several of their actions and pet peeves... And that's a country really willing to throw its full, massive weight around for such things. But consider how did that influence their image and relations with the west. So, as i said, one hell of a can of worms here.

Two things to note: First, much of the Islamic world sees itself as having gotten screwed by the West, especially in the 19th to mid-20th centuries, much like China. And, second, they have a view of they're right and everyone else is completely wrong, so everyone should be bending over to kiss their ass (again, much like China). And given that there are not insignificant political forces in the West who love to suck up to these idiots, it's not necessarily as idiotic as it sounds on its face.

Though I agree with you that hate speech laws are stupid and both the Islamic world and China should be slapped down like the cretins they are.

There's actually quite a bit of bad blood/stereotypes towards Pakistanis at the moment due to the sex scandals and elements of their communities preying on young White girls. And, no, that's not racism or pearl-clutching -- they specifically targeted young, British White girls, teenagers, and vulnerable young women. I don't think that stigma is going to fade, as we Brits can hold a grudge.

It also doesn't help elements in our police and government tried to cover these elements' tracks multiple times because they "didn't want to rock the boat"/be accused of racism.

Anyway, the "Muslim Solidarity" thing is Bull. A lot of Muslim countries see the advantages of doing business/being friendly with the West and vice-versa, while others act like rabid zealots that like to hide in foxholes, awaiting some invasion (not so vice-versa -- actually, is Israel considered part of the West? I'm genuinely curious as their political, social, and geographical locations make them an odd case?

Israel is not only considered Western but an artificial creation of the Western powers. It's why Israel is grouped into UEFA, and in the "Western European and Others" group of countries at the UN, among other things, because most of the locals in the Middle East *really* don't like them, and their governments traditionally have been lukewarm at best (for various reasons).

As far as the grooming gangs go...unless they start messing with the sisters and daughters of the upper class, I don't see that attitude changing. Labour and the Lib Dems don't give a shit, and the Tories are already having trouble just dealing with other stuff and don't want to take the massive political prices they'd pay in trying to address the problem, since it's not just white girls at risk but also Southwest Asian girls as well (probably black, too, but I don't know what demographics outside London really look like tbh).

In order for it to be addressed, it would have to result in a scandal so massive that nobody could deny it's a problem, but that would require something on the order of, say, the daughter of someone extremely important to be victimized. It's fucked up, but sadly getting the establishment to care is extremely difficult.

 

[ShieldWife]

The Islamic world doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to being victims of European powers in the 19th century. Up until the early 1800’s the Barbary Pirates were still terrorizing Europe. Up until the early 20th Century the Ottoman Empire was the dominant power in the Middle East which had a very long history of conquering and oppressing Christians and Europeans, including committing genocide against some Christian ethnicities in the early 20th century.

Sure, Western powers did conquer parts of the Middle East and exploit them, but that was par for the course of what powerful nations do to less powerful ones and it it was actually extremely compassionate compared to what Muslims did to Europeans/Christians when they had/have the upper hand.

Our (especially America’s) current policies in the Middle East are bad, I can’t deny that, and Muslim countries are justified in complaints about us conquering countries there, funding terrorists or rebels, propping up one group against another, drone strikes, and all of the other terrible stuff that we do there. They have every right to complain about that, so I can’t help but feel that getting upset over drawing of Mohammed is misplaced anger.

The West’s attitude towards the Islamic World is just as strange though. We bomb and take over their countries, instigate and fund wars there, prop up some regimes and undermine others, and create all sorts of harm in the region, very often helping countries that are hostile to us and attacking those who have never threatened us.

We do all that nasty stuff to them and mostly don’t care, yet at the very same time we open our borders wide as can be, even paying angry Muslims to come to Western nations after their countries have been devastated by Western policies. Then when Muslims misbehave in Western nations, the authorities actively protect them.

It’s the absolute opposite of what we should do. We should leave Middle Eastern nations alone and also we should shut our borders and keep them out of our countries.