July 25, 2021

The Pakistani government justifies its agreement with the Islamists and promises measures

The Pakistani government justifies its agreement with the Islamists and promises measures

The Government of Pakistan today justified the agreement with the Islamists to end the protests against the acquittal of the Christian Asia Bibi as an alternative to force and promised measures against those who participated in these acts of "betrayal".

"We had two options: use force or talk to them, if we used force, lives were at risk, we had to solve it with a strategy," Pakistani Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry told reporters in Karachi (south). who added that the protests are not a "religious" issue but "treason".

"We can not ignore a betrayal, if the Government does that then it would put a question mark on the State, one should not be confused and think that the Executive will forgive him, the State will not ignore the speeches that were delivered," the minister said.

The highest judicial body absolved Asia Bibi on Wednesday and annulled a death sentence for blasphemy.

Almost immediately after the judicial decision, thousands of radical Islamists from the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) took to the streets across the country, causing almost paralysis of the same for three days, with many roads cut and schools closed.

After three days, the TLP suspended the protests by reaching an agreement with the government that allows them to ask the Justice that Asia Bibi not leave the country while the Supreme Court is considering an appeal to his acquittal, among other things.

The Christian, mother of five children, was denounced in 2009 by two women for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad, a court sentenced her to death in 2010 and four years later lost an appeal in the High Court of Lahore (east).

The hard law antiblasfemia paquistaní was established in the British colonial time to avoid religious clashes, but in the decade of 1980 several reforms sponsored by the then dictator, Mohamed Zia-ul-Haq, favored the abuse of this rule.


Source link