Imran Khan's recent 'phateechar' comment about the international PSL players took social media by storm as PTI fans and otherwise showed disappointment at his statement.
However, Hamza Ali Abbasi is of a different opinion.
Posting a video to Facebook, Abbasi shared his 'two cents' on the PTI leader's leaked video. It's not news that Hamza is vocal on social media and actively lands himself in hot water by making controversial statements.
However, instead of blindly agreeing with him or dismissing him outright - we analysed his statements. And after doing so, we'd like to point out some flaws in his 11 minute speech defending Imran Khan's "phateechar" comment.
Here's what he got...
Right: The PSL will not end terrorism in Pakistan
"Do you really think this was Pakistan versus terrorism and Pakistan won?" asked Hamza.
Hamza's rhetorical question was owing to the many Pakistanis who used the Cricket League's win to establish that terrorism has been defeated in Pakistan. However, as the actor points out, a sports match can't triumph over a long-prevailing issue, especially one that's taken years to address.
Sadly, that's the only thing he got right. Here's what he got...
Wrong: Terming his opinion as one from a neutral party
"Please take my views as a neutral Pakistani. I'm talking to you purely from a neutral standpoint as a concerned Pakistani," said Hamza.
Erm... what? Hamza Ali Abbasi is an avid PTI supporter and this is public knowledge, something he has actively promoted. So for him to say that his opinion comes from a neutral party and presents an untainted view when he is indirectly calling out other political leaders is just plain misrepresentation.
When it comes to politics, Hamza's previous endorsements and relationships prove he isn't neutral and he should have admitted to this.
Wrong: IK's remarks were made in a private space and so, should not be judged
"He [Imran Khan] used it [the word phateechar] in a private conversation. In a frank mahol (environment)... off-camera... Have you never used slang words when with your friends or in a private gathering? Why is it such a big deal?" said Hamza.
The problem with this statement of Hamza's is that he distinguishes between an individual's opinion in a public and private space, when the leader shoulder be questioned for holding such objectionable views.
Whether spoken in a personal space or public forum doesn't change Imran Khan's opinion. For someone looking to lead a country Imran should not have spoken as such and Hamza is trying to sidetrack that. That's like allowing an individual to act disagreeably in private and only holding him accountable when he acts as such publicly.
Wrong: Deflecting blame from Imran Khan by calling out corruption charges against other political leaders
"We're criticising a person who has never once been charged with corruption, or extortion. He has never been corrupt in his entire political life or even before it," said Hamza.
Pointing out charges against other political leaders and comparing them to IK's statement was in poor taste as it deflects the blame from IK.
Yes, corruption is a scourge. And yes, we should combat it. But that doesn't mean other offences (like being dismissive and rude) shouldn't be called out. Political leaders need to be held accountable for what they say or do regardless of what other leaders are doing around them.
And then to further show IK in a positive light, Hamza then continued to talk about the PTI leader's achievements and his contribution to society -- but he neglected to realise how a person's noble or well-intentioned acts don't insulate them from blame if they go and say something offensive.
Wrong: Addressing only the word 'phateechar' instead of taking IK's entire statement into context
Hamza chose only to address the word 'phateechar' instead of looking at the larger picture where the political leader dismissed all international cricketers who participated in the PSL. He also threw in a racist comment suggesting that "they'd (PSL) got some (players) from Africa" to play in the league.
The whole issue revolves around the context in which the word was used not just the use of the word.