Asia Bibi reportedly denied asylum in the UK because of “possible unrest” among “certain sections of the community”

Not long ago I wrote about the plight of Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian who was sentenced to death for blasphemy after she got into a row with the Muslim women in her village. As I wrote at the time:

The details of her case show a country steeped in hatred, ignorance, and faith (some of these words might be redundant). The story started in June of 2009 (9 years ago!), when Bibi was bringing water to a group of farm workers in her village. Bibi was a Christian, a mother of four, and then 38 years old. The other workers, who were Muslim, objected to Bibi touching the bowl, and she might even have taken a sip from it.

The details of the altercation then are unclear, but Bibi was accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad. (As the Supreme Court just ruled, this claim was probably fabricated as a form of revenge or denigration.) She was arrested, and in December of 2010 was sentenced to hanging for that blasphemy. She would have been the first woman executed under Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

She’s been in prison now for almost 8 years, and in solitary confinement on death row.

Bibi was recently released by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which excoriated the lower courts for relying on unreliable and vindictive witnesses. She’s apparently free to leave Pakistan, and she better get out ASAP if she wants to live, for a freed “blaspheming” Christian has a half-life of about a month in that country.

Just about as disgusting as her conviction is a new report from HuffPo UK (via the Pakistan Christian Association) that the UK has denied Bibi’s appeal for asylum in that country because it might cause “civil unrest.” I find this hard to believe, but I’ll recount what HuffPo UK says:

A Pakistani Christian woman’s appeal to Britain for asylum has been denied because her arrival in the country may stir civil unrest, HuffPost UK has been told.

. . . On Saturday her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life.  Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, has also released a video message saying he too fears for his family’s safety.

“I am requesting the Prime Minister of the UK help us and as far as possible grant us freedom,” he said.

But campaigners working to secure Bibi’s move abroad said the UK government had not offered her asylum, citing security concerns.

Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said two countries had made firm offers of asylum, but Britain was not one of them.

“I’ve been lead to believe that the UK government had concerns that her moving to the UK would cause security concerns and unrest among certain sections of the community and would also be a security threat to British embassies abroad which might be targeted by Islamist terrorists.

“Security concerns and unrest among certain sections of the community”ˆ! You know exactly what that means: the Pakistani Muslim sections of the community, which would continue the religious vendetta against Bibi. Those who would cause such unrest are like spoiled children and should be treated that way; their infantile tantrums should certainly not be respected by a supposedly democratic government.

This is the same country that gave Salman Rushdie police protection, and then knighted him, after he was subject to a fatwa from Iran. If this new report is true, England has shamefully neglected its duty—yes, its duty—to shelter someone subject, like Rushdie, to religious persecution, all from fear that British Muslims will cause unrest.

I can’t tell you how angry this makes me, and I’m hoping the report is untrue. The British government has been cowering in fear of Muslim anger for several years, and their cowardice is reprehensible. What kind of democracy would turn away a woman like Bibi because she’d rile up the local Muslims, and that because of a false blasphemy charge.

CNN reports that Bibi has requested asylum in the Netherlands, and I’m pretty sure she’ll get it there. That country, at least, takes requests for asylum seriously. And if this story is true, British readers should hold their government accountable for this travesty.

I’ll await further verification of what seems to be a horrible lapse in British judgement, but the Torygraph did report that Bibi’s husband asked the UK for asylum for their family.

Asia Bibi

h/t: cesar

83 Comments

  1. Diana MacPherson
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    She may be granted asylum in Canada. Conservatives and Liberals are interested in helping her.

    • GBJames
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      Good for Canada. Shame on the UK.

      I wonder if there was any request made of the US. Republicans would loose their minds trying to resolve persecution of Christians vs. brown people from Muslim country.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

        I think she appealed to the US, UK, EU, and Canada.

  2. Cindy
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    [Puts on cynical hat]

    WEIT wrote:

    “”Those who would cause such unrest are like spoiled children and should be treated that way; their infantile tantrums should certainly not be respected by a supposedly DEMOCRATIC government.”” (caps by me)

    There’s your answer right there. DEMOCRATIC government. I have long pondered why EU governments, and now the Canadian government, seem to have an interest in importing millions of illiberal Muslims into their liberal societies. The answer is democracy itself. Import millions of ‘refugees’ (only a small minority are actual refugees), give them a house, welfare, and ‘nudge nudge, wink wink’ let them figure out who to vote for. Rich, privileged elitist politicians fresh out of the best private schools in the world don’t give a rat’s patootie about the well-being of ‘people of colour’. If they did, they wouldn’t discriminate against Christian POC, or for that matter, any POC who happen to disagree with the illiberal leftist agenda, such as Majiid Nawaz or AHA.

    It’s all about votes, and Muslims, along with do-good feel-good SJWs, are simply being exploited by the elite who are intent on holding onto economic and political power.

    • yazikus
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      (only a small minority are actual refugees),

      I think you might be needing a citation here.

      • a-non
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        To be fair, not many british-pakistanis would even claim to have arrived as refugees. I don’t have a reference but a number above 5% would surprise me greatly.

        • yazikus
          Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

          Cindy specifically says that of those who claim to be refugees, only are small minority are. I was being fair.

          • a-non
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

            Well, perhaps her sentence can be read two ways, was my point.

            But regardless of that point, she raises a serious question about democracy. A relatively small number of people can have significant impact if they vote as a block, as it is the tendency of ethnic minorities to do. Which should make us cautious about creating new such blocks when their cultural values (around, say, blasphemy) are very foreign to ours.

            A noted early example of this was the rise of Irish politicians in Boston: they gained power much greater than their numbers suggested, because it became impossible to be elected without their support. (Although the cultural distance between Catholic and Puritan seems quaint now that we have Boeing 747s…)

            • phil brown
              Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

              The crime of Blasphemy was only abolished in 2008 in England and Wales. Granted it didn’t carry the death penalty, at that time.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

                And also – be fair! – the only reason it lasted so long was that it was one of those obsolete laws that was never enforced, most people didn’t even know it still existed, and therefore nobody gave a stuff about.

                cr

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Canada hasn’t imported millions of Muslim refugees. We carefully review those who apply for asylum (Muslim or not) and if they seem dangerous, they don’t get in.

      In 1939 we turned away a boatload of German Jews and many were executed in Germany. We just apologized for it. We think we do a better job now.

      • Cindy
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        Unfortunately, Canada is having problems deporting dangerous criminals and terrorists:

        https://globalnews.ca/news/4087292/canada-deporting-dangerous-criminals-ineffective-still-here/

        “”A Global News investigation has found the federal government has become increasingly ineffective at carrying out deportations for public safety and security reasons.

        Removals of those who are supposed to be the government’s top priorities — foreign citizens under deportation orders for security, international human rights abuses, serious crimes and organized crime — have declined by a third since 2014.””

        “”Global News found some of them living seemingly ordinary Canadian lives although the government has alleged they had been members of terrorist groups or committed serious crimes.””

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

          How does that article about deportation comport with your claim that Canada is letting in millions of dangerous Muslims? That article talks about how it’s difficult to deport some people because countries won’t issue travel documents.

          The most recent refugee claims have come from border crossings in the US. Here are stats as reported in this article: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-are-a-majority-of-asylum-seekers-to-canada-doomed-to-rejection-1.3994539

          From February 2017 to March 2018, a total of 23,577 claims for refugee protection were made by irregular border crossers, according to the latest available data from the Immigration and Refugee Board — the arms-length body that processes asylum claims.
          Of those, a total of 3,462 claims, or 15 per cent, have been finalized. Of the claims that have been finalized, 47 per cent have been accepted, 36 per cent have been rejected, nine per cent have been abandoned and eight per cent have been withdrawn or classified as “other.”

          Around 3000 refugees accepted in one year of irregular border crossing refugees.

          Moreover refugees that don’t leave if denied are out in a holding facility. They aren’t wandering the streets pillaging. https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/rem-ren-eng.html

          Your claims sound suspiciously close to this refuted meme: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/rem-ren-eng.html

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

            Oops this is he refuted meme: https://globalnews.ca/news/2349786/no-canada-doesnt-spend-more-on-refugees-than-pensioners/

          • Cindy
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

            Please show me where I *specifically* stated, in my original comment, that Canada was letting in ‘millions of dangerous Muslims’.

            I said no such thing. I only linked the Global News article regarding Canada’s inability to deport certain dangerous and criminal migrants as a response to your next point, which was “and if they seem dangerous, they don’t get in.”

            Perhaps by ‘don’t get in’ you meant ‘are not granted citizenship’, in which case I agree. However, as cited in the article I pasted upthread, some of these guys are out and about in Canada committing crimes:

            https://globalnews.ca/news/4087292/canada-deporting-dangerous-criminals-ineffective-still-here/ “On January 24, 2018, Deng’s lawyer appeared in a Toronto courtroom to deal with his five latest charges, which date back to 2016 and include two counts of trafficking in a substance. The trial has been set for Feb. 11, 2019.”

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

              “Please show me where I *specifically* stated, in my original comment, that Canada was letting in ‘millions of dangerous Muslims’.”

              To be accurate, you said “… now the Canadian government[] seem[s] to have an interest in importing millions of illiberal Muslims into [its] liberal societ[y].”

              So your only complaint is that Diana failed to observe your distinction between “dangerous,” and “illiberal”?

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

                Indeed. I was about to paste the same quote.

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

              Your phrasing of millions of illiberal Muslims not only suggests “dangerous” but also suggests hordes have been let in. You then show a few cases where it was hard to deport some bad ones. There is a big difference between letting in millions of illiberals (which I interpret as dangerous) to the actual numbers of a few thousand out of 20 thousand.

    • phil brown
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      The most likely recipients of Muslim votes in the UK are the Labour Party, but the party which has had longest in power since we’ve had immigration from Muslim countries is the Conservatives. They started coming in numbers in the 50s — a solidly Conservative decade.
      So your theory that they were imported for votes doesn’t really stack up.

      Also the UK Government doesn’t give people houses, and welfare is not generous.

    • BJ
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

      This is quite the conspiracy theory! I’d love to see a shred of evidence. Can you provide any?

    • tomh
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      “…seem to have an interest in importing millions of illiberal Muslims into their liberal societies.”

      Nobody “imports” people, goods are imported. Using the term for people is just another way to dehumanize the “others.”

      • Filippo
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        Right, just as capitalists referring to flesh-and-blood human beings as human “capital” and “resources” dehumanizes human beings.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      I have long pondered why EU governments, and now the Canadian government, seem to have an interest in importing millions of illiberal Muslims into their liberal societies.

      Well, I can’t speak for the Canadians and EU, but for the UK the reason that there was substantial immigration from India (Hindus & Sikhs, principally) and Pakistan in the 1950s and 60s was that the people entering the country were born as citizens of the British Empire and they had an absolute right to come to “Mother” Britain. That was before government-sponsored transport etc.
      That pretty soon got changed once the domestic racists realised that the playing field was something like level. “They don’t like it,” quoth Cpl Jones, “up ’em!”
      Actually, the “Empire” criterion might have applied to, for example, Sri Lankans travelling to Canada. It’s also probably why there is an appreciable Indian-derived population in East and South Africa. And the Caribbean.

      • Posted November 14, 2018 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

        Given the later developments, the “domestic racists” have apparently been right.
        I have never understood the “Empire” criterion. When Bulgaria broke off from the Ottoman Empire, the remnant of the Empire did not open its doors wide to Bulgarian immigrants, and nobody expected it to.

  3. Ken Kukec
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    … a freed “blaspheming” Christian has a half-life of about a month in that country.

    Whole damn Pakistani government is an unstable isotope, you ask me.

    Where’s that famous Churchillian “We shall never surrender!” spirit on behalf of our Brit cousins?

    Do we know which two countries have stood tall to offer Ms. Bibi asylum?

    • Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Things have changed since 2013 when Malala Yousafzai was spirited out of Pakistan, treated in Birmingham QE Hospital, subsequently given a Brum Secondary Education, opened Birmingham’s new £200 million library, had her picture in the National Portrait Gallery, and called herself a “proud Brummie”.

      Maybe Asia Bibi is as articulate and charming as Malala, who knows? But, unlike Malala, she looks to have had the bad luck to have been betrayed by the very people who should be standing between her and her torturers.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        Welcome to a “hostile environment”.

    • Alexander
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      Do we know which two countries have stood tall to offer Ms. Bibi asylum?

      I heard, probably from the BBC, that France and Spain have offered her asylum. But I can understand that she would prefer an English-speaking country.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

        If the US doesn’t step up on this, I’ll be ashamed to go down to Battery Park to peer out and show Lady Liberty my face.

        • rickflick
          Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

          But, the U.S. immigration policy is currently Donald J. Trump. I can’t see him doing squat. And, yes, shame would be the right response.

          • gravelinspector-Aidan
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

            Doesn’t Trump have plans to put an overpriced hotel on that island, once he’s sold the copper to a Russian scrap dealer? For cash.
            I’m sure I’m not putting ideas into his head which haven’t passed through there before.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

              That one really did make me laugh out loud, mate.

              (“For cash,” was an especially nice touch. The better to pay hush-money for non-disclosure agreements, I suppose.)

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

                I too think “for cash” really made the whole thing.

            • rickflick
              Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

              Ha! I’m sure it’s one of his oldest wet dreams. Bonus: viewing ‘TRUMP’ in lights as you enter the harbor would put a damper on immigration.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted November 11, 2018 at 10:12 am | Permalink

              Trump could replace Emma Lazarus’s poem with “Give me your dictators and autocrats, your Norwegian supermodels yearning to hook-up with pseudo-billionaires …”

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think individual asylum requests are something that usually make it to the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. But even assuming this one were to, I should think granting asylum to a Christian persecuted by Muslims would be popular with Trump’s evangelical supporters.

            • rickflick
              Posted November 10, 2018 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

              Let’s hope for the best.

            • Posted November 13, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

              I’ve cynically wondered that the religious angle is why the (Canadian) Conservatives are on board.

            • Posted November 14, 2018 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

              I am not sure he would follow the will of his supporters in such a situation.

    • Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      When Churchill said we, he was only referring to wealthy Anglo Saxon Protestants. For him, no one else mattered or counted.

      • BJ
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        Evidence?

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

          I think Old Guy is pulling our legs, mocking the low esteem in which certain SJWs hold Sir Winston.

          • BJ
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

            Ah, I hope so.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

        “[E]ven if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

        There were plenty of fine fellows every bit as dark as had been Kipling’s Gunga Din two generations earlier (including many from the “Harlem Hell Fighters” of the US Army’s own fighting 369th Regiment), who gave the last full measure to keep the world free from Fascism.

    • BJ
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

      Hey, Ken, have you checked out that Youtube channel? Interested in your thoughts. Also, if you have any recommendations for me regarding websites, channels, or other resources regarding film review and analysis, please share.

  4. Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Stupid lunatics of Islam screaming for her christian blood and so, the very pious christian minded hand comes out, and slaps that christian across the face,
    saying…
    fuck you, your trouble!

  5. Kelcey BURMAN
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    Someone who is in clear and definitive need of asylum….countries should be falling over each other trying to secure her asylum. A fine example of the hypocrisy of our governments

    • a-non
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

      Indeed. And also a missed opportunity to re-frame the question of what asylum is for. It’s for exactly this: individuals seeking safety because they are specifically targeted.

      By contrast, I mean, to situations where almost everyone in a country thinks it’s a dump and wishes to leave. That problem we can’t fix, and even if we wanted to, asylum would be a hopeless tool for the task.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        That problem we can’t fix merely by granting asylum, for sure. But it’s a problem we helped create through our support for far right-wing caudillos who were in the pocket of companies like United Fruit, and through our unslakeable appetite for South American drugs.

        The US should accept its responsibility and help those Central American nations solve the problems that drive their citizens to seek US asylum.

        • Diane G
          Posted November 11, 2018 at 2:58 am | Permalink

          Indeed.

        • Posted November 14, 2018 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

          Ken,
          Somehow, Canada despite its proximity to the USA didn’t fall under the rule of caudillos, nor did it become a major drug producer. Do you seriously think that if the USA never existed, Central America would be a beacon of enlightenment and prosperity?

          • Diane G
            Posted November 14, 2018 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

            They don’t grow a lot of bananas in Canada…

            😉

  6. Posted November 10, 2018 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place and commented:
    The UK government seems to have its moral principles confused.

  7. Jenny Haniver
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    The British government comes across as lily-livered. The current US government and too many of its citizens are so xenophobic and racist that I doubt any of them sincerely cares one bit about the plight of dark-skinned Christians from furrin countries, except for spouting pious words and appearing in photo ops. Granting her and her family (and her lawyer) asylum would entail a whole lot more than some pious words and photo ops.

    • Historian
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      “The current US government and too many of its citizens are so xenophobic and racist that I doubt any of them sincerely cares one bit about the plight of dark-skinned Christians from furrin countries, except for spouting pious words and appearing in photo ops.”

      I do not know how the U.S. government would act in this particular case, but your point is well taken. After all, most of those people in the “caravan” are Christians of the Catholic variety, but Trump has managed to scare almost half the population that they are dangerous terrorists.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

        I was just about to say exactly that when I read your comment. Beat me to it 🙂

        cr

  8. Alan Jardine
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I live in the U.K. and am current with the news, even from independent sources.

    I have not heard of this story from reliable sources.

    Does the HuffPo strike again?
    Alan.

    • rickflick
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      I hope it’s just fake news.

  9. Michael Fisher
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    This is weak stuff & it stinks of spin. Why should we trust the words of Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association?:-

    “I’ve been lead to believe that the UK government had concerns that her moving to the UK would cause security concerns…”

    This has got to be bullshit. If she had been denied asylum Chowdhry [or the family] would have been told of that decision. I think British officials are acting normally & taking their sweet time making a decision & Chowdhry is using the media to push the Home Office [or Foreign Office] to reach a favourable decision.

    P.S. Until recently the BPCA registered address was a flat over a fried chicken shop in Ilford. Its registered charities name is British Pakistani Christians Ltd & it’s handling approx £140k/year in donations – a tiny amount given there are over 1 million Pakistani/Pakistani heritage in the UK. I think Chowdhry wants to be noticed & he & his missus are rubbish at fund raising. One of the tabs on their website called “Matrimony” jumps the visitor to a dodgy dating site my computer wouldn’t let me visit!

    Amateur hour

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      P.S. I’ve just realised the matrimonial site Shaadi4Christians is a Chowdhry venture. It charges subscribers after the first six months.

      I estimate there are 20,000 Christian Pakistanis in the UK [1%-2% of all UK Pakistanis]. BPCA have moved to a proper office & re-employed the accountant/book keeper woman [I’m guessing that’s her role from this’n’that detail] – once Bibi is settled somewhere BPCA donations will plummet. IMO That’s what’s going on with the flurry of reports on the mean old British Gov. 🙂

    • BJ
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Good research. I’m interested to see how this “news” (who knows if it’s actually even real at this point) develops.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

        The thing about this charity [like a lot of small charities] is you can see how much is coming in, but it’s hard/impossible to see where it’s going out to. Who is benefiting & how? On the website where are the photographs of larger than life cheques being presented to the deserving needy people & organisations? Why are travel expenses so high [£40k] compared to grant giving [£80k]?

        They have taken out £12k for rent & yet I’m pretty sure they operate from home – above the Fried Chicken take away – I checked their office address & it’s actually their accountant’s office.

        There is no ‘Statement Of Cash Flow’ in their accounts because they are small & not required to present one…

        SOURCE: Charity Commission accounts

        • BJ
          Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

          If those numbers for travel versus grant amounts are correct, it appears to be one of those “charities” people establish and then use as an expense account. Every time you travel, you can say it’s for charity and use the funds. If you own a business in the US, you can pretty easily spend tons of money on your personal life and either use the business’ funds or write the expenses off. For example, if you want to go and have a meal at a restaurant, charge it to your business’ card. The law in a case like that basically boils down to “if you talked about business at all during the meal, it’s a business expense.”

          • Michael Fisher
            Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

            Yes it does look like a tax dodge & perhaps worse.

    • rickflick
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      I’m glad to hear there’s a bullshitter involved in the report. Thanks.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        At the bottom of this comment is Wilson Chowdhry bullshitting mightily about his company’s 20th year in business “AA Security” [over £2,500,000 a year gross back in 2014 according to Chowdhry & yet the contact address is over that damned Fried Chicken shop where he lives.

        Companies House suggests the turnover for AA Security was £80k last year, but that figure is also close to his liabilities. No profit.

        You can hear his smoke detector beeping because the battery is low – not professional for a security company. And also the beeping from the pedestrian crossing system outside his window. He’s the Pakistani Derek Trotter.

        The AA SECURITY website – which is a whinge-fest about Muslims

        • rickflick
          Posted November 10, 2018 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

          Ha! The alarm peeps every time he tells a whopper. Serves as a lengthening nose. I can’t believe this guy didn’t have the self awareness to at least disconnect it before trying to conduct an interview. I love his bragging about “professionalism” while the damn thing chirps.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

      “a flat over a fried chicken shop in Ilford.”

      Sounds like the setting for one of those “kitchen-sink realism” plays by one of those Brit “angry young man” playwrights from the Fifties or Sixties. 🙂

  10. BJ
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    I’m going to withhold judgment until this report is confirmed, but if it’s true…wow. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but the UK government has shown an insane (in the literal sense of the word) willingness to tolerate and ignore cruelty and lawlessness among certain Muslim communities within its borders, as can be seen with the allowance and covering up of thousands of rapes committed by multiple communities in multiple locations.

    • phil brown
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      That was an issue with local councils and police forces, rather than the UK government. And it was as much a matter of disbelieving the girls and young women involved as it was running scared of racially profiling the accused. They weren’t covered up, as you put it, just not properly investigated.

      • BJ
        Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        You’re right that I shouldn’t have used the phrase “UK government.” But the local authorities most certainly did cover up what they knew was happening.

      • Posted November 15, 2018 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        They arrested at least two fathers trying to rescue their daughters.

  11. Posted November 10, 2018 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Please, just get her out of that hell hole. Asylum status can be determined later.

  12. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    IF it is true then (as an expat Brit) I’m ashamed for my country.

    I say IF because it’s based on what one arguably biased source has been ‘led to believe’. Couldn’t get much more shaky than that. I think I’ll wait a bit and see what surfaces.

    cr

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted November 10, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      I’m hoping it’s not true as there is a lot of unknowns with this since secrecy is so important for her safety.

  13. barube
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Where is the cyber outrage???

  14. max blancke
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get the reasoning behind the appeasement argument. Our grandchildren are going to curse us for what we are setting them up for. Especially when one considers how much our grandparents sacrificed to give us a nice, safe, egalitarian society.

  15. Jim Jones
    Posted November 10, 2018 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    > “You know exactly what that means: the Pakistani Muslim sections of the community, which would continue the religious vendetta against Bibi.”

    Great. Let them identify themselves. Then deport them back to Pakistan.

  16. keith
    Posted November 11, 2018 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    Well said, Jerry. Nothing substantive to add.

    Someone should tell those threatening Asia Bibi that Islam is a religion of peace.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] As I reported yesterday, taking my news from the HuffPo UK, Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian falsely convicted of blasphemy and then freed after eight years on death row in solitary confinement, appeared to have been denied asylum in the UK. The denial was reportedly based on the possibility that Bibi’s presence in the UK would cause unrest from “certain sections of the community”—almost certainly Muslims. […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: