The Student Room Group

Asia Bibi refused asylum in the UK

Scroll to see replies

Original post by 999tigger
That the blasphemy law exists.
That the evidence they had was weak...

That the country isnt safe for her to live.
That the government has colluded with and caved in to hard line extremists still calling for her death.

(1) I.e. those Muslims are 200% snowflakes. The sum of her "blasphemy" was to challenge the ones who tried to force her to convert to Islam, with this question: "[In contrast to Jesus] What did your prophet Muhammad ever do to save the world?" Great question.

(2) You could easily be talking about either of two countries there: Pakistan, and its real NWFP.
Original post by Andrew97
Ultimately it would be lovely for us to give her asylum. However, we should only do so if we can garuntee her safety. Or at least keep her in an undisclosed location.

If she isn't safe in UK because she's a Christian. Where does that leave the rest of us? (including atheists they aren't their biggest fans either)
Original post by Jebedee
If she isn't safe in UK because she's a Christian. Where does that leave the rest of us? (including atheists they aren't their biggest fans either)

See my post immediately above yours. The UK govt. is above all scared of admitting that they've let in a fifth column of potential assassins and can't do a thing about it. It would amount to saying that the policy of successive UK govts was worse than stupid, and the blow to public confidence in the political class would be staggering.

Strangely, atheists are relatively spared; or maybe not so strange - after all, it wasn't atheism that Islam was concocted to obstruct in the first place.
Original post by Justvisited
See my post immediately above yours. The UK govt. is above all scared of admitting that they've let in a fifth column of potential assassins and can't do a thing about it. It would amount to saying that the policy of successive UK govts was worse than stupid, and the blow to public confidence in the political class would be staggering.

Strangely, atheists are relatively spared; or maybe not so strange - after all, it wasn't atheism that Islam was concocted to obstruct in the first place.

Good post.

The political class ( all the major parties are complicit) can never admit the failure of their policies and so double down on the deceit, and the euphemism.

That is why it is important to fight over cases like this. It is far easier for the government to do the wrong thing because it is the easy thing. Let another country save her life, then we won’t have to take the risk that she will be murdered, or there will be civil discord. Who needs all of that, they think.

But it couldn’t be clearer morally, and the way to deal with violent Islamists is to face them down. If we don’t take a stand on issues like this we are hardly better than Pakistan itself.

And will eventually go the same way in our spineless concession to Islamist violence and aggression.

Not that Pakistan have agreed to even let her go yet. As far as I know, anyway?
Original post by generallee
It has been conflated with mass illegal immigration on economic grounds on a totally unassilimiable scale.

Asia has applied for asylum in Europe instead of the hundreds of other safe countries around the world. Europe, with our lucrative benefits, and not East Asia, South America, Africa, etc. She sounds just like an "economic migrant", at least on the terms of those such as yourself.

Stop pretending like you care about her wellbeing. You don't.

The only reason you care about this story is because the victim is Christian and it enables you the opportunity to complain about refugees currently in Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any outcry from you when thousands of Muslims were either killed or force to abandon their homes last year (and still to this day) in Burma. No calls for us to accept them as refugees.
Original post by SHallowvale
Asia has applied for asylum in Europe instead of the hundreds of other safe countries around the world. Europe, with our lucrative benefits, and not East Asia, South America, Africa, etc. She sounds just like an "economic migrant", at least on the terms of those such as yourself.

Stop pretending like you care about her wellbeing. You don't.

The only reason you care about this story is because the victim is Christian and it enables you the opportunity to complain about refugees currently in Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any outcry from you when thousands of Muslims were either killed or force to abandon their homes last year (and still to this day) in Burma. No calls for us to accept them as refugees.


He doesn’t care about her welfare because he just wants to moan about Muslims then he only cares because she is Christian.....

Which is it?
Original post by SHallowvale
Asia has applied for asylum in Europe instead of the hundreds of other safe countries around the world. Europe, with our lucrative benefits, and not East Asia, South America, Africa, etc. She sounds just like an "economic migrant", at least on the terms of those such as yourself.

Stop pretending like you care about her wellbeing. You don't.

The only reason you care about this story is because the victim is Christian and it enables you the opportunity to complain about refugees currently in Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any outcry from you when thousands of Muslims were either killed or force to abandon their homes last year (and still to this day) in Burma. No calls for us to accept them as refugees.

I care for her well being to the same extent that we both care for the well being of all those attempting to enter Europe on rickety boats.

We can save her life, and should. We simply can’t save every Rohingya, there are too many, it is impractical.

Do you deny this? If not how many Rohingya, and Syrians, and Afghans, and Somalis SHOULD we grant asylum to? There are tens of millions, hundreds of millions who could make a case under the current refugee protocol. Give me your number and tell me where they would live, what schools they would go to, and how we would fund them or find them jobs?

Also, do you seek to deny granting Asia asylum whilst letting in all these people? If so on what grounds? Her Christian faith?
Original post by paul514
He doesn’t care about her welfare because he just wants to moan about Muslims then he only cares because she is Christian.....

Which is it?

Both, they're not mutually exclusive.
Original post by generallee
I care for her well being to the same extent that we both care for the well being of all those attempting to enter Europe on rickety boats.

We can save her life, and should. We simply can’t save every Rohingya, there are too many, it is impractical.

Do you deny this? If not how many Rohingya, and Syrians, and Afghans, and Somalis SHOULD we grant asylum to? There are tens of millions, hundreds of millions who could make a case under the current refugee protocol. Give me your number and tell me where they would live, what schools they would go to, and how we would fund them or find them jobs?

Also, do you seek to deny granting Asia asylum whilst letting in all these people? If so on what grounds? Her Christian faith?

The responsibility of caring for refugees, be them from Syria, Afghanistan, Burma, etc, should be held by the entire world, Europe included.

Every single refugee cannot reside in the UK and I have never said they should (or can). That does not mean we cannot accept at least some of those people seeking refuge. And yes, Asia should be granted asylum either in the UK or elsewhere.
Original post by SHallowvale
Both, they're not mutually exclusive.


Well they are, you can’t care and not care for a person, but whatever
Original post by paul514
Well they are, you can’t care and not care for a person, but whatever

Re-read what I said.

They care about the story. They do not care about the individual.
Original post by SHallowvale
The responsibility of caring for refugees, be them from Syria, Afghanistan, Burma, etc, should be held by the entire world, Europe included.

Every single refugee cannot reside in the UK and I have never said they should (or can). That does not mean we cannot accept at least some of those people seeking refuge. And yes, Asia should be granted asylum either in the UK or elsewhere.

So you agree that millions of totally deserving cases must be turned down on pragmatic grounds, then? People at risk of their lives? We can’t take them all?

Very sensible of you, but I fail to see what gives you the right to adopt a high moral tone, and pretend you are better than me in some moral sense.

Or that you care more than me.

You have just admitted that you don’t care about the suffering of hundreds of millions of your fellow humans. Neither do I, of course, but then I don’t go on message boards signalling my non existent virtue.
Original post by generallee
So you agree that millions of totally deserving cases must be turned down on pragmatic grounds, then? People at risk of their lives? We can’t take them all?

Very sensible of you, but I fail to see what gives you the right to adopt a high moral tone, and pretend you are better than me in some moral sense.

Or that you care more than me.

You have just admitted that you don’t care about the suffering of hundreds of millions of your fellow humans. Neither do I, of course, but then I don’t go on message boards signalling my non existent virtue.

It looks like you've got yourself pretty confused on the reason(s) why I believe you don't actually care about the person in this case...
So we are happy to let in so-called ‘asylum seekers’ yet when there is a case a an actual person needing asylum from a bunch of senile inbred rats, we cower.
She can claim asylum elsewhere, we should not give asylum to non europeans.
Original post by Party up in Here
She can claim asylum elsewhere, we should not give asylum to non europeans.


She’s applying from her native country not just rocking up and demanding it.

I find it refreshing someone’s doing it properly these days
Blasphemy laws are the works of a madman. She needs to get out of Pakistan ASAP, there is no liberty and human rights are very limited there. Which is not very surprising for a nation that is overrun with corruption, terrorism and a outdated society


Original post by SHallowvale
Asia has applied for asylum in Europe instead of the hundreds of other safe countries around the world. Europe, with our lucrative benefits, and not East Asia, South America, Africa, etc. She sounds just like an "economic migrant", at least on the terms of those such as yourself.

Stop pretending like you care about her wellbeing. You don't.

The only reason you care about this story is because the victim is Christian and it enables you the opportunity to complain about refugees currently in Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any outcry from you when thousands of Muslims were either killed or force to abandon their homes last year (and still to this day) in Burma. No calls for us to accept them as refugees.

I won't deny it, that is true. A lot of far right figures are currently doing that, they are simply using this as a way to appear sympathetic towards refugees...only if they are non-Muslim. Syrians getting bombed everyday? Nah forget them
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by SHallowvale
Asia has applied for asylum in Europe instead of the hundreds of other safe countries around the world. Europe, with our lucrative benefits, and not East Asia, South America, Africa, etc. She sounds just like an "economic migrant", at least on the terms of those such as yourself.

Stop pretending like you care about her wellbeing. You don't.

The only reason you care about this story is because the victim is Christian and it enables you the opportunity to complain about refugees currently in Europe. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any outcry from you when thousands of Muslims were either killed or force to abandon their homes last year (and still to this day) in Burma. No calls for us to accept them as refugees.

You would think that Muslim nations would be the first to be queueing up to take in lots of Rohingya. But they're not, are they? At least they could give generously to Bangladesh to shelter them in political safety until the situation is resolved.

As for Asia Bibi, no, there aren't "hundreds" of suitable countries. Clearly no Muslim-majority country will do (besides the point just made that they typically don't take many refugees). Nor in fact will any with a large Muslim minority (e.g. Ethiopia where it's one-third). Nor any where e.g. Boko Haram or Al-Shabaab are active in terrorism. Nor other African countries with civil war (CAR, DRC). Nor China which is constantly imprisoning Christian pastors. See, the list of possible destinations is already diminishing fast.

You'd think Latin America might be an option, but which LA country has actually offered? I haven't heard of any. Whereas several European countries, plus Canada and Australia, have already stepped up to the plate. In these circumstances, what do you expect to happen?

Let the last word (for now) go to Pakistan chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa: "The image of Islam we are showing to the world gives me much grief and sorrow." I'd like to see a few self-identifying Muslims on TSR go on record here to agree.
THE testimonies from witnesses DID NOT add up

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you