Do you agree with the UK denying Asia Bibi asylum?

[sarahtasher]

Denying her asylum might have been a smart move. With all the Pakistani extremists already in Britain, she probably wouldn't be much safer there anyway. Hopefully the US or Canada will be willing to help.

As for Britain, I feel quite saddened. They were once the greatest nation on the planet with the spine to stand up for their own beliefs and culture. I am reminded of the quote from Charles James Napier concerning the custom of burning widows alive on their husbands funeral pyres in India:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Are you reading. Canada is taking here. But not mister ''TUF ON DAH MOZLEMS'' (that do not have a Trump Hotel in their capital) Donald Duck

- - - Updated - - -

Oh boy ST is having another rage induced aneurysm, bust out the popcorn bois.

Yeah, you are right, I'm utterly enraged and out of my mind to point out that

1)Theresa May, the one who refused the asylum, is a Tory, not a ''leftie'' (I gave up on the concept that Theresa May is not ruling on every immigration case in her country). Justin Trudeau, one of your bête noire since he did not do the ''real stud'' you crave for (AKA drop his pants and begs Trump to do him from behind) and stood against him on NAFTA, did however PERSONALLY said that she was welcome in Canada.

2)That the usual suspects are again way more interested into raging against leftists than helping the woman. I know that in your head, screaming with foam in the mouth that you are one step away from taking your big manly AK-47 to solve the problem (that is, when you are an American and the migrants are those well known Islamist terrorists, Hondurans) is a solution, alongside ''bomb their shitholes'' or ''sink their boats''. You might notice here that all those plans that does not work beyond ''add trillions to the debt'' will not help at all the woman. They will have in fact the same impact as other plans to ''piss off muslims'', which is make life of the Christian minorities even more miserable Thankfully, even your kind don't have the chutzpah to pretend you would welcome Yezidis or Christians from Pakistan.

3)Voicing tiny SJW libural objections like ''they are born in the UK, you can't deport them to Pakistan...'' is ''DEFENDING ISLAM''.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

Are you reading. Canada is taking here. But not mister ''TUF ON DAH MOZLEMS'' (that do not have a Trump Hotel in their capital) Donald Duck

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, you are right, I'm utterly enraged and out of my mind to point out that

1)Theresa May, the one who refused the asylum, is a Tory, not a ''leftie'' (I gave up on the concept that Theresa May is not ruling on every immigration case in her country). Justin Trudeau, one of your bête noire since he did not do the ''real stud'' you crave for (AKA drop his pants and begs Trump to do him from behind) and stood against him on NAFTA, did however PERSONALLY said that she was welcome in Canada.

2)That the usual suspects are again way more interested into raging against leftists than helping the woman. I know that in your head, screaming with foam in the mouth that you are one step away from taking your big manly AK-47 and mowing crowds of Hondurans migrants because Pakitstanis are too dangerous is a ''solution'' alongside ''bomb their shitholes'' or ''sink their boats''

3)Voicing tiny SJW libural objections like ''they are born in the UK, you can't deport them to Pakistan...'' is ''DEFENDING ISLAM''.

Your first point is actually very good.

Your next two are more straw men... Nobody wants to mow down harmless migrants (Edit:99% of people don't and that is who you are debating the people that wan't to take a tough stance on immigration will fight with you against the 1% and their AK-47 wielding death squads), not wanting a huge influx of self admitted undocumented economics immigrants is what you are arguing against... This is why this debate devolves so hard, because people say that these migrants shouldn't be allowed into the country and then you say they probably would like to go around killing them in death squads.

Your third point might not be 100% a strawman, because I do believe a lot of these people would support deporting UK citizens... But you can't just bring up one misguided viewpoint in the thread and then claim victory against all other scrutiny of your views. For example lets say a person who was a refugee in the UK assaulted her would you not be ok with deporting that person? Or what about somebody who commits other serious crimes?

[Deletedaccount1]

2)That the usual suspects are again way more interested into raging against leftists than helping the woman. I know that in your head, screaming with foam in the mouth that you are one step away from taking your big manly AK-47 to solve the problem (that is, when you are an American and the migrants are those well known Islamist terrorists, Hondurans) is a solution, alongside ''bomb their shitholes'' or ''sink their boats''. You might notice here that all those plans that does not work beyond ''add trillions to the debt'' will not help at all the woman. They will have in fact the same impact as other plans to ''piss off muslims'', which is make life of the Christian minorities even more miserable Thankfully, even your kind don't have the chutzpah to pretend you would welcome Yezidis or Christians from Pakistan.

did you take your meds today

[Realitytrembles]

Oh are you fucking kidding me? If she stays there she'll literally be hanged by an angry mob for her faith, and we're refusing her Asylum here so we don't upset the Pakistanis here?

If they're going to be upset about that they can fuck off.

Well said. The adherents of the particular "offended" philosophy in question can keep their nonsense to themselves. If they choose to persecute and threaten a Christian in a Western country, the police should shoot them.

[Seranthor]

did you take your meds today

Chatbots dont have meds. That said, if they weren't a chatbot I'd wonder the same thing.

[Coolthulhu]

No?

I'll take your failure to provide evidence as a surrender. Another notch for my post.

P.S. I didn't respond to it because I literally can't understand what you're asking me. My post was pretty straightforward.

So you're saying sarahtasher indulged in no mental gymnastics at all, and you "didn't understand" (how is that even possible? I'm not writing in Ancient Greek) that I asked you to explain why your comment was made quoting my post, yet for some reason I'm the one "surrendering". Thanks for adding your mental gymnastics and excuses to the list, I guess.

[Super Kami Dende]

Maybe she just shouldn't have been intolerant of the Culture and she wouldn't require Asylum.

[mitre27]

I'd say give her asylum and kick out the religious retards that think she deserves to be killed.

[Deleted]

Cowards. They should have granted asylum and kicked out anyone who disagrees with it.

Sometimes I wonder how people could be so fucked up that they cave in to demands of backwards religions idiots who came from another part of world and have no intention of integrating. Don't want to integrate - go back to shithole they came from.

[Ryme]

The UK is a global joke of a nation, we've fallen so far we can't even see the light any more, but hey at least we can still raid your house if you say something "offensive" online. Just let us sink with Brexit.

[Deleted]

The key to this story is:
Britain has not offered asylum to a Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy because of fear it would prompt “unrest” in the UK and attacks on embassies, her supporters claim.

There is NO evidence that she has not been offered asylum because it would cause unrest.

That would in fact be extremely unlikely as immigration decisions are made by civil servants, they don't have the remit to make a decision based on factors like civil unrest which would be exclusively a political matter that would be referred to the home secretary or the PM.


Almost certainly she has not been offered asylum because the UK government has a policy of limiting immigration currently and is struggling to meet its own targets. First in line are countries such as Pakistan since the last thing the government wants is to let a jihadi into the country. The UK government is a right-wing government. The last thing it cares about is the feeling of muslims almost none of whom voted for it.

The reason the girl wasn't let in was precisely because of the anti-muslim, anti-immigration policies the right, who are complaining about this decision, wanted in the first place.

But you know, by all means, take the story at face and count yourself among the pantheon of retards in this thread that can't do basic research and sound off on the basis of your fascinating fucking opinion about how muslims are bad.

[Coolthulhu]

Meanwhile 13 people already are either supporting ISIS-like ideals, or bowing down to them. Sadly few of them, if any, are posting their reasons - and that's exactly because that'd mean legitimizing zealotry or cowardice.And here I thought the "yes" option wouldn't have been picked at all. What an incurable optimist.

[Deleted]

Meanwhile 13 people already are either supporting ISIS-like ideals, or bowing down to them. Sadly few of them, if any, are posting their reasons - and that's exactly because that'd mean legitimizing zealotry or cowardice.And here I thought the "yes" option wouldn't have been picked at all. What an incurable optimist.

Hey dribbling retard read the post above yours.


Jesus.

[Coolthulhu]

The key to this story is:
Britain has not offered asylum to a Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy because of fear it would prompt “unrest” in the UK and attacks on embassies, her supporters claim.

There is NO evidence that she has not been offered asylum because it would cause unrest.

That would in fact be extremely unlikely as immigration decisions are made by civil servants, they don't have the remit to make a decision based on factors like civil unrest which would be exclusively a matter that would be referred to the home secretary or the PM.


Almost certainly she has not been offered asylum because the UK government has a policy of limiting immigration currently and is struggling to meet its own targets. First in line are countries such as Pakistan since the last thing the government wants is to let a jihadi into the country. The UK government is a right-wing government. The last thing it cares about is the feeling of muslims almost none of whom voted for it.

The reason the girl wasn't let in was precisely because of the anti-muslim, anti-immigration policies the right, who are complaining about this decision, wanted in the first place.

But you know, by all means, take the story at face and count yourself among the pantheon of retards in this thread that can't do basic research and sound off on the basis of your fascinating fucking opinion about how muslims are bad.

They're not letting her in because of quotas the evil right wanted, despite the gargantuan international exposure and whilst ignoring the fact that there's already a well-documented case of persecution - yeah, that really sounds reasonable. William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave so fast as to generate electricity. Nice of you to create a burner account just to add insults to the mental gymnastics though.

Hey dribbling retard read the post above yours.


Jesus.

Done and answered. I'll have you know that your insults are compliments, coming from you, Mormolyce. I'll start worrying when the likes of you will agree with me.

[Daedius]

Hey dribbling retard read the post above yours.


Jesus.

Before calling someone a retard in reference to a prior post of yours you might want to note the few minutes between the two, making it possible he didn't have it on his page the time he loaded it.

But by all means, throw the word around like it's going out of style while hiding behind a burner account...

[zEmini]

This decision will definitely heal the divide in the UK and help fight Islamophobia

[Freighter]

Sure, their country, they decide if she gets it or not.

[Easo]

Of all the people who need asylum she definitely fits the description.
But the excuse is unbelievably weak. How about the goverment actually deals with the supposed troublemakers instead? It's not like this woman would be the only reason for them to be a threat...

[Deleted]

They're not letting her in because of quotas the evil right wanted, despite the gargantuan international exposure and whilst ignoring the fact that there's already a well-documented case of persecution - yeah, that really sounds reasonable. William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave so fast as to generate electricity. Nice of you to create a burner account just to add insults to the mental gymnastics though.



Done and answered. I'll have you know that your insults are compliments, coming from you, Mormolyce. I'll start worrying when the likes of you will agree with me.

Listen, retard, let me explain how the application process for immigration works, since I actually live here and have experienced it first-hand:

1.You make an application for asylum to the British embassy.
2. The application is then processed by low-ranking non-partisan bureaucrats who make a quick decision based on limited criteria.
3. You go to the British embassy for an interview, and then may or may not have your application received or denied.
4. If the application is denied then you have the right to appeal, and in theory any decision can be overturned by the relevant minister.

We are not at stage 4 yet, which is the only stage at which entry could have been denied on the grounds you cite. This stuff takes ages.

The fact that something has "international exposure" does not affect a civil servant's decision. They don't make decisions based on what is in the newspapers or on television. Do you even know how fucking stupid what you are saying sounds? You've obviously never had a job-a hint, low-level bureaucrats DO NOT enjoy a substantial degree of autonomy in their decision making.

How is your stupid fantasy conspiracy scenario supposed to work? A conservative government that repeatedly made pledges to cut immigration and has done so by 41% relative to 2004 is somehow conspiring to keep a Christian out of the country for fear of offending Muslims even though it would alienate its own voters? What would the motive be there exactly? I suppose Donald Trump is also secretly a feminist in your world.

Face it, you simply don't understand the process, you didn't know the political affiliation of our government, and you took the Telegraph's spin on this story without a shred of evidence, put 2+2 together and made five. Your long history of Islamophobic shitposting caused you not to research the issue properly and now you've been caught with your pants down. Just quit before embarrassing yourself further.

[Coolthulhu]

Listen, retard, let me explain how the application process for immigration works, since I actually live here and have experienced it first-hand:

1.You make an application for asylum to the British embassy.
2. The application is then processed by low-ranking non-partisan bureaucrats who make a quick decision based on limited criteria.
3. You go to the British embassy for an interview, and then may or may not have your application received or denied.
4. If the application is denied then you have the right to appeal, and in theory any decision can be overturned by the relevant minister.

We are not at stage 4 yet, which is the only stage at which entry could have been denied on the grounds you cite. This stuff takes ages.

The fact that something has "international exposure" does not affect a civil servant's decision. They don't make decisions based on what is in the newspapers or on television. Do you even know how fucking stupid what you are saying sounds? You've obviously never had a job-a hint, low-level bureaucrats DO NOT enjoy a substantial degree of autonomy in their decision making.

How is your stupid fantasy conspiracy scenario supposed to work? A conservative government that repeatedly made pledges to cut immigration and has done so by 41% relative to 2004 is somehow conspiring to keep a Christian out of the country for fear of offending Muslims even though it would alienate its own voters? What would the motive be there exactly? I suppose Donald Trump is also secretly a feminist in your world.

Face it, you simply don't understand the process, you didn't know the political affiliation of our government, and you took the Telegraph's spin on this story without a shred of evidence, put 2+2 together and made five. Your long history of Islamophobic shitposting caused you not to research the issue properly and now you've been caught with your pants down. Just quit before embarrassing yourself further.

Quoting this pearl for posterity. Hopefully your rambling insults and baseless assumptions will help you sleep at night, because you certainly sound like you're missing a fair amount of sleep.