From the Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane at gunpoint to get to Britain should have been admitted to the country as genuine refugees and allowed to live and work here freely, the High Court ruled yesterday.In a decision that astonished and dismayed MPs, the Home Office was accused of abusing its powers by failing to give the nine formal permission to enter Britain, in breach of their human rights.
The hijack at Stansted
A police marksman walks past the hijacked plane during the February 2000 stand-off at StanstedIt is the second time human rights laws have worked to the advantage of the hijackers.
Two years ago, attempts to eject them from the country were thwarted when an immigration court said this would expose them to the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention.
The Afghanis argued that their lives would be in danger - even though in late 2001 British troops had helped topple the Taliban from whom they said they were fleeing.
The hijackers, armed with handguns and explosives, took control of a Boeing 727 on an internal flight from Kabul in February 2000 and ordered the plane to be flown to Britain.
It was directed to Stansted in Essex, where the hijackers gave themselves up after a 70-hour stand-off with police and the SAS.
They were later jailed for various offences but the convictions were quashed in 2003 on the grounds that the law of duress had not been properly applied at their trial.
After the Home Office subsequently failed to have them deported in 2004, they were granted temporary admission to the country for themselves and their families.
Charles Clarke, the then home secretary, declined to give them full refugee status, fearing this would send out the wrong message and be seen as a "licence to hijack".
Yep.
Wonder how the airline staff feel about this decision?
This criminally ludicrous decision is a direct result of the digusting "Human Rights Act" which comes from the undemocratic and corrupt EU. The Telegraph's leader had this to say:
In the UK we have these laws inflicted on us. Theoretically they apply to France too, but the French just flout them, while we, stupidly, obey them.
(I loathe the EU and all its works, and have written about it here.)
Follow up.
Government to appeal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4760873.stm
The BBC article I linked to is severely remiss, because fails even to mention the role of the Human Rights Act and the ECHR in this. Blair's government signed this into British law, although Blair probably realizes he was a fool to do so now.
One commentator makes the point that "the Tories probably would walk in [to government in the next election] if they promised to repeal the Human Rights Act. Unfortunately they won't."
Yojimbo - Cherie Blair has made money out of the Human Rights Act. Wasn't this Act invoked in the Shabina Begum (dozy jilbab bint) case?
And Cherie needs the money - high maintenance hair.
By the way, why do you spell "realise" like that? Thought you were one of us.
The public opinion comment to the Telegraph leader is here.
General opinion, mine included, is that the human rights of a victim or potential victim (hijackers aside there is also the matter of a woman murdered by a man who should have remained in prison but was released because the authorities feared he would bring a Human Rights action) should have precedence over the human rights of the perpetrator, and that rights are allied to responsibilities.
They must be apostate Muslims to Christianity then, why else would they seek the protection of a crusader government?
I believe it was.
Oh, yes. - £7,700 ($14, 350 for U.S. readers) out of Labour party funds over the general election campaign. The party of the labouring man. One suspects Kier Hardie is spinning in his grave.
It's a conscious decision to deprecate French usage. Fowler suggests that -ize should be used wherever "the ultimate source of the ending is the greek -izo" and modern French usage not followed, which is exactly what the OED and a few other posh publishers do. But it does make things tricky because you have to remember where that is not the case - advertise, surprise, etc.
to deprecate French usage
A good motive. I'm almost tempted, but then it would mean spelling it like the Americans. What a horny dilemma.
Perhaps a good compromise would be to spell it with a zed (not a zee), but then to put some typically English phrase in so people don't think you're American: "Lawks-a-mercy, I was on the way to Goodwood when I realized I'd run out of petrol."
"Thou whoreson zed, thou unnecessary letter."
Yeah, I hate "zee", too. But people here say that now, too, because they've heard that stupid Big Bird on Seasme Street say it that way on the telly.
Of course, analyze is clearly wrong.
But spelling is a problem in English, anyway. I sometimes think that it would have been good if English orthography had changed with the Great Vowel Shift rather than getting frozen just before with the invention of printing. Now it is too late to change. Not only would the etymological roots of words be obscured, but word-families would be broken up (since English, which is highly stressed in pronunciation, often moves the point of emphasis between noun and verb, etc.) and, worst of all, all old books would immediately be rendered unreadable except to specialists. Only a dozy "rationalist" (in Oakeshott's sense) like G. B. Shaw could even think spelling reform would be a good idea. (And yet I understand he was a highly musical man, and his musical criticism is still worth reading.)
To return to the topic of the borad, can't you just imagine the simplistic solutions Shaw would have offered on Iraq?
Zed Zed Top are quite a good band, if you like Southern rock.
There's a lot of fun to be had with a Z.
Asking for asylum at gunpoint? What is next, begging for mercy with a nuclear bomb?
The hijackers don't want to be in Afghanistan and they violated British Law by hijacking a plane.
Couldn't we solve this by having disembark from a plane from 10,000 feet up into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and let "Allah" to determine their fate?
Yogh - much in evidence here:
My heid did ʒak ʒestr nicht,
This day to mak that I na micht.
So sair the magryme does me menʒie,
Persing my brow as ony ganʒie
That scant I luik may on the licht.
Needs to lay off the beer, by the sound of it.
This is like someone breaking into your home and the judge at his trial telling you he's going to decree that he lives with you. Totally insane.
As a real show of solidarity and sympathy, I think that a couple of houses should be bought in the same upscale neighborhood/districts where the judges live who made this decision. Their new neighbors??? The nine Afghans and all of the relatives that they can sqeeze into these houses. Of course, that won't happen. The elites in Britain, the US and other Western countries never have to live with the day-to-day consequences of such insane decisions that they impose upon the rest of us.
I don't quite follow you on this one.
They were fleeing the Taliban.
For what reason we don't know, of course.
They could have been common criminals.
Or they could have been Christians.
But based on the information in the news report I don't see why it is so clear to everyone -- as it seems to be -- that they should be denied refugee status.
Yes they broke international law and perhaps they should be punished. But punished by sending them back to Afghanistsan?
Why is that so obviously the best thing to do?
When decisions like this happen I always hope the next time these thugs act out the victims are related to the judge that let them off.
Thank God for Raw Data. This thread shows JW readers at their worst, with Interested being particularly ignorant and stupid. I followed this case from the beginning. The first point is that the hijackers, though they threatened violence, used none, and I seem to remember that they turned out not to have had any actual explosives with them. They were a number of whole families, with a prevalence of women and children, and from the beginning they showed no other desire than to go to London and ask for asylum. They surrendered to the authorities without making any trouble, as soon as they were sure they were in London. Their stories, when they came out, were horrendous: several of their relatives had been murdered by the Taliban, and nothing was more certain than that, if they ever were sent back, they would be murdered as well. This was before 9-11, and the British government had not yet discovered that the Taliban were Evil Incarnate - although those of us who followed international affairs had a tolerably clear idea. If there ever was a case for asylum, let alone compassionate leave to stay, this was it. Nonetheless, the Government decided on the spot that they must be returned to the Taliban; and as the judge pointed out, it spent the following six years breaking not only human rights law, but its own laws and regulations, on every possible ground, because they knew that what they were trying to do to these wretched creatures was illegal. The morality of everyone who commented here, except for Raw Data - and I am sorry to see Yojimbo, of whom I thought better, join the baying pack - is this: a man climbs on your boat to escape a shark attack, and you throw him right back among the sharks. The judge was right, and he upheld previous sentences which were also right. The government may bluster about appealing, but they know that they do not have a leg to stand on.
AS for human rights law, it may be the case that in other cases - not in this one - British and Canadian judges may have used it as a ground to build ridiculous juridical embroideries on. What is not true - and the fact that Interested thinks it is says all that needs saying - is that French judges, or other judges of other traditions arising from the Code Napoleon, ignore it. They no more ignore it than American judges ignore the Constitutions and its amendments, and for the same reason: that the Declaration of Rights of Man is the foundation of Continental jurisprudence. It has been part of the law for centuries, and lawyers live with it instinctively. In Britain, until recently, the notion that human beings might "be endowed by their Creator with certain and inalienable rights" was, until recently, a fancy foreign notion. Britons did not need written rights, no sir! They were above all that sort of garlic-flavoured foreign muck. As a result, when Britain - and her former colony Canada - finally entered, not the twentieth or twenty-first, but the eighteenth, century, judges went mad. It takes time to adapt oneself to something really new - such as was, in English law, the idea that people's rights are not arbitrarily invented or removed by Parliament.
Paolo, do you really think that people who enter this country by hijacking should be allowed to live here? Why should such criminal behaviour be rewarded? What kind of signal does that send?
And of course the French ignore the rules that they like to set for the rest of us. They deport dodgy Imams without so much as a backward glance. And banning hijabs in schools - though perfectly sensible - breaches "human rights" as defined by this nauseating piece of EU claptrap.
It takes time to adapt oneself to something really new - such as was, in English law, the idea that people's rights are not arbitrarily invented or removed by Parliament.
Well if you don't like it, nobody's stopping you going back to Italy.
Moreover, why are we under any obligation whatsoever to take asylum seekers from Muslim countries? Unless they are apostates, it makes no sense at all. We are at war with Islam.
Whole families? Women and children? Cry me a river. That just means more and more Muslims waiting to be born here, with all that implies.
the hijackers, though they threatened violence, used none..
Oh well, that's alright then. They "turned out" to have no explosives, did they? So what. The effect is the same. They hijacked a plane, their "helpless" womenfolk did nothing to stop them, and now they are profiting from this.
I can't imagine the French letting them stay, can you? Strange, though, that they chose to come here, what with our funny common law and all.
I've been following this case recently and I must apologise in advance for my language but FUCK ME, what the hell are these idiots up to setting a precedent like that. Like "interested" who posted earlier I also loathe the EU and feel we must remove ourselves from it immediately. We have a dangerous government in place that allows these laws to pass. We have a government that attempts to pass laws protecting muslims over the indigious population. Tony Blair should come and live in the East End of London for a while, where I live, and see how liberal he is then. These politicians in the UK and Brussels have no idea what it is like to live as part of the general population in this country. I am now not welcome in the town I grew up in. Our hospitals fail and the government uses my taxes to build mosques and pays jizyah to islam. If anyone over in the U.S know George W. ask him to have a word with Tony Ayatollah Blair and get him to stop this suicidal slide before we start taking matters into our own hands. It really is getting to that point now.
Raw Data
This is true - they hijacked an Arianna Airlines flight from Afghanistan to Moscow to London, from what I remember. One can understand not extraditing them at the time, since the Taliban was in power.
But now, Afghanistan has a different government, and it's not like these guys are even apostates. Therefore, why should sending them back be out of the question? Let them go to a non-Taliban area, like Kabul, Mazar i Sharif, Herat, et al. Why does Britain have to put up with them?
This ironically happened a few weeks after an Indian Airlines flight from Nepal to India was hijacked to Kandahar, and one of the passengers murdered. The Taliban gave those hijackers sanctuary. Compared to that, these hijackers didn't harm anyone, but their lives wouldn't be threatened in Afghanistan, which is why they shouldn't receive asylum anywhere in Europe.
I'm not sure Paolo's not deliberating trolling, Interested. At any rate his understanding of the British political and legal system is of nugatory value.
And I think any rational person would get the point, made by Robert with one laconic word, in the orginal post. One could draw a parallel with the arms for hostages fiasco that President Reagan allowed himself to be drawn into - which, predictably, led to more kidnapping.
I would give amnesty only to hijackers who fulfill the following criteria:
1) they are Muslim apostates fleeing an Islamic state
2) they shout "Fuck Allah!" while hijacking the plane
3) they harm no one, use water pistols, and eat pork products during the hijacking.
Nobody has given me an answer that is worth spitting on. Obviously, being ignorant, nationalistic and vain, Interested must repeat the usual crap about "if you don't like it why don't you go back to Italy". Alas, one cannot tell her back to go back to Stupid-Ignorant Country, since ignorami and fools have citizenship all over the world. As for Yojimbo, using such words as "nugatory" does not add up to a criticism. You know perfectly well that the absence of any British legal definition of human rights, let alone Bill of Rights, was a major problem throughout the eighties, when Meg Thug was wrecking all previous gentlemen's compromises, and that the introduction of a Human Rights Act was a cause shared by much of the centre and left. If you prefer not to have definite rights, such as not only European but American laws codify, all I can say is that Muslims also prefer to be under the thumb of tyrants.
...ignorami...
Ignoramus is first person plural of a verb, so your Latin plural doesn't work too well.
If you prefer not to have definite rights, such as not only European but American laws codify, all I can say is that Muslims also prefer to be under the thumb of tyrants.
How very strange that these "poor wretched" Afghans hijacked - peacefully, of course, with women and children in tow - a plane to London. Not Paris, where they have this lovely Napoleonic Code. Not New York, where they have this wonderful Constitution. Not Rome, even, where they have .... whatever they have in Rome. No, they came to London. But they were fleeing the Taleban, apparently. What were you fleeing, Paolo, when you chose this dreadful country with its tyrannical government and its Nelson's column?
Things must be bad in Italy.
Having too many rights can become a human rights problem also (particularly when new rights foster legal umbrellas under which Islamic practices can be shielded).
Paolo seems to package a paradox in a nice bow -- that rights may be plucked out of the blue sky of "Nature" and also need to be buttressed by "codification": if they are already in Nature, what need for codification? If Paolo were to unpack his paradox, he might look more favorably upon the noetic genius of British law.
Interested, a slight correction: while in Latin, ignoramus is indeed translated as "we do not know" (first person plural as you said), in English it has become (even the 1913 Webster's has it) a noun with the plural form being "ignoramuses".
TV, I know it's a noun - my point was that it is an English noun, which should take an English plural not a Latin one.
Referendums is better than referenda for similar reasons, though this is not a hard and fast rule.
The hippopotamus was no ignoramus
And sang her this sweet serenade.....
A regular army of hippopotami
All singing this haunting refrain....
Yes I see what you both mean about choice of plural.
The Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen is but an abridgment (Oakeshottian term) of the Common Law rights of Englishmen. It no more precedes a developed legal understanding than a recipe precedes the activity of cooking, a recipe being rather a digest of someone's practical knowledge. And for all the use the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen was, see the Terror, and also the widespread social strife amounting virtually to civil war in France, both of which it clearly did nothing to prevent.
It might be worth making the point that this is why the project to "export democracy" is never going to work. Our political life is not summed up in documents (and certainly not in one or two) but in a whole lived experience.
I do not purpose to debate the English political system at length and on Robert's bandwidth. (For further thoughts on the perniciousness of a viewpoint that inverts what our real situation is and what rationality itself consists in see here.)
Oakeshotte's critical analysis (helpfully linked by Yojimbo) of modern Rationalism cut off from classic noesis helps to explain, among many other prevalent peculiarities of our time, the stubborn and strange belief that America or Britain would very likely succumb to a horribly unethical "slippery slope" were we to get brutally tough on Islam. For one thing, to the extent that such chicken littles are Rationalists, their anxiety is paradoxical: if Rationalism is, as it presupposes, natural and universal, then why are massive and elaborate safeguards necessary to make sure we never go down that terrible "slippery slope"? At any rate, Rationalists (and other Leftist hybrids and ultra-right-wing quasi Trotskyites) would impose abstract theoretical templates upon the messiness of life & history -- part of which messiness reveals, to the one looking carefully and sensibly, the relatively superior health of certain sociopolitical organisms vis-à-vis that of others: whether it is on the level of comparing one person to another ("Yes, Peter is a better person -- more mature, civil, reasonable and decent -- than is Jack"), one family to another, one household to another, one neighborhood to another, one society to another, one nation to another, one culture to another, judgements can be made. It can be done. It must be done. The First World is better than the Third World. The Infidel World is better than the Muslim World. That such statements stick in the craw of too many Westerners is one great part of why we're in the pickle we're in.
The West (particularly an Anglo-Saxon West) can get brutally tough with Islam and remain superior on all levels, including the ethical. Why? Because we are obviously healthier. That health is obvious only to one who can see organic, living, breathing, human truths; not to one who only sees abstract templates, theories and paradigms.
Salami and bacon all,
anyhow,
Is the Immigration Court suggesting that sharia law is "inhuman or degrading " that'd be a bit controversial
and the plural of mongoose is mongooses
Meanwhile, here are some asylum seekers that WILL be deported.
LANCASHIRE EVENING TELEGRAPH
Thursday, May 11, 2006
"A FAMILY detained after their asylum application was thrown out would be killed if they were deported, a relative claimed today.
Patrick Samuels was speaking after police and immigration officials swooped on the family home of Nigel, 52, and Pearl Karim, 44, in Barkerhouse Road, Nelson.
The couple and their children Crystal, 13, and Calvin, 11, were taken away following the incident at 7.30am yesterday.
Today they were at Yarlswood detention centre, near Luton, Bedfordshire, where they could de deported back to Pakistan within 72 hours.
continued...
Last night hundreds of parishioners, teachers and school friends staged a candle-lit vigil for the popular family.
And pupils from Calvin's and Crystal's schools - Holy Saviour Primary School in Nelson and Fisher-More High School in Colne - are taking their fight to the top by calling for help from new Home Secretary John Reid.
Mr Samuels, 37, the brother of Pearl, said the family claimed religious asylum four years ago after Mr Karim had received threats after choosing to convert to Christianity.
He added the couple who in Pakistan worked as a security firm manager and a teacher, had their first bid for asylum rejected two and a half years ago but re-applied on July 26 last year sending their application to the Home Office by recorded delivery which he claimed had got lost in the system.
Mr Samuels said: "They are not economic migrants. They came here because their lives were being threatened.
"According to immigration officials Pakistan is deemed to be a safe country. The question is who is it safe for?
"If they go back their lives will be under threat.
"It's okay not knowing but how can you go back to the country and be stuck there knowing that.
"We feel so strongly about this. There are criminals and terrorists who have been granted leave. But these are people who are genuine asylum seekers who have been persecuted in their country and in this one."
Mr Samuels and his wife Sheila, 35, who are both training to be Christian ministers in Sheffield have launched a campaign to let the family remain in the UK.
They are also seeking legal advice to see if a judicial review can be launched.
Yesterday's swoop came as the children were getting ready for school.
Calvin was due to sit a school examination, but his desk remained empty as classmates completed the SATS test.
Class teacher Tricia Bedford said: "We didn't tell the other children what had happened until after the test, they were absolutely devastated.
"Calvin was keen to be involved in everything and is a big part of this school, many of his friends were in tears."
The family arrived in England from Pakistan four years ago and lived with Mrs Karim's parents, Fred and Shakuntla Samuels.
The family could not work but would help out in the community and survived on money from the National Asylum Support Service.
Last night Father Christopher Gorton, parish priest at Holy Saviour RC church, Nelson, led the candle-lit vigil for supporters who packed into the church hall.
He said: "The Karims are a super family and played a big part in the life of the church, we will do everything we can to help them.
"They are a genuine family with a genuine fear for their own safety if they are forced to return to Parkistan.
"Although they weren't allowed to work in this country Pearl helped out at the school and was a voluntary worker for the British Heart Foundation.
"They desperately wanted to work and were determined to contribute to society in this country and this is how they are treated."
A spokeswoman for the Home Office said she could not comment on individual cases."
One rule for all.........not
And I've just discovered that its cost the taxpayer more than I earn in a week:-
The bill for the hijack includes :
£2.5 million for the four-day police operation,
£135,000 for the SAS marksmen,
£18,000 for the £200-a-night rooms and food for the hijack victims in an airport hotel,
£100,000 for hotel costs during the initial two-month inquiry,
£300,000 for the initial immigration inquiry into asylum applications,
£30 million for two Old Bailey trials, including 27 barristers and seven translators,
£1 million for appeals against conviction,
£120,000 for housing, benefits and education for the nine hijackers
£2.5 million for asylum appeals
Everyone, from pilots on down, in the British airline, train, bus, and taxi services should immediately strike to have this lunatic ruling overturned.
There's no excuse for such suicidal idiocy.
The British public are far too apathetic for that sort of thing, profitsbeard
"Nobody has given me an answer that is worth spitting on."
I tend to agree. So let's change the facts to see if we can stimulate some useful discussion.
Holland is about to be be (or has been) taken over in an Islamist coup. A real and violent one. Ms. Ayaan Hirsi and Mr. Paul Bellien have made it to the coast where they hijack (at gun-point) a coasting trader and force it to take them to England.
What result? Do you sternly lecture them not to violate the law of the sea and then give them asylum? Do you send them back to the fascists? For what is likely to be execution by torture? What do you do? What principle do you apply?
And honestly, I am not sure of the correct GENERAL result. I just don't see any useful discussion so far aimed at elucidating any fair rules based on facts about the subject Afghans.
OBVIOUSLY, you can't send Hirsi and Bellien back to their deaths. They are effing patriots, for god's sake. But who are these Afghans? Just nobodies? So does the decision on asylum depend on the virtue of the person seeking asylum? Or simply that they might be in danger if sent back? Or what?
So does the decision on asylum depend on the virtue of the person seeking asylum?
In my view, yes it does. This is a crowded island. We can't take everybody, so why not pick people whose values are most likely to accord with ours.
If they're Muslim, forget it. There are plenty of Christians and other non-Muslims. who would be desperate to come here who should get first priority. Let Muslims seek asylum in other Muslim countries.
Besides, if, in the farcically hypothetical situation you cite, Britain or the US had gone in and deposed the Islamic usurper, making the country safe, returning them would present even less of a problem.
"If they're Muslim, forget it."
Does your definition of "Muslim" include someone like Hirsi? Or Manji? Or Rushdie?
Hirsi and Rushdie are both apostates. Manji is an apostate in all but name. She would have no reason to seek asylum here, but if she did, in my view she should ditch the Islam altogether.
None of them are a threat to this country.
As I say, let Muslims seek asylum in other Muslim countries. They are not our problem.
So apostate Muslims are OK?
Apostates, by definition, are not Muslims.
They may, or may not be OK. This is a tiny, crowded island. Are we supposed to have completely open borders, taking in anyone, from anywhere, no matter what?
If we are going to ration asylum, then on what criteria? Well, perhaps hijackers shouldn't be first priority. Non-hijackers before hijackers. And non-Muslims full stop.
Muslim hijackers would then know that they should direct their hijacked plane to a Muslim country. Try their luck in Turkey, say. According to Paolo, the UK, with its dodgy common law system, is little better than a Muslim tyranny anyway, so what's the problem?
Apostates, okay, but only after they've switched. They needn't spill that info to their own regimes, but they do need to do it to the Infidel government that they are fleeing to.
"Apostates, by definition, are not Muslims."
So obviously anyone who was born Muslim and is trying to escape (to Britain) will most likely claim that they are apostate. Right? So what would your test be? How would go about determining if they are apostate 'enough?' What definition would you use?
Why do they have to escape to Britain? Why not somewhere else?
This is a tiny, crowded island. All kinds of potentially useful people would be very grateful to come here?
Why a bunch of Muslim hijackers? Why?
Or else, put them at the back of the line, behind all original Infidels.
People genuinely persecuted would focus on getting out of their hellholes, not dwell on where they are headed to. Once they are out, then they would focus on whether they want to settle in Europe, US, Australia or anywhere else.
wakeupmorpheus-
I didn't mean the British public, per se, but those in the transportation professions whose asses are on the line. And could die as the result of the next, botched hijacking.
Aren't their survival instincts functioning?
Interested,
You seem to have some trouble answering a simple question.
Not at all. My point is clear. At the risk of repeating myself, Britain is a small, crowded island. Supply of asylum seekers vastly exceeds demand. It's a buyer's market.
So why, of all the asylum seekers, in all the world, would we prioritise Muslims, least of all Muslim hijackers.
Have any of the Muslim hijackers publicly declared their apostasy? No? So why, of all the asylum seekers clamouring to come here, should we accept these?
You tell me, Raw Data.
Interested,
As I stated quite clearly, I am trying to identify some general principles.
Your general principle of "no Muslims unless apostate" demands some clarification.
I was asking how you would determine who was apostate? Ask other Muslims?
(I am not making light of the issue, mind. It is totally reasonable for Britain to protect itself. You offered the general standard of 'apostasy' and I was simply trying to find out how you would go about figuring it out.)
At this point in the discussion it has little or nothing to do with the Afghans. Do you understand that?
At the very least, they should say so.
So far there is little evidence of Muslim asylum seekers claiming to be apostates, then later proving not to be.
So, as a minimum, given the competition, if you want asylum in Britain, do not hijack a plane to get here, and do renounce a "religion", Islam that is inimical to our values.
OK?
It's a silly question, though. We can pick and choose. There are so many asylum seekers who aren't, and have never been Muslims.
If we let in apostates, let's let in the intelligent, articulate ones, like Ali Sina, who can make a strong case against Islam.
If there is any doubt, don't let them in.
So, Interested.
Now back to the Afghans.
Do you think you know enough about them to make a judgment? That you have the facts about the individuals: who they are? Their beliefs? Their education and work? Their history in their native land?
Do you really?
No. Do you? Any evidence that they are apostates? And they were hijackers.
Priority:
Non-hijacking Infidels
Non-hijacking Apostates
Non-hijacking dunnos
....
....
Hijacking Infidels
Hijacking Apostates
....
....
Muslims
...
...
...
...
...
Hijacking Muslims
Why Britain, in any case? Why not escape to Iran, or Pakistan, which, though dire by our standards, is better than Afghanistan. Thence to Turkey?
Why Britain? What have they done to deserve to live here?
Interested,
I am no longer interested.
Sorry. Just no real communication here.
Is that it?
I thought you were going to wow me with some facts about these Muslim hijackers that would prove me wrong. For example, that they were not Muslim. Or not hijackers.
Seems not.
to deprecate French usage
A good motive. I'm almost tempted, but then it would mean spelling it like the Americans. What a horny dilemma.
Oh,no.Cant be like the Americans.....whats that mean?
How lovely the EU is so concerned about the Muhammed Attas of the world!!
My! Doesn't this just warm the cockles of your heart?
If only the EU considered the physical safety of its constituency a human right to be defended. But--
it looks like the EU is now a died-in-the-wool terrorism sympathizer. No wonder America has had so much trouble with these creeps in fighting Islamic terrorism. They have no intention of fighting against Islamic terror and Islam's planned conquest of the world!!!
Welcome to the magical land of Eurabia or the EU (better known nowadays as "the PU"). Democracy and liberty need not apply.
But,i hope the supreme court would never pass such a stupid ruleing as this
Interested,
From my very first comment I have stated that I personally know nothing of these hijackers and that the newspaper article didn't give me enough to form an opinion.
So why do you assume that I am arguing for them?
Not everyone is like you and can form an opinion out of thin air.
If Interested wouldn't mind me elbowing in for a little assistance in shooing Raw Data away, I'd answer his question in this clear, pragmatic way:
1) We distinguish non-hijacking (and non-criminally-behaving) asylum seekers (A1) from hijacking (and criminally-behaving) asylum seekers (A2). (For more on that distinction, see #6)
2) We offer asylum to Muslim A1 and Muslim A2 only if they are apostates.
3) We determine their apostasy by a litmus test: on presenting themselves to our authorities, they must do the following things:
a) formally renounce Islam
b) declare that Allah does not exist, but is a theological symbolism that has been used for crimes against humanity since the beginning of Islam
c) declare that the Prophet Mohammed was a master criminal against humanity who, if he were alive today, should be shot without a trial
d) eat a slice of ham in the presence of the asylum-granting authorities (even if the asylum-seeker claims to be a vegetarian, he or she must suck it up and eat the ham for this purpose, if he or she wants asylum)
e) the asylum-seeker must do a series of other behaviors in the presence of the asylum-granting authorities (a list to be drawn up by the asylum-granting authorities in consultation with scholars of Islam) which are clearly haram
4) The asylum seeker must pledge his or her willing assistance in counter-jihad intelligence (limitations on such to be granted by the asylum-granting authorities depending on the particular circumstances of the asylum-seeker and the discretion [definition #2 in the American Heritage dictionary -- "ability or power to decide responsibly"] of the the asylum-granting authorities), the failure to live up to that pledge subject to time in prison or even expulsion from the country.
5) After we grant the apostate asylum, we monitor him or her by implanting a tracking chip in their body and otherwise by keeping tabs on their activity for a period of time. The slightest indication of a reversion to Islam will be grounds for immediate expulsion of the asylum-finder back to their country of origin or some suitable alternative Muslim country.
6) The category of A2 (see above) would only be allowed in with the additional stipulation that they are willing to serve a (reduced) jail sentence (or possibly simply community service, at the discretion of the authorities) for the crime that brought them to the country in which they are seeking asylum.
P.S.: A man can dream, eh?
TV
That's a great procedure. Only downside of an embedded RFID in that person is that if an Islamic country gets hold of that technology, they could set their own goons after him.
Infidel Pride, you might be right; on the other hand, perhaps in the meantime we could develop counteractive technology -- I don't think it's unlikely we could stay one or more steps ahead of Muslim nations technologically.
For what it's worth the pilot of the hijacked plane wasn't a happy bunny about the idea of the hijackers being allowed to stay. The contrast in their respective situations several years on was striking, if this article is reliable.
Which it may not be of course.
Granny, your link doesn't work.
As for all the pro's & con's for letting Mohammedan infil-traitors remain in Britain, and they are not only infil-traitors, they are also hijackers, (Paolo's humanitarian concerns are noted) the question "why Britain?" stands out like dogs balls. Could it be that the British isles have become the easiest, most foolish pushover for the Caliphate?
A well trained immigration officer could ask the right questions of such asylum-seekers and it wouldn't take long to determine whether they are slaves of the cult of Mohammed or not.
We may as well ask another question apart from the "why Britain" one:
Why is Australia such a target for Muhammedan infiltraitors, who need to pass through a number of countries, most of them Islamic countries, in order to settle amongst infidels?
What's the priority, da'awa or welfare, subversion or infiltraition?
Botheration, Sheik, it's vanished since this morning. It was a cached page from 2004 on an Afghan website that is being redeveloped. I can't even find it through history.
To precis, the pilot of the aircraft, who returned to Afghanistan, is not in good health, was refused permission to receive medical treatment in the UK (not clear whether he was refused permission to enter UK or leave Afghanistan)and contrasts his situation with that of the hijackers who seem to him to be living in superior comfort. He declared them unworthy to recieve the advantages of living in the UK.
There are some posters here who are almost hijacking this blog (making it highly unattractive to read through this wood-headed garble among them, to maybe follow the thread...)
Well, hijacking in general: NO! ...but if so, and not shot, then definitely prison.
The Brits are momentarily somewhat confused and due to prevailing "we are different" syndrom will always labour to come up with solutions that are different.
zero points for this one.