It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Afghan atheist granted UK asylum

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

An Afghan man is believed to have become the first atheist to be granted asylum in the UK on the basis of his views on religion.

The 23-year-old, who has not been identified, feared that if forcibly returned to his homeland he would face persecution for having renounced his faith.
The Home Office's decision to accept denial of the existence of God as grounds for protection could set a significant precedent in asylum and immigration cases. The application was granted before the hearing stage at an immigration tribunal.
The Afghan was brought up as a Muslim and fled the conflict in his native country. He arrived in the UK in 2007, aged 16. He was initially given temporary leave to remain until 2013 but during his time in England gradually turned to atheism.
His case was taken up by Kent Law Clinic, a free service provided by students and supervised by qualified practising lawyers from the University of Kent's law school along with local solicitors and barristers.
They helped him submit his claim to the Home Office under the UN's 1951 refugee convention, arguing that if he returned to Afghanistan he would face persecution on the grounds of religion – or in his case, lack of religious belief.

read more at theguardian


Well this is something I hadn't considered before however I have known as many others have that non-belief in many parts of the world is a death sentence if found out. Many in the UK may not like this because it could open a door to several million people to immigrate but at least they will not be bringing ideas of sharia law with them. The article explains why this wouldn't be possible in the US in fact non-belief in a deity has been an obstacle to become a citizen in the US this thread explains.

Well I applaud the UK if they give those oppressed a way to escape such cruelties.
edit on 14-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Saw this earlier today. While not a fan of unchecked immigration my initial feeling about this was positive. Can't say I blame the guy for not wanting to go back to an intolerant religious country that may well have him killed for his (un)beliefs.

As far as the overall impact of this, that's going to be the question. Seems to open the door for every person who wants to flee an Islamic controlled country. UK may have shot itself in the foot on this one.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


This is great news, and has been a long time coming! (In my opinion)

We'll see if the same sentiment crosses the pond and takes hold in the US. Atheist persecution is terribly under reported. if you're not religious and don't follow basic religious protocol in some countries, if could be mean death.

Next will be the homosexuals. What with Russia's new crackdown and Nigeria and Uganda both criminalizing homosexuality, there's sure to be people applying for asylum....and with the US normalizing homosexuality, it's sure to be an issue.


edit on 14-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


You know I kind of think the same as you. While I do see this as positive it can become problematic. I read that Egypt alone has millions of atheists avoiding the radar. I am sure that places like Afghanistan has its share because there are some intelligent people who have to be questioning what kind of god would promote such violence.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Essentially being of any other belief system than Islam can be a death sentence in a Muslim country. If you are allowing people to seek asylum for one faith, then you have to for others.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I personally support the idea that a person ought to be able to seek sanctuary here in Britain, from regimes, and organisations which threaten their lives unreasonably. I believe that although it may not be "our job" as a nation, to take in anyone who is in danger, it is our duty as a body of people, to help people find peace.

No, we cannot afford to house, clothe, and provide for EVERY person who is not happy with their lot elsewhere, but for those who are in genuine danger, I cannot begrudge them the safety of our borders and the protection of our government. When I consider the plight of the people involved, I have to think about how I would wish to be treated by the world in the same situation, and I would hope that if things became desperate enough that I left my homeland, and had to put down new roots, that I would receive welcome, rather than encounter more hostility.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Bassago
Saw this earlier today. While not a fan of unchecked immigration my initial feeling about this was positive. Can't say I blame the guy for not wanting to go back to an intolerant religious country that may well have him killed for his (un)beliefs.


Indeed, being an Apostate in Islam is worse than being a Jew or a Christian, you're down there with the Polytheists and Homosexuals I'm afraid.


Bassago
As far as the overall impact of this, that's going to be the question. Seems to open the door for every person who wants to flee an Islamic controlled country. UK may have shot itself in the foot on this one.


Quite - it is a dangerous precedent to set, because any Tom, Dick and Abdul could simply claim this, whether it be true or not. In fact, we could even open the flood gates to Jihadists looking for a way in - they only have to claim they are Atheists (how do you prove it?) and once you're in, off you go to Finsbury Park for a Jihad refresher course.....



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
So, you don't want to go home because someone is going to kill you because they believe that you DON't believe in something, because someone told that person if they didn't kill you, the person who is forbidden to kill you, will kill you because the of fact that you don't believe in something that they do? I wouldn't want to go "home" either. Then again, I've felt the very same myself many times coming home in the wee hours from a pub crawl. in anycase, good luck to the guy. i imagine, he's gonna be looking over his shoulder for a long, long time.
edit on 1152014 by tencap77 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Yeah because no Christian country persecutes people for non-belief.


Why should we condemn thousands of innocent people to death over unsubstantiated fears about terrorists? Far more White British have been convicted of terrorist offences in the UK since 2000.

It's true that we neither have the space or money to house everyone, but the best way to minimize numbers is to stop teaming up with America to become world police, destroy nations and murder 100,000s under the name of spreading freedom.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   

bastion
Yeah because no Christian country persecutes people for non-belief.



And which "Christian" Countries would these be? I can't think of a single "Christian" country...


bastion
Why should we condemn thousands of innocent people to death over unsubstantiated fears about terrorists? Far more White British have been convicted of terrorist offences in the UK since 2000.


Really? Sources please.


bastion
It's true that we neither have the space or money to house everyone, but the best way to minimize numbers is to stop teaming up with America to become world police, destroy nations and murder 100,000s under the name of spreading freedom.


This irks me - because of one dodgy war, Iraq, you spout this drivel. For the record, most people had no issue with the removal of Saddam, it was the reasons behind it and the lies we where fed that seemed to have annoyed most. Had Blair simply said "Saddam needs to go and we're going to do it", rather than come up with the 45 minute drivel, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree with the sentiment.

Aside from Iraq, what other Wars have we "teamed up with America" to be the "world Police"? Afghan was a valid war, the US had been attacked by idiots basing themselves in (and supported by) the state of Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
In the last few days Russia and Uganda have criminalised homosexuality to uphold Christian values.

The terror arrest stats are from official government figures here - www.gov.uk... owers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-and-subsequent-legislation-arrests-outcomes-and-stops-and-searches-quarterly-update-to-30-j (for some reason ATS has split the link in half so just copy and paste the last bit of text onto the end of the hyper link.

Iraq was fought on the dodgy dossier as regime change is illegal and we changed our reason for invading Afghanistan a week after the initial invasion so both wars are illegal. In 2008 the UK's Lord Chief of Justice, Lord Bingham, declared the Iraq war as illegal.
Regardless, it's no wonder people choose to come here when we spend so much time invading countries under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy.
edit on 15-1-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

bastion
In the last few days Russia and Uganda have criminalised homosexuality to uphold Christian values.


Russia hasn't criminalised Homosexuality at all - go and check again...

Uganda, on the other hand, already had legislation on the books but the latest law change was adding a death penalty. The laws that existed were actually on the books from the former British Colonial Government banning "unnatural sex". It had nothing to do with religion but rather dated moral ideals. Uganda is not a "Christian" country anyway - it has a Christian majority but also a sizeable Muslim minority. Under their constitution, there is no official religion.


bastion
The terror arrest stats are from official government figures here - www.gov.uk... owers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-and-subsequent-legislation-arrests-outcomes-and-stops-and-searches-quarterly-update-to-30-j (for some reason ATS has split the link in half so just copy and paste the last bit of text onto the end of the hyper link.


Now, remember you said:


bastion
Why should we condemn thousands of innocent people to death over unsubstantiated fears about terrorists? Far more White British have been convicted of terrorist offences in the UK since 2000.


Direct from your linked source - Section 2.8



More than a third (36%) of all persons arrested since 11 September 2001 were recorded by police as being of Asian ethnic appearance. Proportions for other recorded ethnicities at arrest were: 29% White, 21% Other and 12% Black. Similar proportions were seen at charge and conviction; again, those recorded as Asian made up the largest proportions at charge (38%) and at conviction (42%).


Now, I am not sure about you, but I was told at school that 36% is bigger than 29% - once you add in the other ethnic groupings, then you will find that, actually, 2/3rds of all terrorism related charges are actually for non-White people.

I assume you got confused on section 2.9, which states:


Of the 2,465 persons arrested for terrorism-related offences since 11 September 2001, 1,234 (50%) self-declared their nationality as from Great Britain or of British dual nationality.


Now, that isn't the same thing as what you claimed. You are of course aware that people can be non-White and British, yes?


bastion
Iraq was fought on the dodgy dossier as regime change is illegal and we changed our reason for invading Afghanistan a week after the initial invasion so both wars are illegal.


Did we change our reason? I don't think we did... It was always sold as going in there to topple the Taliban as they were a rogue nation harbouring dangerous extremists....


bastion
In 2008 the UK's Lord Chief of Justice, Lord Bingham, declared the Iraq war as illegal.


Once again, you're twisting things to try and fit the facts. He wasn't the Lord Chief Justice when he said this - in fact, he only said this during a speech at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law about the rule of law.

He retired from his position as Lord Chief Justice in 2000 - a full year before even 9/11, much less Iraq.

So no, the UK's Lord Chief Justice did no such thing - this was a former Judge giving his opinion during a key note speech.

edit on 15/1/14 by stumason because: Tag's etc

edit on 15/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


And the the real galling thing is, someone starred your post despite it being totally fictitious nonsense...

Speaks volumes ATS, well done...



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Bad move U.K., very bad move. I'm all for helping those in need, but you have to draw the line somewhere that makes sense. How many different belief systems are there in the M.E.? Now, how many of those can be openly practiced? Answer: Next to none. The U.K. has just opened it's doors for others to claim "but I believe in *X* and I'm being prosecuted!".

Think about all the immigrants that migrate for monetary reasons? Now it'll give them a bigger "foot in the door". This is something Norway and Sweden are dealing with, and as far as I know they don't typically grant asylum based solely upon belief systems. Imagine how worse it would be if they did?

I want to say the M.E. is a lost cause, at least when it comes to Western intervention. I believe that the issues they face must be dealt with by the hands of their own citizens. The West is no stranger to sacrifice in modern times, we've had to fight for our independence and freedoms. Life, blood and family were lost. It's just something you have to do to secure a safer future for your own. Migrating to another country helps no one, only you and the very few others who are as lucky.

If my home country was in such a dire need of change, I can tell you I wouldn't be fleeing as it's impossible for my entire family to leave. And I won't leave family behind.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I guess you haven't been following the situation in Russia then - www.cbsnews.com... www.huffingtonpost.com...

The original reason for the UK Invasion was to disrupt Al Qu'ieda by removing the Taliban, once this was achieved the reason was changed to installing and overseeing the transition to democracy and safety.

See table 12 for the gov figures and attached excell data.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Although he would be in far more danger in Afghanistan, I am not sure he will be entirely safe in England.

I mean the punishment for apostasy is the same within islamic culture regardless of ones country of residence.

I suspect its just a clever manoeuvre inside the british asylum system.

But I don't know and wouldn't blame him for trying it, he has just as much right to this land as us - I know that might not be popular, but that shows their ignorance when brits or any people claim to have exclusive rights to a piece of land, it reminds me of the scene from the day the earth stood still ="Why have you come to our planet?" , "Your planet!?" , "Yes, this is our planet!" . . . . . "No , it is not!".

We forget our rules and borders and expectations are just a reflection of our own self importance.

I await the rude awakening.

Let them all in, we are the ones who denied them safety in their own lands after all (Greedy exceptional G8 muvafudgers)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread992958/pg1#pid17429894]post by bastion[/url]
 


Yes that was the real reason they wanted us to believe, go in and overthrow a group our intelligence agency's invented.

The taliban , as bad as they are at least kept the opium trade under control and also offered to hand over osama bin laden if the US could show any evidence connecting him to the 911 attacks, and the US refused.

Why would they do that?

And why have al qaeda flourished since the invasion? Because we have been training and supporting them for Syria.

It all so dark and selfish, not just in profits and riches, but in bloodlust and domination.

Our leaders have lost all credibility from all the hipocracy, you can't claim to free one people from a group of thugs and take the moral high ground only to set these animals on civilians in another country for your own selfish ends - people are really suffering in these places , and our money is paying for it.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

bastion
I guess you haven't been following the situation in Russia then - www.cbsnews.com... www.huffingtonpost.com...


I guess you haven't actually bothered to find out what the "anti-gay bill" is. The bill passed last June only prohibits "he promotion of homosexuality to minors". It may surprise you, but up until the 1990's, the UK had a very similiar law. It doesn't ban being Gay in the slightest.


bastion
The original reason for the UK Invasion was to disrupt Al Qu'ieda by removing the Taliban, once this was achieved the reason was changed to installing and overseeing the transition to democracy and safety.


So after removing the only functioning Government of a country, we were supposed to just walk away and leave a huge power vacuum which would only end up putting the very people we removed back in power? That's you reasoning for making the Afghan War as "illegal"? Very fuzzy logic there chap.

In actuality, by removing the Government of the country and becoming the Occupying power, we had a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to the nation, under the 4th Geneva Convention.


bastion
See table 12 for the gov figures and attached excell data.


And this is the best you can do to counter the fact your own source contradicted the nonsense you spoke of earlier?

Not that I can find a "table 12".. The document ends on Table 2 of section 6 and discusses searches and detentions, not convictions which you claimed earlier - that's despite the fact that Table 2 actually shows that the majority of detentions as a result of those searches shows a higher proportion of non-whites than whites:



Table 2 Examinations made under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in 2012/13
Number of examinations Great Britain
Length of examination, result and ethnicity Published Sept 2013 Published Dec 2013
Number of examinations 56,257 57,621
of which: Under the hour 53,992 55,355
Over the hour 2,265 2,266
Number of resultant detentions 667 667
Breakdown of examinations by self-declared ethnicity
White 20,932 22,142
Mixed 1,936 1,965
Black or Black British 5,081 5,114
Asian or Asian British 13,241 13,303
Chinese or Other 10,270 10,300
Not stated 4,797 4,797
Breakdown of resultant detentions by self-declared ethnicity
White 58 58
Mixed 20 20
Black or Black British 149 149
Asian or Asian British 211 211
Chinese or Other 145 145
Not stated 84 84


You also should bear in mind that the high amount of Whites being searched is highly likely down to not wanting to appear to be "racially profiling", because we know if they only searched Asian or Arabic people, they'd complain about it.
edit on 15/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Read the link, the equivalent of section 28 was passed last year, the Church now wants all homosexuality banned. It bans the teaching of homosexuality as acceptable, meaning LGBT people are treated as second class citizens and allows the high number of homophobic attacks to carry on unchallenged.

Internatiional law states you cannot change the reason for going to war once war has begun - if the UK had any sense they would have included it in the original claim.

The tables are linked to at the end of the report (admittedly they're buried and it took several download attempts to get the whole file) - stop and search under the terrorism act is not the same as a conviction under the terrorism act. I'm referring exclusively to convictions for terrorism offences as they're the only stat where the person has been proven guilty



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

bastion
Read the link, the equivalent of section 28 was passed last year,


I know - I just said that above you silly boy! I don't need to "read the link", I know what's going on.


bastion
the Church now wants all homosexuality banned. It bans the teaching of homosexuality as acceptable, meaning LGBT people are treated as second class citizens and allows the high number of homophobic attacks to carry on unchallenged.


This is just conjecture and there is no sign from the Russian Government they are going to do this any time soon.

Anyway, this is detracting from your original point about Russia "banning homosexuality" - they are not


bastion
Internatiional law states you cannot change the reason for going to war once war has begun - if the UK had any sense they would have included it in the original claim.


WHAT? No it bloody well doesn't! There is NOTHING in international law about that - war goals change all the time. Where do you get off making this stuff up?


bastion
The tables are linked to at the end of the report (admittedly they're buried and it took several download attempts to get the whole file) - stop and search under the terrorism act is not the same as a conviction under the terrorism act. I'm referring exclusively to convictions for terrorism offences as they're the only stat where the person has been proven guilty


Dude, 2/3rds of Convictions for terrorism offences since 2000 have been for non-Whites. There is nothing in that document you linked that says otherwise.

I know stop and search isn't the same as a friggin conviction, you are clearly not reading my posts.

I said in an earlier response about section 2.8, which deals with convictions and it shows, quite clearly, that you're talking out of your arse. Remember how you claimed that most convictions were for white British? Epic fail...
edit on 15/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join